Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
We eat chickens.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 18%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
We kill humans in war
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
No you don’t.
You’re still alive, which means you’ve killed lots of things in the last few weeks.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
Second, it being a living being means nothing in legal terms. Bacteria or mushrooms are also living beings; this does not imply the necessity to protect their lives in any way.
Finally, every time you take a breath, you kill thousands microbes. Since I do not see you advocating for microbe rights, I would say that you are a hypocrite.
The reason we value human life and human rights is not because of their abstract inherent value, but because we believe in our ability to live our lives by our own design, rather than play out someone else's plan. We believe in the right to choose, in the right to make our own plans, in the right to build our own lives regardless of how the state or other people want us to build them.
Since the fetus is not intelligent and cannot make any choices or decisions, its life is no more valuable than that of a microbe from the legal perspective.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Chickens are sub-humans. Their only purpose is to be eaten.
@Maycaesar >>>''Second, it being a living being means nothing in legal terms. Bacteria or mushrooms are also living beings; this does not imply the necessity to protect their lives in any way.''
Being a living being with the potentiality for intelligence does have ethical necessity.
>>>''The reason we value human life and human rights is not because of their abstract inherent value, but because we believe in our ability to live our lives by our own design, rather than play out someone else's plan. We believe in the right to choose, in the right to make our own plans, in the right to build our own lives regardless of how the state or other people want us to build them.''
''Muh human rights'' isn't an argument.
>>>''Since the fetus is not intelligent and cannot make any choices or decisions, its life is no more valuable than that of a microbe from the legal perspective.''
Nor can people in coma, sleeping, or born babies.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Everything has a "potential" for intelligence, even a cardboard box. This is not an argument in support of anything.
Similarly, everything has a potential (and probably inevitability) to die or be deconstructed. Does not mean killing anyone you want should be legally allowed.
"It has a potential to happen" is one of the laziest arguments against abortion, guns, private healthcare and other first world controversies.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
How does a non-sentient being have potential for intelligence? Fetuses are living being and will receive intelligence rather soon compared to a damn box.
>>>''Similarly, everything has a potential (and probably inevitability) to die or be deconstructed. Does not mean killing anyone you want should be legally allowed.''
This doesn't really have anything to do with keeping potential. If I believe in keeping fetuses alive because of their potential to be intelligent, then I don't want to kill people arbitrarily because they have potential to do something as long as they live.
>>>''"It has a potential to happen" is one of the laziest arguments against abortion, guns, private healthcare and other first world controversies.''
It appears so when you turn it upside down.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
The cardboard box sitting in my apartment has a chance in a few centuries to be infused with artificial intelligence through a complicated nano-technological process, hence becoming intelligent. This means it has a potential to become intelligent, and hence I should not be allowed to throw it in a garbage bin - is basically the same argument as "this bunch of cells can become an intelligent human being one day, hence the woman should not be allowed to get rid of it".
Keep that in mind next time you dispose of something, since you are killing billions of its potential intelligent offsprings.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>The cardboard box sitting in my apartment has a chance in a few centuries to be infused with artificial intelligence through a complicated nano-technological process, hence becoming intelligent.
But it's not alive. AI is also philosophically impossible to become self-aware, nor are cardboard boxes meant to be alive. They aren't designed to be by us. They're boxes.
>>>''This means it has a potential to become intelligent, and hence I should not be allowed to throw it in a garbage bin - is basically the same argument as "this bunch of cells can become an intelligent human being one day, hence the woman should not be allowed to get rid of it".
Keep that in mind next time you dispose of something, since you are killing billions of its potential intelligent offsprings. ''
The butterfly effect is real, but ignoring it in regards to non-living beings without the potential for intelligence (no, AI will never become self-aware. It's ultimately a program) does not mean we have to ignore living beings that will be intelligent. Fetuses have a purpose not like cardboard boxes do.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
We already established that something's current state alone is irrelevant that was your argument, stating that the fetus not being intelligent right now does not mean its intelligence in the future should not be considered.
The cardboard box might not be alive right now. It could be 200 years from now. Not to mention that millions bacteria reside in the box' walls, that IS alive right now and, again, has a potential to become intelligent in the future.
This is a poor argument all in all. If you want to go down this route, you are better off arguing from the position of human supremacy, stating that humans and proto-humans have an abstract absolute worth that other entities do not. The premise is not something many will agree upon, but assuming the premise is accepted, your argument will be logically sound.
On the other hand, arguing from the position of something having potential to become something else is not going to lead anywhere logically. Anything has a potential to become anything.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're making false equivalences, which is why I'm still making the argument. AI will never be self-aware, so forget about the boxes. Bacteria aren't at the same level of us, we can't care about them unless they threaten us or something. We don't care about bacteria rights.
>>>''This is a poor argument all in all. If you want to go down this route, you are better off arguing from the position of human supremacy, stating that humans and proto-humans have an abstract absolute worth that other entities do not. The premise is not something many will agree upon, but assuming the premise is accepted, your argument will be logically sound.''
I actually am, humans are superior to boxes lol.
>>>''On the other hand, arguing from the position of something having potential to become something else is not going to lead anywhere logically. Anything has a potential to become anything.''
No they don't. Boxes can't get free will.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
AIs will most likely be self-aware very soon, possibly within our lifetime. Self-awareness is a result of chemical and/or quantum processes, and nothing prevents those from being implemented in a silicon machine.
I think your misconception here is your assumption that humans are in any way special, other than the fact that we are members of this species. In reality, from the physical point of view, we are all biological machines of merely different scales and development stages. Once you do away with human supremacism natural for many of us and look at things from the position of the external observer, you will see that arguments based on human supremacy evaporate pretty quickly upon close logical inspection.
There is nothing functionally different between a human adult, and, say, a cardboard box with integrated silicon chip making it self-aware and intelligent. You just need to open your mind to the future and possibilities it brings. After all, your own anti-abortion argument is based on the future and possibilities it brings, so it does not do your argument justice to neglect the other factors these entities encompass.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The argument you're presenting is infinitely regressive. If we ascribe value to a cell on the basis that they have the potential to become intelligent, then we must ascribe that value to the cells that gave rise to that cell, which would make many cells that make up certain parts of adult humans' reproductive systems just as worthy of value as a zygote.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 26%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 33%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra