GameBanshee Forums

Here is my speculative ideas/rules, dissect at your pleasure, i will only alter it if i think the idea is a reasnoable one...so here we are:

Idea:

Have a discussion from two points of view, take a topic, any topic, argue the fore/against arguement. The winner of the particular debate will be the one who can convincingly argue for both sides of the topic, the topics are argued in pairs 1v1.

Rules:

The debate will be conducted in pairs and we will hopefully find a method of randomly choosing these, although it might become a paper-in-hat job.

There will be three replies by each debater, these will be no longer than 2000 words.

The topics will be created by Mr Sleep and Yshania, they are just for the debaters at hand, if anyone other than the selected debaters want to get involved in the subject they are free to take the subject and transfer it to a new thread.

The choice of who wins is up to Mr Sleep and Yshania (may add more later?) the conclusion by Mr Sleep and Yshania is final. If there is any problems with the conclusion then PMs are the preffered form of communication.

There will be a summary made by the adjudicators that encompasses the discussion (there may also be a numerical indication, we would have to discuss fields)

The winner of the debated topic is the person who can argue convincingly for either side.

The idea is to have fun, abide by the forum rules.

Character assasination is allowed although not to ridiculous degrees and not just plain insults, it has to be creative and amusing. Everyone involved understands that the character assasination is part of the game and not personal. If at some point someone feels they have been wronged then again PM is the mode for this or contact the adjudicators.

This isn't a competition as such, there aren't necessarily any winners or losers, we might tally up some scores at some point but they will be token scores that aren't overly important.

The Arguer starts each topic, so for instance HLD is arguing against the death penalty, so he starts first. Some of the debates are ambiguous in which should start first since there isn't necessarily an easy point to start from, in such situations one of the adjudicators will decide who starts.

As discussed by C Elegans in the Visa Versa thread, nearly all tactics are allowed, these include:

Character assasination
Logical fallacies
Circular logic
Mock indignation.

Okay here are the debaters and the topics:

CE vs CM = CE is to argue for abstinance in favour of contraception, CM is to argue for contraception.

Dottie vs Frogus = Dottie is to argue against the existence of child pop stars (S club jr and a like) Frogus is to argue why they should exist.

Georgi vs HLD = Georgi to argue for the death penalty HLD to argue against.

Ode vs Tom = Ode to argue against alcohol being available to the masses in shops and stores, Tom to argue for why one should be able to get hold of alcohol easily.

I hope no one has any major problems with the topics, we will endeavour to come up with other more interesting topics for the next debate. I have a few interesting ones already that wil be included in the next debate, but for now this is it.

Abstinence as contraceptive method

As I am sure most of you know, there is only one single contraceptive method that will give 100% protection against unwanted pregancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD:s): abstinence. Choosing celibacy might sound like a drastic means to protect yourself, but when we examine the degree of protection offered by other methods, we realize there is no such thing as "safe sex". On the contrary, "safe sex" is a popular expression used for methods where safelty can be as low as 30%.

Apart from abstinence, there are three other major classes of contraception, mechanical, chemical and hormonal, all have safetly rates between 30%-99%. Lowest safetly of all has the ”catholic roulette” method, ie the rhythm method. The advantage of these contraceptives is of course that you can have sex. The disadvantages is that you put yourself at substantial risk of unwillingly become a parent, or catch and STD.

For protection against unwanted pregnancy, the safest methods are the hormonal methods, in the form of pills, injections or even plasters. The safety is about 99%, even higher with injections. 99% may sound like a very high safetly, but how good or bad the odds are, depends much on what we risk. Imagine this situation: you are offered this drink, and there is a 1% risk that you will die from drinking it. The drink may taste very good, but would you still drink it?
If your answer is: yes, I think a human life is worth no more than a nice, tasty drink and I am prepared to gamble, then you may also find pills satisfactory as a contraceptive. But if you think a human life if worth more than that, you may want to decline the drink.

Whereas hormonal methods give the best protection against pregnancy, they give no protection at all against STD:s and as many as 1 in 3 women get side effects that may include headache, nausea, liver damage and even heart attack.
To prevent infections from spreading between two people, one must use a barrier of some kind that stops the infectious agents, ie virus, bacteria or fungi. Another option would be vaccination, but unfortunately there are no vaccinations for any of the STD:s except for Hepatitis B. (And that vaccine is not safe 100% safe). The only method that increase your protection against both unwanted parenthood and disease, is condom (or femidomes, that statistically have the same characteristics as condom). Condoms have a safety rating of about 87% against pregnancy, but only about 70%-85% against HIV. Let us take a look at how a condom is contructed, something most people aren't familiar with in detail.
A condom is made of several layers of latex, or in some cases, plastic. Studies show that in each layer of latex, there are microscopic holes large enough for a HIV viruses to pass. Since the condom is made of several layers, these holes should be covered up by the next layer not having a hole at the same place. But are they really? Studies show that even when condoms are used, the partner of an HIV infected person will get infected in 1 of 6 cases! That demonstrates how unsafe condoms are as a protection from HIV.

In the US, 1 out 5 people suffer from an STD. 1 of 7 20-year old women have had an abortion, 4 of 10 44-year old women. Studies show that 90% of couples use contraceptive, yet half of all pregnancies that occur are unwanted! Whereas sex is very pleasant, it is not so pleasant to die from AIDS, catch lifelong herpes, get sterile from chlamydia or having to face the difficult choice of having an abortion or having a child you did not want. A child is a life long responsibility, emotionally, socially and for some 20 years also finacially. Sharing parenthood is not an easy task even for people who really love each other - imagine what it would be like with someone you didn't even love in the first place! And abortion is not an easy solution. For many people, men as well as women, going through an abortion is a major emotional trauma. For women, abortion is by no means a risk free procedure, almost 1 out of 100 women get major medical complications, and there is actually a risk to die, albeit very slim. For men, it is important to remember that an unwanted pregnancy is totally out of your control once it is there. The women can, totally against your will, decide to give birth to child and then you stand there with an unwanted child, perhaps with a woman you don't even want a relationship with - and if you don't want custody, you will still have to pay for the child 18 years.

The only way you can protect yourself to 100% is continous abstinence until you are ready to face the responsibilities of taking care of a child.

Looking forward to your reply, CM.

Child pop stars are absolutely essential to today’s society. They are one of the few fundamental castes without which life would degenerate into amoral entropy ( @CE).
First, if I may, people, let me take you back to what was, for me, and I’m sure you’ll agree, the soundtrack to 1997 – Britney Spears’ deathless classic Hit Me Baby One More Time. I believe that this dazzling composition should be enough to convince you that teen-pop is worthwhile, but, if you need further convincing, look at the evidence – It appealed to girls as young as three, and men as old as Waverly. It appealed to black and white people alike, and the Japanese even more so. It appealed to the rich (Prince William) and the famous (that bloke out of N-Sync)…but I’m sure you will agree that universal appeal is not necessarily a good thing. Appeal means power, but power can be used for both good and evil. So let’s see what Britney does with the influence she has generated for herself with her free-thinking and mastery of the musical arts. Here is an excerpt from a tape recording of Ms. Spears:[talking about her mother] “I always have her to confide in. I think that's really important. There are a lot of my friends who never talk to their moms about anything. They have nobody to go to except their friends. And if they're in the wrong crowd, who can they call when they're in trouble? … I've had my times when I've gone out and partied. I know what it's like. I don't want to do it again. Kids doing drugs every weekend. It's because they're lacking something in their life -- maybe the feeling of being loved.”
This example clearly shows that teen-popstars are not only beautiful and sweet-sounding, but also intelligent, emotionally mature and virtuous members of society. Notice how Britney not only observes life around her with the keen and discriminating eye of a social anthropologist (“Kids doing drugs every weekend”), but draws valuable conclusions from her observations (“It’s because they’re lacking something in their life – maybe the feeling of being loved”). This is clearly a woman who combines a breathtaking figure with a breathtaking recognition of her responsibilities to the youth of today.
Furthermore, Britney’s stalwart position at the vanguard of the attack on vice and sin among young people is not mere posturing – it is having a real effect.
The National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign (NYADMC) carried out a survey among 25,000 young people (9-17), asking the penetrating question: What is your anti-drug? And yes, you’ve guessed it people – ‘Music’ was the number one response. What of Britney’s public virginity. She is proud of the fact that she has not had sex, which, as CE has clearly indicated, is the wisest and most virtuous thing to do, and is thus setting a good example to the world’s youths on yet another front. It is obvious that it is Britney and the other child popstars who inspire children to lead a virtuous life.
And what of the cases when this crusader of light cannot reach into the darkness? For instance, the 400,000 American youths involved in gangs? This is a good point, but when one looks a little closer it is clearly misleading. There is one aspect of the youth society of crime and vice which common reports often fail to mention – the music that they listen to. What did the ‘trench coat mafia’ play before they shot up their school? It was sure as hell not Britney, people…and what genre of music accounts for 60% of inner city record sales in America, in the districts where violent youth crime is most prevalent? It is not teen-pop, I assure you. Now it is for us to draw our own conclusions: In inner city areas youths listen to rap, hip hop and death-metal. The same youths are violent, unruly, and have no respect for authority. It is clear that Britney Spears and other teenpoppers are the only force upholding moral values in the civilised world. If it were not for child popstars, we would have nothing to stop our youth degenerating into a savage culture of rival tribes, armed to the teeth and willing to clime in through your window in the middle of the night, sit on your wife’s chest and threaten you with serrated hunting knives, all the while raving obscenities and vitriolic hatred for all that decent folk stand for. Don’t let that happen people.

Why the death penalty blows

Capital punishment is one of the most repugnant methods of dealing with crime that currently exists. While we know that state-sanctioned executions have been going on since the dawn of recorded time, there is absolutely no reason for an enlightened society to resort to putting its criminals to death.

My argument against the death penalty will follow three main threads. The first will be to show that it is morally wrong. The second will be to demonstrate that capital punishment cannot be called an instrument of justice be cause it is enforced in an unrepresentative manner or as a political tool. My third and final track will be to argue that its finality makes execution an undesirable punishment because it leaves no room for error.

Before we proceed any further, I would like to offer the disclaimer that I live in the United States and that I am a Presbyterian, so before we begin, I would like the readers to understand my cultural context and also state that most of my comments about the death penalty will be limited to its enforcement in the US.

The most compelling argument against the death penalty is that it is outright wrong. Those arguing for the death penalty do so under the "eye for an eye" principle. The people against the death penalty often look only to the 10 Commandments for "Thou shall not kill." While these are both attractive because of their simplicity, neither side can clearly claim victory through argument.

I will not resort to hiding behind the Sixth Commandment, because there are acceptable reasons to kill another person (this is another argument all together) and such blanket statements are not applicable in this situation. No, the reason why capital punishment is morally wrong is that it makes no provision for redemption, a cornerstone of the Christian tradition our country and indeed all of western society is founded upon. Make no mistake, many of the people on death row are beyond repentance. In fact, some people (ie-Timothy McVeigh) go out of their way to expedite the process and get executed as quickly as possible.

Still, when someone is executed, society is saying that they are no longer worth saving. I argue that everyone is worth saving, no matter how far from the rest of the flock they have strayed. Does this mean that killers who claim contrition should be released back into society simply by expressing their sorrow? Of course not. The law abiding citizens of the world deserve to be protected from murderers, and saying only "I'm sorry" does not relieve the perpetrator of a capital crime from taking responsibility for their actions nor does it mean that they do not owe a debt to society and their victims for whatever transgressions they have committed.

The function of the justice system is to see that those guilty of crimes are dealt with; often we become transfixed on the punitive aspect of criminal sentences, but there are other purposes for incarceration beyond vengeance. These include restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation. To put someone to death, the state is saying that individuals cannot be rehabilitated and that they are not capable of redemption. This is morally wrong. People can, and do, change for the better and to deny someone this chance by ending their life is the wrong way for the state to go about meting out justice. People should atone for their sins, but not with their lives.

Moral complications aside, the death penalty should be abolished because it is enforced disproportionately, inconsistently and it is handed down with a bias against one group or another; in the US, it’s poor black men. For instance, the population of the US is 12.4% black. By contrast, 49% of the prison population is black and 36% of death row inmates are black. While some of this can be attributed to the fact that many blacks are undereducated and poor, it does not make sense that blacks would be over-represented on death row by 3 times. When a group is being exterminated at a rate 3 times higher than is statistically representative, something is seriously out of kilter.

These numbers are reflective of the United States which does not engage in political assassinations, nor does it use mass executions as a means to eliminate dissidents and political prisoners. Other nations, most notably China and Iraq, have no compunctions about such a policy and show that capital punishment is not an instrument of justice, but rather one of politics. In most nations who engage in this sort of behaviour, unless you are a name-level political prisoner (ie-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Nelson Mandela), execution awaits those who dissent not for actual crimes but for merely disagreeing with the current regime.

Unless the death penalty is truly a penalty for actual crimes it cannot be considered anything more than state-sanctioned assassination. Similarly, unless capital punishment is meted out to everyone under the same standards, it will be tainted as a tool for one group to advance its status by holding another group down.

My final point about the innate wrongness in the death penalty is that once someone is executed for a crime, there is no way to bring them back to life if their conviction is shown to be false. That is, people can be, and have been, put to death in the United States for crimes they did not commit. The finality of death should be reason enough to abolish capital punishment throughout the civilised world. For instance, the state of Florida has overturned the convictions of 20 death row inmates because they turned out to be not guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. Other sources indicate that innocent people may have already been put to death erroneously.

For the death penalty to truly be a tool for our criminal justice system, its enforcement must be completely without error. While any situation involving people can lead to human error, people who are imprisoned wrongfully can be compensated and if that conviction was the result of corruption or a political agenda, those responsible may themselves be brought to justice. However, there is no compensation that can bring a person wrongfully executed back to life.

In summary, we’ve seen that the death penalty is morally wrong, that it is meted out disproportionately and for reasons other than as an instrument of justice and that as long as the possibility exists of executing someone for a crime they did not commit exists, capital punishment cannot be considered as a viable method of sentencing.

I would like to thank all of the readers and the adjudicators for the opportunity to make my case before the GameBanshee community, and I look forward to hearing my opponent’s side.

Re: Abstinence as contraceptive method

I will start follow up this debate with both my own views as well as pointing out inconsistencies within CE’s post . I agree that abstinence provides 100% protection from STD’s and pregnancy, but it is unrealistic even ludicrous, to believe that people will give up having sex. It has become a norm of society that people will engage in intercourse. It is common in all societies, even where such matters are taboo i.e. Asian societies especially Muslim ones. In the 60s and 70s the subject was taboo, and rarely did people engage in intercourse. But as time has passed, intercourse before marriage has become a normal occurrence in most if not all societies. Good or bad, that is not the subject at hand, however it is unrealistic to believe that people will abstain from sex. Rather if the trend in the 70s 80s and 90s is followed, the idea of sexual intercourse in teens will become a norm in all societies.

Since the majority of the population will have intercourse, the concept of abstinence falls on a very few. What if people don’t choose to abstain? The majority don’t. Are they to be left to do what they want? The answer should be no. Since people choose to have sex, contraceptives should be part of the norm as well.

Safe sex also does not denote a percentage. The statement is pretty simple. If you use contraceptives you will have a better chance off not contracting any diseases. If the percentage is 1 or 99, it still gives you a better chance than unprotected sex. Also you can easily get HIV or other such diseases through needles and the likes.

Dealing with percentages, there could be a 1% chance that anybody crossing the street could be hit by a car. Does that mean people should stop crossing the street? There could be a miniscule percentage chance that an Aid worker in Africa could contact Ebola. Does that mean people should stop going to Africa? If that is the case and we just look at the percentages then we should all sit at home in a protected bubble, as there is a miniscule chance we could get some deadly disease.

99% is very high, it means if you have sex 100 times, you should theoretically contract a disease or get pregnant once. Not that bad odds. Given the situation, where people will have intercourse, then this has theoretically saved the lives a great many people and stopped many unwanted pregnancies.

Condoms are described as the safest form of contraceptives while engaging in intercourse. Using CE’s statistics 1 out of 6 can get HIV from an infected partner. Speaking by percentage there is a 16.67 chance of receiving HIV from an infected partner. While there is an 83.33% that you wont. While looking at smoking, lifetime smokers have a 50% chance of dying in mid-age. This is from World Health Organization in 1996. (Link: http://www.forces-nl.org/WHO/pdf/Deaths.pdf ) So you have a higher percentage chance of dying from smoke related diseases, than getting HIV. Looking at this everybody should give up smoking, or encourage smoking to control our population growth.

I would like to see the source for the figure 1 out of 5 people in the US suffer an STD. That would mean 20% of the US population of 284 million suffers from STD (That would be 56 million people). Pretty shocking the media hasn’t picked up on it. Of course if it were a smaller percentage of the population that this 1 out of 5 figure comes from, it would be different. Also on the 1 out (edit = 7 women at the age)[\b] of 20 women figure, source please and is this a global figure or for Liechtenstein?

Abortion is not the issue here. Rather how to protect people from STD’s and from unwanted pregnancies. We are dealing with the “before” or even “during” not the “after” aspect.

People will have sex. It is a norm of modern society. Many do not choose to abstain even when religion prescribes so. So the best alternative is to provide contraceptives and make them better. Also if having sex was so dangerous, why do people still continue to do so? There haven’t been any studies to show that people are having less intercourse. But rather logic suggests it is increasing, as are the numbers of HIV and other STD’s. Looking at global realities, people will have and do have intercourse. So to protect them and others, it is best to use contraceptives.

All yours CE

Why a state is sometimes justified in killing a citizen

In the first two sections I will put forward four lines of arguments and in the third section tie up any loose ends.
Here in the first section I will argue that an independent judiciary in a democratic state can be morally justified in killing a citizen and look at the moral justification. In the second section I shall look closely at the conditions under which such a judiciary can take the decision to kill and be justified and I will look at hypothetical cases where the killing of a citizen is justice.
I shall of course also throughout be pointing out when I think my opponent is mistaken.

Some of my readers might think it strange that I do not talk about punishment. They might think that some people deserve the ultimate punishment, death, for their crimes. I do not do this because I do not believe in punishment - full stop. It follows that the killing of a citizen should never be done as punishment but only as way of lessening a significant threat to society and lessening the suffering of the criminal.

Killing is wrong. Is that really true? - Is it always wrong? no! - I am sure we all agree (my opponent says he does) that under some circumstances we have to kill. It is a sad fact about this world that sometimes the morally best thing we can do involves killing. In wars and emergencies sometimes the best we can do involves the active and deliberate killing of people.
But we are talking about something very specific namely killing of convicted criminals.

Certain conditions are necessary if a state is morally justified in killing its citizens. 1. It has to be a democratic state so the decision to pass a law allowing killing is a legitimate decision. 2. It has to have a completely independent judiciary so that the law is carried out without bias or political influence. 3. It has to have an independent police force following strict rules of equality. 4. The police force have to have sufficient technology and recourses to find evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 5. No chance of rehabilitation seems possible.
These conditions are by no means the complete list but they are part of it.

This is why I think my opponent is wrong in using the USA as the basis of his arguments. My opponent says "most of my comments about the death penalty will be limited to its enforcement in the US". This is no doubt why my opponent is against the death penalty. He is of course wrong in using a single country as the basis for his discussion since what we are discussing is the Principle not whether a single country is acting with moral right. Hence none of his comments on the sad state of USA’s justice system are really relevant though interesting they are.
It should be noted that I think that the USA’s record on the death penalty is a disgrace - killing of retarded people etc.

My opponent claims that killing a citizen is always morally wrong and presents two relevant arguments. First I will argue that his arguments are not persuasive and then look at why we can be morally compelled to take life.

"it makes no provision for redemption"
There are times in hospitals when the doctors put DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) on a patients notes. The reason for this is that there is no point for the patient. In some cases this is also the case with a criminal individual. There are a few individuals that we can say with great certainty ‘they are a danger to society’ and society must be protected (I will discuss such individuals more in the second section). We could lock up these individuals for life, but it is fair to ask ‘what would be the point!? If a person is caught at 25 it is not absurd to think that he might spend 50-60 years in prison. That really would be cruel - locked up with no hope of getting out.

"its enforcement must be completely without error"
This might seem right because evidence might come too light that shows the person to be innocent. But on closer scrutiny it doesn't stand up. This is because on this view all crimes would have to meet this requirement. We can easily imagine a hypothetical situation where there really is no more evidence to be uncovered. Thus also here there is no chance that the individual might be found innocent. The most we can ask for as in all criminal cases is that it be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Besides the individuals that would be sentenced to die would be the most serious and serial offenders.

No crime deserves the death penalty. But some criminals do. By this I mean that when taking the decision to kill we must look at the person as well as the crime and determine how dangerous he is and whether locking him up for the rest of his natural life is preferable.
My contention is that there are cases where it is better for the individual and better for society if that person is killed. I shall argue this further when I look at the individuals that might face this judgement.

Over to my opponent

@Frogus: Im abit dissapointed at your post, I had hoped we could place this discussion on a higher level than than discussing Britney Spears sex-life, or lack thereof.

Anyway, this is your points as I have understood them.

1. You argue that the wide popularity of one specific star proves an artistic value in the genre as whole.

2. You argue that a in your opinion moraly apealing stance taken by the same star proves a moral value of the genre.

3. You argue that the moral stance taken by that star serves to spread those standards to the youth.

4. You argue that the absence of teen or child pop stars in some areas with high crime rate proves their neccesity to civilized society.

Obviously much of this is invalid.

I think its safe to assume the child popstar genre follows the same patterns as every other genre. Some artists get famous, others does not. This isnt evidence the genre in question is either "good" or "bad". Likewise the moral paradigm of a highly succesfull popstar doesnt prove the moral of the genre itself. (Here it is also important to point out that the evidence you used to prove BS morality is hardly from a reliable source. Her stance might be a real conviction, or just a marketing stunt - We cant know which.)

I admitt that her level of sincerity does have little effect on whether her moral is conveyed to the public though. However, again I must question your evidence on wich you drawed this conclusion.

The National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign (NYADMC) carried out a survey among 25,000 young people (9-17), asking the penetrating question: What is your anti-drug? And yes, you’ve guessed it people – ‘Music’ was the number one response.

First, What a person does percieve as a cause for a part of thier own behaviour doesnt always coincide with the real cause, And asking such a simple question as that doesnt really promote in-depth answers.

Second and more important, There is nothing to suggest the music reffered to by those youths had anything to do with either BS or child popstars in general. For all we know they could be listening to rap or death-metal or similar.

Which leads us to the connection between crime rate and music genres. Although you show nothing to suggest that it exists a correlation between the two im willing to assume that there is one for the sake of this debate. But. Any correlation here does not prove rap is responsible for teenagers bad behaviour, nor does it prove that BS have any reversed effect. Looking at the NYADMC survey you quoted it might just as well be the rap music that is saving people from drugs and not BS. (Which makes more sense. rap often deals with cultural or economical issues while BS seems to focus more on relations: Try 'Boys', 'Anticipating' or 'I Love Rock 'N' Roll' for example. btw, You might also want to study if the moral of those songs is the same as the ones she expressed in the interview. )

I think you have presented no convincing arguments for makeing up for the huge moral complications we deal with when exploiting children for the sake of extra bucks in Sony&Co pockets.