The Controversial Thread

[Assume Nothing]

Well, I've seen a declining number of debate topics recently, and I think it would be a good idea to direct a chunk of it into a single thread.

 

Consider any of the following arguments, and agree/disagree with some justification.

 

Abortion is morally wrong.

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

Meat eating ought to be banned.

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

Animal testing should be banned.

Not all people should have the same rights.

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles (more applicable to the UK, as the National Health Service pays for pretty much all noncosmetic treatment)

The use of torture can be justified

 

If possible, please contribute/start a new argument of your own.

 

[hide=Please use the following layout]

[b]Abortion is morally wrong.[/b]

[b]George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.[/b]

[b]Meat eating ought to be banned.[/b]

[b]Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.[/b]

[b]Animal testing should be banned.[/b]

[b]Not all people should have the same rights.[/b]

[b]Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.[/b]

[b]Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.[/b]

[b]Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.[/b]

[b]Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles[/b]

[b]The use of torture can be justified.[/b]

[/hide]

[Shiny]

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

 

Agree, to an extent, but basically I believe when your very own life is threatened, you have a right to fight to live. I think you are never justified in killing a would-be murderer if you have knocked him/her unconscious and/or disabled them. That would be murder unto itself, based I believe by the fact that you went a step further than necessary.

[jimmy_jim]

What does killing in defence extend to though? If a wife has been beaten by her husband on and off, then all of a sudden she decides to shoot and kill him should she get off? There was a case in Australia with a similar situation, she shot and killed her husband and was let off, no sentence at all.

[Shiny]

For me, I would draw the line at current danger only. If your husband was beating the wife and she killed him during the beating then, yeah, sure, self-defence. When it is premeditated, that's when it is an issue.

[Hobgoblinpie]

If the immediate threat of your death is there, then I believe that if you kill someone in that situation, then it is fine. You did not intend to harm a person, but were forced into a situation whereby it was either you or him/her.

 

For the not saving someone's life one:

This is a good point. However, I believe that you should factor in risks to the potential rescuer. For instance, if someone falls into a freezing cold river, then would you expect anyone to jump in after them? Both bodies would start to shut down due to hypothermia, and both people would die.

[Dax]

Abortion is morally wrong.

 

I'm for choice. I don't think I would be able to abort my own, but for other people, it should be their own choice.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

 

But it tastes so damn good. D:

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

 

No. I like my anonymity how it is, thanks.

 

Not all people should have the same rights.

 

Nah, everyone should be one and the same.

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

 

Depends on the conditions, as Hobgoblin said up there.

[Zaaps1]

I feel these are all such general statements that arguing for or against the general concept is impossible. Such cases such all be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the actions were correct or incorrect. Establishing a general view towards the topic would muddle such judgment for most people.

[Nifflin]

Not all people should have the same rights.

 

I find it ridiculous that some scum, contributing nothing to society, fried in the head from years of meth, has the same voting power as I do. People should have voting power based on their contributions to society.

[Sy_Accursed]

Not all people should have the same rights.

 

I find it ridiculous that some scum, contributing nothing to society, fried in the head from years of meth, has the same voting power as I do. People should have voting power based on their contributions to society.

 

By that logic young people and students shouldn't have a vote simply because they have not had the chance to contribute.

Or people who are on benefits/unemployed for genuine reasons (not tht lay abouts/benefit cheats) shouldnt vote simply because of misfortune in thier lives.

[Nifflin]

Not all people should have the same rights.

 

I find it ridiculous that some scum, contributing nothing to society, fried in the head from years of meth, has the same voting power as I do. People should have voting power based on their contributions to society.

 

By that logic young people and students shouldn't have a vote simply because they have not had the chance to contribute.

Or people who are on benefits/unemployed for genuine reasons (not tht lay abouts/benefit cheats) shouldnt vote simply because of misfortune in thier lives.

 

Young people will get their chance later in life.

[httpBen]

Abortion is morally wrong.

I personally think it's up to the mother of the child. I know it's my baby too, but I would never tell a woman to give up her child, when it is her body that it has to affect. Personally though, I believe abortions should only be done in the cases of rape and if it puts the mother's health at serious risk.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

You ought be banned for suggesting such a thing.

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

I can see the pros of that - so many less [bleep]s hiding behind their anonymous state, but no thanks.

 

Animal testing should be banned.

Hard to say. Animal testing for the betterment (health-wise) of our species, or another species, I guess, is fine in my book. For cosmetic reasons and such, no.

 

Not all people should have the same rights.

The same basic rights. But should serial killers and the like have the right to have luxuries in jail? No.

 

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

Too circumstantial to say.

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

No. There are too many reasons why a person may be unable to save another's life. Going through that ordeal would be traumatic enough without having to face criminal charges if you fail. Again, too many grey areas.

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles.

Though I'm not in the UK, this I agree with. I think those who abuse their bodies - through smoking, alcohol, and other drugs should not be afforded the same healthcare as someone who has not abused their body. These people have brought this upon themselves and so should deal with the consequences, not expect the government to look after them. However, this applies more to the current generation whom are well-educated on what these substances do to your body. it would be difficult to moderate though.

[Assume Nothing]

I feel these are all such general statements that arguing for or against the general concept is impossible. Such cases such all be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the actions were correct or incorrect. Establishing a general view towards the topic would muddle such judgment for most people.

 

Then go ahead, argue your specific position and reword the argument a bit.

 

The abortion arguments are difficult, as there's so many different kinds of abortion, and it's a subjective argument. Besides, if you're going down the human rights route - there has to be a compromise of either the mother's rights, or the fetus' (Who has arguably little to no rights, as it's not a developed being yet. Strictly speaking, under 5 weeks)

 

There are pros and cons to internet anonymity - Pro's including the prevention of stalking, ability to express opinions without fear of retaliation/backlash, etc. The con's would include cyber attacks such as DDOSing and harassment by /b/. I think there should be a level of anonymity to protect users, but not to the extent that the authorities are unable to resolve online crime.

 

As you stated - Some of these arguments are indeed too general to argue the positions.

 

Please, suggest some improvements to them, or contribute your own. Every little helps.

[vettro]

Abortion is morally wrong.

Absolutely. Life from conception. Just thinking about the hundreds of millions of aborted fetuses makes me sick.

 

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

Not so sure about this one. I think the president should be fairly immune to the consequences of his actions as a president, regardless of how controversial and questionable they were.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

Nope. All things in moderation. How about a ban on fast food restaurants?

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

Not very applicable to me. I wouldn't say something over the internet I wouldn't say to your face. But I can see how the anonymity could free someone up too much.

 

Animal testing should be banned.

I have no problem with this honestly. I think pain in general isn't great. And I can see how animal rights activists would hate this. But honestly, don't we have bigger issues?

 

Not all people should have the same rights.

This is un-American and un-Constitutional from the start. Although if you specified which rights I could be more specific. I think that there are many things Americans take for granted that they don't realize that these things are not a "right" per se.

 

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

So if someone is running at me without a knife I'm not going to shoot him? Excuse me?

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

I find it a little sad this is an issue that needs to be discussed. If someone's dying or severely hurt, you help him. Unfortunately I can see how this could be an issue. Honestly, as much as I would like to say yes, you really can't. Because then you would have all this complicated stipulations and crap to determine if you were truly in a position to help this person or if you noticed in time. A more interesting question to me would be: what if in attempting to save someone's life, you actually harm them more or kill them? I am presuming this is entirely unintentional. For example, someone is on the ground hurt, you pick them up to carry them to a hospital but they die on the way to the hospital and maybe the way you held them or treated the situation wasn't "correct". Currently this type of accidental killing is protected. But still questionable.

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles (more applicable to the UK, as the National Health Service pays for pretty much all noncosmetic treatment)

Screw healthcare. But I know what you're talking about. I think that nationalized and private healthcare providers should be able to change their fees (or even refuse someone) depending on their physical health. If you're a smoking, hamburger eating three hundred pounder, your chance of getting a heart attack is extremely likely relative to mine. So why should we pay the same premiums? It's the same way car insurance works. If you have a history of being a reckless driver, you're going to have substantially higher premiums.

[The Runar]

Abortion is morally wrong.

Depends on the situation. For example if the woman is raped, I consider it okay.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

I've never really understood why some people think it should be.

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

Absolutely not. Anonymity is necessary for true freedom of speech, and everyone has some secrets they probably wouldn't tell about using their own name.

 

Animal testing should be banned.

This is a hard question. In my opinion testing cosmetics and such on animals should be banned, but medicine may be okay in some cases.

 

Not all people should have the same rights.

Everyone should have the same rights, but also the same rules and responsibilities. So if you don't do your work, do not expect anyone to do anything for you, either. However, the most basic human rights - like the right to live in safety - should be for everyone. Anything else should be only for those who deserve them.

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

Yes, unless by doing so you could easily die yourself. In that case you should help as much as you can - call for help or something.

[Boris5000]

Abortion is morally wrong.

Up to the mother at the end of the day. If it has a life-threatening effect on the Mother and/or Child. In the end, it is down to the mother to decide.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

Shouldn't be banned. Only male animals are killed for meat anyway. So there isn't a problem. Really, there is not a problem. Why should we feed "useless" animals, where they don't produce eggs, milk etc.

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

I have no problem with this. You can still lie.

 

Animal testing should be banned.

No, because we rely on it so much anyway.

 

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

Yes it is.

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

What if you are physically unable to save someones life...

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles (more applicable to the UK, as the National Health Service pays for pretty much all noncosmetic treatment)

Yes.

 

 

I'm suprised you didn't put assisted-suicide on the list.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm suprised you didn't put assisted-suicide on the list.

 

That's actually not a bad idea. I think I'll add it to the list now.

 

Simply stating whether you agree/disagree isn't enough though - Why should healthcare be charged based on lifestyles? Surely if everyone is paying for their national insurance, then they've earnt the right to treat their body however they want.

 

On the topic of animal testing, an example of where it would be a bad thing is when people test shampoos on rabbits until the point of blindness - surely that's questionable enough to object to animal testing.

 

If anonymity was removed, and a system was implemented where everyone uses a form of internet national ID - surely that would be a bad choice, as the freedom of speech will become far more limited than it ought to be.

 

Meat production (including transportation of food, natural greenhouse gases by farting, and other factors) produces up to 18% of the CO2 emissions according to the FAO in 2006. Why is raising animals in order to slaughter them for meat 'not a problem'? I'm referring to the meat industry breeding cattle specifically to fatten and kill for food here.

 

So, please post a little justification before coming to a judgement.

[Nomrombom]

Abortion is morally wrong.

No. Mother's choice. Of course, there is a certain point at which you should not be able to abort any more (which they have already established). The whole "life from conception" thing boggles my mind. At conception there isn't even a fetus. It's just cells. Fetuses can't think and can't feel pain before a certain point, so before that point, abortion is fine (IMO).

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

Meh.

Meat eating ought to be banned.

No. Practices could be better in terms of transport and CO2 emissions, but eating what you want is part of being free.

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

Nah. Anonymity teaches people to get a thick skin because everyone can insult you without you knowing who. Thick skin translates to happier person IRL.

Animal testing should be banned.

Depends what kind. Anything that causes harm (blindness for example) shouldn't be allowed. If it's just stuff that isn't harmful, then fine.

Not all people should have the same rights.

Certain criminal offences should (and do) reduce rights. Other than that, all should have same rights.

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

Not if your life is in danger. But the above discussion about non life threatening situations... Herp? Of course if your life isn't in danger then it's murder/manslaughter.

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.

No. People are going to commit suicide if they want to anyway, might as well regulate it.

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

Rofl no. It's not anyone's obligation to save another person's life. It would be nice, of course, but you can't bring consequences down for not doing it.

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles.

Yes. Especially smokers.

[sees_all1]

In my opinion, this thread is a troll thread.

There's some controversy for you.

[obfuscator]

In my opinion, this thread is a troll thread.

There's some controversy for you.

Whoooaaaaaaaa

 

Pretty sure my opinions on all of them are well known. As for the healthcare thing, maybe justifiable in a public healthcare system. Certainly not in a private one.

[Assume Nothing]

In my opinion, this thread is a troll thread.

There's some controversy for you.

 

I fail to see how there is any 'trolling' going on in here, except for your post. There are arguments for both sides of the proposed topics - Why are they 'trollish'?

 

@Nomrombom - I don't see how 'thick skin' would make anonymity a good thing. Whilst I acknowledge that there's anonymity to protect users, anonymity can be excessive to the point where chaos may ensue (see 4chan for example).

[sees_all1]

In my opinion, this thread is a troll thread.

There's some controversy for you.

 

I fail to see how there is any 'trolling' going on in here, except for your post. There are arguments for both sides of the proposed topics - Why are they 'trollish'?

Its not the users posting, its the thread.

[Assume Nothing]

In my opinion, this thread is a troll thread.

There's some controversy for you.

 

I fail to see how there is any 'trolling' going on in here, except for your post. There are arguments for both sides of the proposed topics - Why are they 'trollish'?

Its not the users posting, its the thread.

 

The purpose and intention of this thread isn't to invoke a negative reaction - it's purpose is to discuss topics which may be controversial, debating in a constructive manner. I don't think it would be a good idea to be bogged down on this argument, as it merely creates clutter.

 

I agree with most views expressed here so far, so I think I ought to wait before I post.

[Giordano]

Eh, a generalized thread for everything? I wouldn't say its trolling but it's sure...ineffective.

[Alg]

Eh, a generalized thread for everything? I wouldn't say its trolling but it's sure...ineffective.

And it opens the door for the same kinds of trolling and general assholery that we see on other debate threads (I disagree with your beliefs, therefore you are inferior. Please cease to exist at the sound of the beep). The line between debate and flaming isn't thin, but it frequently gets crossed all the same.

 

If you want mature, intelligent debate, you've got to make sure that the people posting on it are mature and intelligent enough to do so, and keep out the people that clearly aren't.

[Nomrombom]

Simple - don't do stuff that will get a legion on your ass (throwing puppies in a river, for example). Basically everyone who got trolled by Anon deserved it. Maybe that just makes me a douche, but basically everyone who have been actively trolled IRL by 4chan, in my opinion, deserved what they got.