Of course not. The only right a rapist has it the right to a speedy trial.
I guess what I was trying to get at is what should occur between two consenting adults. I could argue that I would have a child today if my girlfriend at the time had chosen not to have an abortion. I had no choice in the matter. As it stands, a man has no choice.
1 edit
Originally posted by Lost HitchhikerAs it should be. No man should have the right to impregnate a woman and insist she keep the baby. That decision must be reserved for the person carrying the baby for 9 months, going through the pain of delivery and caring for the baby subsequent to birth.
I could argue that I would have a child today if my girlfriend at the time had chosen not to have an abortion. I had no choice in the matter. As it stands, a man has no choice.
Originally posted by PeachyWhat about in a circumstance when the woman lies/incorrectly says that she cannot
The poor kid shouldn't be punished and the scum dad should have his nuts chopped off if he doesn't act responsibly and cough up every cent he owes his son.
God damn it. I don't understand these kind of people. THAT IS YOUR SON THERE! He is a gift, treat him RIGHT!! ðŸ˜
Couples in the thousands do the impossible and pay tons to be able to have children.. ...[text shortened]... ish his son appears in every second of every dream that selfish scum has. Selfish bastard.
conceive, giving the man misinformation upon which he makes a decision?
Originally posted by NemesioIt's up to the judges; they're currently discussing this, as neither of us has expressed a preference.
Rockin!
Who is taking Pro/Con?
Nemesio
We've made an interesting modification to the format which you might like; I suggested it, but Scribbles did virtually all of the work -- we've eliminated the controversial status of this case from consideration and will be arguing, ideally, in a principled way from a pre-written set of admissable facts.
Originally posted by royalchickenNo doubt, there were elements that were flawed in the First Debate which made it very
It's up to the judges; they're currently discussing this, as neither of us has expressed a preference.
We've made an interesting modification to the format which you might like; I suggested it, but Scribbles did virtually all of the work -- we've eliminated the controversial status of this case from consideration and will be arguing, ideally, in a principled way from a pre-written set of admissable facts.
difficult on both debaters -- lack of foresight and experience on my part. I'm sure that
the format will be much polished in this upcoming one, since you can learn from the
difficulties of the past.
I'm looking forward to it! When do we get a preview? Hype? &c?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThough it was no fault of yours, the First Debate had a preview which nobody is keen to see repeated.
No doubt, there were elements that were flawed in the First Debate which made it very
difficult on both debaters -- lack of foresight and experience on my part. I'm sure that
the format will be much polished in this upcoming one, since you can learn from the
difficulties of the past.
I'm looking forward to it! When do we get a preview? Hype? &c?
Nemesio
Actually, you're a fan of boxing, right? What's the proper protocol for goading the defending champion?
Originally posted by royalchickenIt never got any better than when Ali was challenging Joe Frazier in the
Actually, you're a fan of boxing, right? What's the proper protocol for goading the defending champion?
70s (after he got out of jail for refusing to submit to the draft). He was
taunting Frazier at some sit-down interview -- saying that he was ignorant
or something -- and Joe got mad and stood up. Ali remained seated until
someone tugged at Frazier's sleeve and made him turn aside. At this
point Ali jumps up, yells 'Quick Joe!' and grabs him behind the head and
by the arm, playfully. Frazier went berserk and started swinging, but Ali
had him wrapped up. A bunch of people started grabbing at the two of
them, and separated them, and Joe fell down as part of the ensuing scuffle.
It was wonderful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by royalchickenHaving seen the completion of the Objectivism vs. Anarchism debate (finally...), I think I would be intrested in participating in future events (judge/debater). But how/where does the setup for these take place?
It's up to the judges; they're currently discussing this, as neither of us has expressed a preference.
We've made an interesting modification to the format which you might like; I suggested it, but Scribbles did virtually all of the work -- we've eliminated the controversial status of this case from consideration and will be arguing, ideally, in a principled way from a pre-written set of admissable facts.
Originally posted by MayharmUnder current procedure, anyone may challenge the reigning champion (currently DoctorScribbles). The contestants then choose the judges, rules, etc., with the proviso that the loser of the previous debate is considered for judgedom in the current one. rwingett lost the first debate and is on the judging panel for this one; this is not a sufficient condition, however -- I would not have suggested him if I didn't think he'd be a good judge.
Having seen the completion of the Objectivism vs. Anarchism debate (finally...), I think I would be intrested in participating in future events (judge/debater). But how/where does the setup for these take place?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou are the current Debate Champion, what do you have to worry about? The judges have every confidence in your ability to construct an absolutely compelling case for the affirmative. But the judges are also human, and couldn't pass up the chance (however slight) to see you publicly implode.
As fate would have it, I have been assigned to affirm that the law ought to obligate the man to pay.
And here I am, running the hype campaign for my own execution.