Debate a girl about anything! I will debate you!

[SL33TBL1ND]

You sound like a live equivalent of Cleverbot.

Let's hope she doesn't know how to form coherent sentences, it should be extra fun then.

 

[pearcinator]

Brunette's are hotter than Blondes in every way.

This is a factual statement...not up for debate.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

AlsO, do you like My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic because I just watched the first 21 episodes and found it delightful!?

Shhh, she's female and as such can't possibly be a bronie.

Also... ducks - the pure evil or just misunderstood?

...is this...is this real? Is this a real thing that I can watch? WHERE IS IT, I NEED TO SEE IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeJ6-gN0eB4

 

[MacGuges]

Okay then. I believe Feminnism is a redundant name, since it implies fighting only for Women´s equal rights in society, not men´s. Equalists would be better. Don´t you agree?

Changing symbolic names for cultural movements presents a similar problem to changing sitenames or email addresses on the internet - changing the name immediately has a cost in maintaining social connections. You may feel justified in thinking that "equalism" as a name makes inherently more sense than "feminism", but anyone who'd already been organizing and writing about the old name would have to be informed of the change to the new name.

You'd also have to solve the problem - which is more of an on-going labor than a problem to solve once - of answering what the equality of "equalism" means. If you've ever had to explain a new idea to someone, you've encountered the difficulty of expressing it in one or a few words. You may even have to explain yourself multiple times until you're both on the same page. Does "equalism" mean people are equal if the sums of their parts are the same? So if somebody is gifted at soccer you would expect them to be bad at art because so their sum is equal to everybody else's? It's a lot easier that you may realize for people to get the wrong idea.

Feminists have had that problem for decades and generations, of explaining what "feminism" means. You probably haven't been heard from many of them, because otherwise you would have understood that defending equality for women does not mean ignoring men's equality. Conceptually if women and men achieve equality, then equality has been defended for both of them.

 

[ImSkeletor]

What are your feelings about abortion? I think it is murder.(And Im not just saying that)

You thinking it is murder doesn't really say much. Does that mean you're pro-life? I've known people who thought it was murder but were pro-choice, because not everyone thinks the same.

I guess you're trying to debate OP but still...I'd like to learn more on this topic and challenging my own thoughts is the best way to do so, since I've never really met anyone against it.

I am pro-Life. I believe in Freedom and I wish the government had less restriction on people (I am somewhat of a LIbertarian) but you don't have the "freedom" to MURDER someone. It is just as bad as having the baby then suffocating it because you don't feel like taking care of it.

Hey you've not quite finished the maxim you live by:

Try"

Liberty is sovereign, but only when it does not restrict liberty in itself



Now, let's consider liberty itself. Can a foetus have liberty? No, it's not rational, it is literally just an object with potential. If it's murder to not allow a potential person to be, then it's murder to not have as many babies as humanly possible.

So, when does one draw the line, as a baby isn't rational, yet I still think you shouldn't kill born babies? that's the important question.

For now I'll say, that you can't be libertarian and want to restrict women from aborting, as it's..



AHA!*moment of clarity*

As it's part of the woman's body before birth, we can consider it under the moral and liberal responsibility of the woman it's attached to. It's in her domain. Once it leaves the body, it's no longer part of her, hence subject to different rights. By god, I've cracked it after years of cognitive dissonance..

Umm No. Your comment is so non sensical that it mocks itself. So thank you for doing your Job for me. But I will humor you. So apparently killing something that is part of you is okay. So if I had a twin who was attatched to me and needed me to survive. I could murder him because he is just a part of me. "NO" you say. You say that the this twin is a seperate entity who just relies on the other. But hmmm what is that like. Oh I don't know. A fetus living in it's mothers womb.

The twin has its own rationality, hence, is entitled to liberty

Ball's in your court, keep the ad-hominem's out this time thanks.

Just read the response I made to mr Somewhere. Sorry about that piss poor arguement I just made. I was just kind of annoyed.

That's.. big of you. But, my point still stands.

From one libertarian to another, ok? (Sovereignty of reason)

Assuming that we follow the maxim I set out, of sovereignty of liberty unless it imposes on the domain of another's liberty, is my argument for abortion not sound?

I may be appealing to consequences, but to go so far as to say that the foetus itself is potential life, and that not allowing that potential to flourish is tantamount to murder (This is what I read from you, ok?)

Then, why doesn't the sperm count? or the egg? or the act of sex? or the act of life, in which one of its own purposes is to produce more babies? I think, that pro-life is the ultimate anti-libertarian view, simply because its premises when followed, to the absolute extreme of themselves, destroy liberty totally, and absolutely.

What do you think? Are you just, not a libertarian? (Completely fine, but it would be kind of moot otherwise)

You know I like to think of myself as a big enough person to say when I don't know something and here that is really the case. My fundemental morals are conflicting with my beliefs about society and government. Usually they match but in this case they are really on apposing sides here. I can only chose one and that is a hard choice to make. My two strongest beliefs are "Freedom" and "the conservation of all forms of human life". And I can't make that decision right now. So, as said before, I don't know. Thank you for having this conversation and Im glad you are so sure in your beliefs.

Ow, a nasty position to be in. Though in a way you could mesh your morals and political view on this occasion. Really, abortion is about choosing the freedom of the parent, or the freedom of the child. I assume we all like freedom here, and you can support that from either side of the debate.

True. I think I am going to just take a neutral stance for a while. The world is mostly black and white in 99% of situations because of the beliefs I have but on rare occasions it is extremely grey and this is one of those situations. (Now im off to try to respond to the nine hundred people who have quoted me.)

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Go ahead, I double-dare you.

Just to get this thread on track and avoid more PONIES OMG

Ahem... think manly thoughts... think manly thoughts...

Sorry.

What to debate... what to debate...

Oh, why do you have the eye candy from the the ultimate "for boys" cartoon?

Although the amount of ponies in this thread kind of proves gender is irrelevent >.>

 

[orangeban]

Go ahead, I double-dare you.

Just to get this thread on track and avoid more PONIES OMG

Ahem... think manly thoughts... think manly thoughts...

Sorry.

What to debate... what to debate...

Oh, why do you have the eye candy from the the ultimate "for boys" cartoon?

Although the amount of ponies in this thread kind of proves gender is irrelevent >.>

Hang on, you lost me. How are ponies not manly? What is manlier than riding stout creatures into battle! And dying there hair pretty colours! Eh hem, I mean, rubbing the blood of our enemies into their manes as war paint!
Fact: The Mongolians road ponies into battle.

 

[ImSkeletor]

What are your feelings about abortion? I think it is murder.(And Im not just saying that)

You thinking it is murder doesn't really say much. Does that mean you're pro-life? I've known people who thought it was murder but were pro-choice, because not everyone thinks the same.

I guess you're trying to debate OP but still...I'd like to learn more on this topic and challenging my own thoughts is the best way to do so, since I've never really met anyone against it.

I am pro-Life. I believe in Freedom and I wish the government had less restriction on people (I am somewhat of a LIbertarian) but you don't have the "freedom" to MURDER someone. It is just as bad as having the baby then suffocating it because you don't feel like taking care of it.

Well, current abortion law limits the time you can have an abortion as to limit the suffering of the fetus. Note I say fetus, not baby, because at that point the things is just cells, has not nervous system and no self awareness. Although that is really beside the point, as I also believe taking life is wrong. What I am interested in is your opinions with unjust pregnancies. Like say a woman is raped and gets pregnant. She would be forced to have that baby. Teenage mothers? Ever statistic in the world shows that teenage parents have a significantly worse life than those who have children later. A pregnancy isn't just about the baby, it's about the parents too.

If it occures from rape AND they do it before the point when all the organs are developed it is up to them. Teenaged mothers should not murder their fetuses. They made the choice unlike women who are raped. Also even though it may not feel yet you are stripping it of the ability to grow and eventually feel. It is only slightly less terrible.

But if the child was never intended, aren't you worsening the existence of the mother and presumably the father too? Should the parents not come first? Accidents happen. You only live once, sometimes one doesn't want the burden of children to hamper their existence. Why should they tolerate a child when it could lead to a miserable existence for both the parents and child?
Happiness is key in our world, a mistake should not nullify that.
I believe people should at least have a choice. Rather than strip them of the choice due to some moral crusaders, we shouldn't force our own opinions down one another's throats and make them law (to an extent of course).
Live and let live I say.
Keep in mind these are all totally personal beliefs, just for the debate and all that.

That is actually a very reasonable arguement. Though of course I have to argue it. I think that choice should be adoption. Rather then take away your babies chance at life give them a different one. Some say that many women would rather abort their baby then wait a while then part with it once you get attached. But that is extremely selfish in my mind. They are basicly saying "If I can't have it no body can."

Oh yeah, adoption is very reasonable. But birth being the traumatic event it is, some might not be able to handle it. It's such a terribly complex situation which is why I would stress choice, as wonderful as birth is, the responsibilities can both forge meaning for lives and destroy them, so, yeah choice is rather important.

I would like to refer you to this conversation

"(Baneat) From one libertarian to another, ok? (Sovereignty of reason)

Assuming that we follow the maxim I set out, of sovereignty of liberty unless it imposes on the domain of another's liberty, is my argument for abortion not sound?

I may be appealing to consequences, but to go so far as to say that the foetus itself is potential life, and that not allowing that potential to flourish is tantamount to murder (This is what I read from you, ok?)

Then, why doesn't the sperm count? or the egg? or the act of sex? or the act of life, in which one of its own purposes is to produce more babies? I think, that pro-life is the ultimate anti-libertarian view, simply because its premises when followed, to the absolute extreme of themselves, destroy liberty totally, and absolutely.

What do you think? Are you just, not a libertarian? (Completely fine, but it would be kind of moot otherwise)

(me)
You know I like to think of myself as a big enough person to say when I don't know something and here that is really the case. My fundemental morals are conflicting with my beliefs about society and government. Usually they match but in this case they are really on apposing sides here. I can only chose one and that is a hard choice to make. My two strongest beliefs are "Freedom" and "the conservation of all forms of human life". And I can't make that decision right now. So, as said before, I don't know. Thank you for having this conversation and Im glad you are so sure in your beliefs.

 

[Shydrow]

Punching babies cause you know they can't fight back. GO!

 

[Marter]

snip

Let's just dismantle which points exactly you made against the iPod.

<quote=Ryan>"It doesn't focus on its primary purpose" (music playing)
"Downloadable updating required"
"Can't structure the device"
"A new version comes out every month or two"
Let's now take apart those points.

"It doesn't focus on its primary purpose" (music playing) -- How so? It still plays music. It does it just as well, if not better, than any MP3 player on the market. Its interface is easy to navigate, and the actual music playing is exactly the same as any MP3 player you are going to find. Not a valid argument.

"Downloadable updating required" -- This just simply isn't true. You do not need to update an iPod after you take it home. Lots of people do not, because they either do not have a good internet connection, or they do not with to install iTunes. You are never required to upgrade an iPod, especially to "download movies, shows, and pictures". In fact, I would argue that being able to upgrade the device is a point in its favor, not against it. New features are added with each update, while MP3 players, a lot of them anyway, do not have that option.

"Can't structure the device" -- What? Are you saying it's not stable? That's also untrue. iPods are very stable. The apps sometimes aren't, but if you just want to use your iPod as an MP3 player anyway, then that won't matter. I have never seen an iPod crash from just playing music. And you still get the chance to use the apps with an iPod! They may not be the most stable things ever, but they work most of the time, and they can improve a person's life. Take a basic calendar app, for example. A person can carry a calendar around in their pocket, literally, and pull it out, see what plans they have on certain dates, whenever they want.

"A new version comes out every month or two" -- Also untrue, but I'll assume you are using hyperbole to prove your point. Yes, Apple brings out newer versions of their iPod series fairly often. You know why? Because they are constantly improving it. Are you forced to buy a new one? Of course not! But people who have the money, and want an improved version have that option. And people who decided not to buy one before can get an even better version. Having a company make improvements is a good thing, and not agreeing to that is just silly.

Now, let's look at points you made in favor of the MP3 player.

<quote=Ryan>"It can hold up to 5,000 songs and more"
"Can download movies, shows, and pictures within less then twenty minutes"
"I don't need online on there"
"[I don't need] to call people with it"
"[I don't need] to even reads books. (Size is too small and annoying to read)"


Again, let's take the same approach in setting you straight when it comes to these.

"It can hold up to 5,000 songs and more" -- So can many iPods. Sure, the smaller ones can't, but they are used for their portability--keeping things simple and small. Larger iPods can easily hold 5,000 songs, and still hold apps, movies and pictures.

"Can download movies, shows, and pictures within less then twenty minutes" -- I want your internet service provider and plan. If you can actually download a movie "within less than twenty minutes", then that is all up to your ISP, and not your device. Plus, if your device can't get online -- you state in a later point that you "don't need online on there", then how are you downloading things onto it anyway. If you're doing it by computer, then that has absolutely nothing to do with the device, and is therefore a moot point.

"I don't need online on there" -- And yet, on an iPod, you have that option. Why not have the option to do a little web surfing while waiting for something? Or if your laptop is dead, and you don't have a charger handy, you can still look up a quick fact, or check your Facebook. The option is always nice to have.

"[I don't need] to call people with it" -- Now we're getting into iPhone territory. Normal iPods, even iPod Touches (excluding Skype), cannot call people. The iPhone, however, is a cell phone, and therefore can call people. Like you said, phones should be able to do that. With the iPhone, you're even further simplifying life.

"[I don't need] to even reads books. (Size is too small and annoying to read)" -- Again, just having the option is nice. And as for the text being too small, you know you can zoom in, right? Because you can. And it's not really that bad to begin with.

Essentially, what I'm hearing from you is this: "I have an MP3 player. It works well enough for playing music. I'm too cheap/poor/pretentious/whatever to buy an iPod. I will defend my MP3 player to the death as a result." I get this from you, because your arguments don't hold up when looking at them with any logic. You didn't even make the standard, "but MP3 players are cheaper" argument, which also makes me favor my stance on why you take this position. In short: You are wrong, because you gave me no solid arguments as to why an MP3 player is better.

Oh yes, and to conclude...
<quote=Ryan>take your time replying if you'd like
...thanks for the permission. I definitely did take my time.

 

[crystalsnow]

Why is your grammar so poor?

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Question: What are you hoping to accomplish with this thread?

 

[Mr Somewhere]

What are your feelings about abortion? I think it is murder.(And Im not just saying that)

You thinking it is murder doesn't really say much. Does that mean you're pro-life? I've known people who thought it was murder but were pro-choice, because not everyone thinks the same.

I guess you're trying to debate OP but still...I'd like to learn more on this topic and challenging my own thoughts is the best way to do so, since I've never really met anyone against it.

I am pro-Life. I believe in Freedom and I wish the government had less restriction on people (I am somewhat of a LIbertarian) but you don't have the "freedom" to MURDER someone. It is just as bad as having the baby then suffocating it because you don't feel like taking care of it.

Well, current abortion law limits the time you can have an abortion as to limit the suffering of the fetus. Note I say fetus, not baby, because at that point the things is just cells, has not nervous system and no self awareness. Although that is really beside the point, as I also believe taking life is wrong. What I am interested in is your opinions with unjust pregnancies. Like say a woman is raped and gets pregnant. She would be forced to have that baby. Teenage mothers? Ever statistic in the world shows that teenage parents have a significantly worse life than those who have children later. A pregnancy isn't just about the baby, it's about the parents too.

If it occures from rape AND they do it before the point when all the organs are developed it is up to them. Teenaged mothers should not murder their fetuses. They made the choice unlike women who are raped. Also even though it may not feel yet you are stripping it of the ability to grow and eventually feel. It is only slightly less terrible.

But if the child was never intended, aren't you worsening the existence of the mother and presumably the father too? Should the parents not come first? Accidents happen. You only live once, sometimes one doesn't want the burden of children to hamper their existence. Why should they tolerate a child when it could lead to a miserable existence for both the parents and child?
Happiness is key in our world, a mistake should not nullify that.
I believe people should at least have a choice. Rather than strip them of the choice due to some moral crusaders, we shouldn't force our own opinions down one another's throats and make them law (to an extent of course).
Live and let live I say.
Keep in mind these are all totally personal beliefs, just for the debate and all that.

That is actually a very reasonable arguement. Though of course I have to argue it. I think that choice should be adoption. Rather then take away your babies chance at life give them a different one. Some say that many women would rather abort their baby then wait a while then part with it once you get attached. But that is extremely selfish in my mind. They are basicly saying "If I can't have it no body can."

Oh yeah, adoption is very reasonable. But birth being the traumatic event it is, some might not be able to handle it. It's such a terribly complex situation which is why I would stress choice, as wonderful as birth is, the responsibilities can both forge meaning for lives and destroy them, so, yeah choice is rather important.

I would like to refer you to this conversation

"(Baneat) From one libertarian to another, ok? (Sovereignty of reason)

Assuming that we follow the maxim I set out, of sovereignty of liberty unless it imposes on the domain of another's liberty, is my argument for abortion not sound?

I may be appealing to consequences, but to go so far as to say that the foetus itself is potential life, and that not allowing that potential to flourish is tantamount to murder (This is what I read from you, ok?)

Then, why doesn't the sperm count? or the egg? or the act of sex? or the act of life, in which one of its own purposes is to produce more babies? I think, that pro-life is the ultimate anti-libertarian view, simply because its premises when followed, to the absolute extreme of themselves, destroy liberty totally, and absolutely.

What do you think? Are you just, not a libertarian? (Completely fine, but it would be kind of moot otherwise)

(me)
You know I like to think of myself as a big enough person to say when I don't know something and here that is really the case. My fundemental morals are conflicting with my beliefs about society and government. Usually they match but in this case they are really on apposing sides here. I can only chose one and that is a hard choice to make. My two strongest beliefs are "Freedom" and "the conservation of all forms of human life". And I can't make that decision right now. So, as said before, I don't know. Thank you for having this conversation and Im glad you are so sure in your beliefs.

Sure, it was a good conversation/debate.

 

[qeinar]

i'd say the norwegian dinner sildball is better than the more common kjøttkaker. now what is your stance on this?

 

[Marter]

Yes. Just yes.

OT: I have no questions. I simply felt the need to congratulate Matt on that.

I wondered if anyone would actually notice. T'was a fun write-up. (I wonder if I should have included the "Marter's $0.02" picture though...) Thanks, Fargo!

 

[Marik2]

Yes. Just yes.

OT: I have no questions. I simply felt the need to congratulate Matt on that.

I wondered if anyone would actually notice. T'was a fun write-up. (I wonder if I should have included the "Marter's $0.02" picture though...) Thanks, Fargo!

lol i take it you like the ipod?

 

[orangeban]

snip

snip again

What you say is all true but I have another problem with Apples ipod. They've monopolised the market and are exploiting this fact and ripping off the consumer.
Here's how it happened, Apple releases the ipod which is a genuinally great thing pioneers a new style of mp3 player. Because it is so great and Apple is a well liked company soon they are the dominant music platform. Apple releases itunes, which I think, is the only way to legally get music onto ipods. Now since most people own ipods you get it that other businesses can't release mp3 devices because noone will buy them. They also can't release music things like itunes because you need itunes for the ipod and since very few people own other music players noone would use your service. Because of lack of support more people buy ipods, so therefore, less and less people attempt to create rival products ect. ect. vicious circle.

So that's how Apple made the monopoly but they exploit it by constantly releasing new updates and versions of ipods (it's the ipod shuffle! Now it's smaller and impractical! Buy it!) and charging high prices. And they don't bother lowering prices on the old products because where else can the consumers turn?

That is my problem with Apple.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Why is your title so poorly worded?
Do you know any good women stand up comics that don't only direct their jokes at women?