The Debate that Matermark lost

Watermarks bitching and moaning

  • No - I thought he would take his defeat with grace and maturity

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Yea - I knew he would act like this and show everyone what an emotard he turly is

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Yep -But I thought he would at least get over it, the same day

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • YES - He needs to grow a pair and act like a man

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Total voters
    5
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
I seriously hope this site dies in the next few years and isn't indexed well. Otherwise me and grind are going to have to go on a post nuking spree.

Hey grind, can you delete every post made by one poster from the site?
Click to expand...

i don't think so, not all at once. plus google cache's shit O_O
 
Dixie said:
First of all, it was not really a "debate" because the topic was fucked up. The FACT is, life begins at the moment of conception, so Mott's "side" in the "debate" was victorious before any discussions began. Waterhead was ignorant enough to THINK he was in a real debate, and lost. That's what I find most hilarious about the whole thing.

These "debate" topics.... They should be things that aren't established as fact already, otherwise, there is no way to debate them. It reminds me of the time Damo tried to have a "War Room" where debate topics would be posted and people picked sides and went at it... the first topic out of the chute was "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" ....as if one of these was correct and absolute, and the other wasn't.... as if one of these contradicts the other or renders it impossible! It was a pointless debate topic, which was apropos for that defunct board idea.

You guys should have gotten someone with a few more brain cells to come up with your topics, this would have been much more interesting.
Click to expand...
Dixie, Are you suggesting I used a poor source in Conservapedia to choose these debate topics?
 
Dixie said:
First of all, it was not really a "debate" because the topic was fucked up. The FACT is, life begins at the moment of conception, so Mott's "side" in the "debate" was victorious before any discussions began. Waterhead was ignorant enough to THINK he was in a real debate, and lost. That's what I find most hilarious about the whole thing.

These "debate" topics.... They should be things that aren't established as fact already, otherwise, there is no way to debate them. It reminds me of the time Damo tried to have a "War Room" where debate topics would be posted and people picked sides and went at it... the first topic out of the chute was "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" ....as if one of these was correct and absolute, and the other wasn't.... as if one of these contradicts the other or renders it impossible! It was a pointless debate topic, which was apropos for that defunct board idea.

You guys should have gotten someone with a few more brain cells to come up with your topics, this would have been much more interesting.
Click to expand...

Life does not begin at the moment of conception. The sperm and the egg are alive before they join so to say two things that are already alive combine and then become alive is absurd.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Dixie, Are you suggesting I used a poor source in Conservapedia to choose these debate topics?
Click to expand...

I think that particualr topic was framed unfairly. A good proposition must have the opportunity to be argued on both sides. I don't think "does life begin at conception" can be argued against. "When does personhood begin" "should the Constitutional protection of life include the unborn". These can be debated fairly from both sides.

Jus' sayin'.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I think that particualr topic was framed unfairly. A good proposition must have the opportunity to be argued on both sides. I don't think "does life begin at conception" can be argued against. "When does personhood begin" "should the Constitutional protection of life include the unborn". These can be debated fairly from both sides.

Jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

what baffles me is that in some states you can be tried for murder if you kill an unborn fetus of another person, but if the fetus is inside you, it is legal

oh, and to get murder, it is the killing of a human being
 
dixie I would have really liked to have seen you in the debate championship. any interested in being an alternate? :p
 
Ice Dancer said:
I think that particualr topic was framed unfairly. A good proposition must have the opportunity to be argued on both sides. I don't think "does life begin at conception" can be argued against. "When does personhood begin" "should the Constitutional protection of life include the unborn". These can be debated fairly from both sides.

Jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

Nah, in philosophical debates they often use the term "human life" in place of what we here at JPP have become comfortable calling "person". Obviously everyone wants to avoid the connotations of dehumanization that the phrase "not a person" brings up, even though the pro-choice crowd here seems to have become comfortable enough with it. I researched debates over the topic a little and a light went off in my head that I could certainly argue this.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
You're an idiot!
Click to expand...

Actually she's spot on. If you think about it, it really doesn't make sense to call the splitting of an organism "the beginning of life". As Carl Sagan said in his essay on abortion, "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course."
 
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
Actually she's spot on. If you think about it, it really doesn't make sense to call the splitting of an organism "the beginning of life". As Carl Sagan said in his essay on abortion, "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course."
Click to expand...

Please stop.
You already lost and now your comments appear to a pathetic attempt to save yourself. :palm:
 
apple0154 said:
Life does not begin at the moment of conception. The sperm and the egg are alive before they join so to say two things that are already alive combine and then become alive is absurd.
Click to expand...
Errr I have to differ with you. The sperm and ovum cells are haploid cells of the parent human. When they fertilize each other a brand new cell in a diploid state with a completely unique set of chromosomes (DNA) is formed. This is the beginning of a new life and one that is genetically unique from the gamete cells it is derived from.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Actually she's spot on. If you think about it, it really doesn't make sense to call the splitting of an organism "the beginning of life". As Carl Sagan said in his essay on abortion, "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course."
Click to expand...

Please stop.
You already lost and now your comments appear to a pathetic attempt to save yourself. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top