Ben Shapiro Leaves Student Speechless After Asking Why A Fetus Is A Human Life

[Asclepias]

Breathing indicates the body is reacting and working with its environment without the mom doing it for the fetus. Thats kind of part of what sentience is.

Its a known fact that plants are sentient. They aggressively defend themselves in a variety of ways.

No Alexa and Siri dont transition between moods. Thats programming. Neither can have an original thought.

1. Breathing on your own is not something that everyone can do. Using that criteria, it would have been legal to use a saw to cut Christopher Reeve to pieces, like an unborn child. It has nothing to do with sentience. And, take that unborn child out of the womb, and he starts breathing. Unhook Reeve from his ventilator and what would have happened?
2. An unborn child reacts to changes in his environment. He reacts to his world being poked, the sounds he hears, etc.
3. We know the unborn have organized brain activity. Can you say for certain they don't transition between moods?

The bottom line is, a late term unborn child displays more signs of human life than an adult in a coma.

You moron. Christopher breathed as a child.
An unborn child doesnt breath on its own moron.
Doesnt matter. The unborn dont breath on their own.

They don't have to, by design. Once they're mature enough, but it's still legal to shred them like lettuce, they can be taken out of the womb and they breath on their own just fine. Reeve, not so much.

Hmmm, let's see. What infantile insult can I use if I want to sink to your level? I know, PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But I don't want to sink to your level, so I won't.

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Breathing indicates the body is reacting and working with its environment without the mom doing it for the fetus. Thats kind of part of what sentience is.

Its a known fact that plants are sentient. They aggressively defend themselves in a variety of ways.

No Alexa and Siri dont transition between moods. Thats programming. Neither can have an original thought.

1. Breathing on your own is not something that everyone can do. Using that criteria, it would have been legal to use a saw to cut Christopher Reeve to pieces, like an unborn child. It has nothing to do with sentience. And, take that unborn child out of the womb, and he starts breathing. Unhook Reeve from his ventilator and what would have happened?
2. An unborn child reacts to changes in his environment. He reacts to his world being poked, the sounds he hears, etc.
3. We know the unborn have organized brain activity. Can you say for certain they don't transition between moods?

The bottom line is, a late term unborn child displays more signs of human life than an adult in a coma.

You moron. Christopher breathed as a child.
An unborn child doesnt breath on its own moron.
Doesnt matter. The unborn dont breath on their own.

They don't have to, by design. Once they're mature enough, but it's still legal to shred them like lettuce, they can be taken out of the womb and they breath on their own just fine. Reeve, not so much.

Hmmm, let's see. What infantile insult can I use if I want to sink to your level? I know, PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But I don't want to sink to your level, so I won't.

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

Please note a baby is born not a fetus is born but a baby is born it is human it is alive and can be issued a death certificate.

 

[hadit]

Good catch. I should have specified the ones you were talking about. My bad.

Why don't they ever try to put him in his place? I mean, it should be easy for them, right?

You ever get into an debate with someone that thinks a debate should consist of deflections? (insert Azzgod here) You kind of write that person off as a serious challenge. Thats probably why no bothers taking him seriously.

Then it should be easy for them to expose him as a fraud. No, I don't buy your excuses for them.

Why would they waste time exposing something he has already been exposed for? You dont have to buy anything. You just have to deal with the fact he would get his ass ate up with any serious debate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

 

[Asclepias]

You ever get into an debate with someone that thinks a debate should consist of deflections? (insert Azzgod here) You kind of write that person off as a serious challenge. Thats probably why no bothers taking him seriously.

Then it should be easy for them to expose him as a fraud. No, I don't buy your excuses for them.

Why would they waste time exposing something he has already been exposed for? You dont have to buy anything. You just have to deal with the fact he would get his ass ate up with any serious debate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

 

[hadit]

1. Breathing on your own is not something that everyone can do. Using that criteria, it would have been legal to use a saw to cut Christopher Reeve to pieces, like an unborn child. It has nothing to do with sentience. And, take that unborn child out of the womb, and he starts breathing. Unhook Reeve from his ventilator and what would have happened?
2. An unborn child reacts to changes in his environment. He reacts to his world being poked, the sounds he hears, etc.
3. We know the unborn have organized brain activity. Can you say for certain they don't transition between moods?

The bottom line is, a late term unborn child displays more signs of human life than an adult in a coma.

You moron. Christopher breathed as a child.
An unborn child doesnt breath on its own moron.
Doesnt matter. The unborn dont breath on their own.

They don't have to, by design. Once they're mature enough, but it's still legal to shred them like lettuce, they can be taken out of the womb and they breath on their own just fine. Reeve, not so much.

Hmmm, let's see. What infantile insult can I use if I want to sink to your level? I know, PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But I don't want to sink to your level, so I won't.

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

 

[hadit]

Then it should be easy for them to expose him as a fraud. No, I don't buy your excuses for them.

Why would they waste time exposing something he has already been exposed for? You dont have to buy anything. You just have to deal with the fact he would get his ass ate up with any serious debate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

So no one then. Okay, good to know. See, here's the thing. You don't know what Shapiro would have said to that, so your argument is moot.

 

[Asclepias]

You moron. Christopher breathed as a child.
An unborn child doesnt breath on its own moron.
Doesnt matter. The unborn dont breath on their own.

They don't have to, by design. Once they're mature enough, but it's still legal to shred them like lettuce, they can be taken out of the womb and they breath on their own just fine. Reeve, not so much.

Hmmm, let's see. What infantile insult can I use if I want to sink to your level? I know, PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But I don't want to sink to your level, so I won't.

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then it should be easy for them to expose him as a fraud. No, I don't buy your excuses for them.

Why would they waste time exposing something he has already been exposed for? You dont have to buy anything. You just have to deal with the fact he would get his ass ate up with any serious debate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

Assfacesias is now changing the operational definition of what the kid was arguing. LMAO. Another lost debate by Assfaceais. At least he is a consistent loser.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would they waste time exposing something he has already been exposed for? You dont have to buy anything. You just have to deal with the fact he would get his ass ate up with any serious debate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

So no one then. Okay, good to know. See, here's the thing. You don't know what Shapiro would have said to that, so your argument is moot.

The kid is someone. If he wasnt then there would be no thread right? What do you think Shapiro would have said? If you can come up with a coherent response to that then I would show you that your argument is moot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In three generations our Universities went from "Question Everything" to "STFU"

 

[hadit]

They don't have to, by design. Once they're mature enough, but it's still legal to shred them like lettuce, they can be taken out of the womb and they breath on their own just fine. Reeve, not so much.

Hmmm, let's see. What infantile insult can I use if I want to sink to your level? I know, PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But I don't want to sink to your level, so I won't.

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

Far be it from me to place words in your keyboard, so this is the quote to which I was responding: "In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you."

Now, care to deal with what I gave you? I recognize stalling tactics. We can deal with the other two points you raised, but you weren't in that part, so I didn't either.

 

[Asclepias]

Weak sauce debating101

STUDENT:
I believe that sentience (the capacity to feel and perceive, or to reason morally) is what gives something moral value, not necessarily being a human alone”


SHAPIRO:
“OK, so when you’re asleep, can I stab you?”

Simple answer. What does being asleep have to do with sentience? end of debate.

 

[The Original Tree]

STUDENT:
“I just wanted to know why exactly do you think a first-trimester fetus has moral value?” the unidentified student asked.

SHAPIRO:
“A first trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby.”

"So the real question is where are you gonna draw the line? Are you gonna draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it’s very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker and they need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat.”

"Are you going to do it based on brain function? OK, well what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them?”

"The problem is that whenever you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can be applied to people who are adults. So either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t.”


SHAPIRO:
“We both agree that adult human life has intrinsic value — can we start from that premise?”

STUDENT:
I believe that sentience (the capacity to feel and perceive, or to reason morally) is what gives something moral value, not necessarily being a human alone”


SHAPIRO:
“OK, so when you’re asleep, can I stab you?”

STUDENT:
“I’m still considered sentient when I’m asleep,”


SHAPIRO:
“OK, if you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?”

STUDENT:
“Well, then, uhh, no - That’s still potential sentience."


SHAPIRO:
"I agree it is potential sentience. You know what else is potential sentience? Being a fetus”


The student should thank Mr. Shapiro for the FREE EDUCATION / LESSON!

Watch: Student asks Ben Shapiro why a fetus is human life — his answer leaves student speechless

Thank you.

TRUTH

 

[Asclepias]

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

Far be it from me to place words in your keyboard, so this is the quote to which I was responding: "In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you."

Now, care to deal with what I gave you? I recognize stalling tactics. We can deal with the other two points you raised, but you weren't in that part, so I didn't either.

I dont deal with deflections. Once I saw you were deflecting I shut your weak sauce deflection tactic down.

 

[The Original Tree]

In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you.

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

Far be it from me to place words in your keyboard, so this is the quote to which I was responding: "In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you."

Now, care to deal with what I gave you? I recognize stalling tactics. We can deal with the other two points you raised, but you weren't in that part, so I didn't either.

So people who have to use a respirator or iron lung should be killed? What about someone being kept alive while they wait for a lung transplant?

 

[hadit]

That's an opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen a liberal attempt a serious debate in a long time, if ever. They usually go into emotion land and leave reason behind. As to why they would want to expose him, it's obvious. He has a strong following and destroys liberal arguments regularly.

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

So no one then. Okay, good to know. See, here's the thing. You don't know what Shapiro would have said to that, so your argument is moot.

The kid is someone. If he wasnt then there would be no thread right? What do you think Shapiro would have said? If you can come up with a coherent response to that then I would show you that your argument is moot.

I'm not Shapiro, so I'm not going to even guess what he would have said. That's really the whole point, isn't it? You think changing that one word would have confounded him, obviously the kid thought his question would do the same thing. It didn't. I'm fairly confident that had you posed your exact question to Shapiro, he would have had a good answer, but unlike you, I don't read minds without permission.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Weak sauce debating101

STUDENT:
I believe that sentience (the capacity to feel and perceive, or to reason morally) is what gives something moral value, not necessarily being a human alone”


SHAPIRO:
“OK, so when you’re asleep, can I stab you?”

Simple answer. What does being asleep have to do with sentience? end of debate.

When you sleep you cannot feel, perceive or reason morally. The kid gave Ben his operational definition of sentience and Ben asked him to clarify it. Wow you're really dumb. Amazing. It is scientifically impossible for you to experience sentience when you're sleeping given the bio state of our brains.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

Far be it from me to place words in your keyboard, so this is the quote to which I was responding: "In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you."

Now, care to deal with what I gave you? I recognize stalling tactics. We can deal with the other two points you raised, but you weren't in that part, so I didn't either.

I dont deal with deflections. Once I saw you were deflecting I shut your weak sauce deflection tactic down.

Translation: Assfaceias lost another debate. LMAO.

 

[hadit]

A baby is born but for any number of medical reasons can't immediately breathe on his own. He's placed on a respirator in the NICU. Is it legal for a deranged nurse to cut his body to pieces with a saw before he's removed from the respirator?

What does that have to do with what I said? You must be taking lessons from Shapiro.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You made the claim that you have to breathe on your own to establish sentience. I propose a scenario that happens in hospitals today in which a newborn is unable to breathe on his own. It's very simple, is that baby any more or less sentient than his twin brother who isn't on a ventilator, and is it legal to cut him to pieces with a saw?

If you're withdrawing your contention, just say so.

That wasnt the only thing I said which would mean you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Thats why I said you were taking debating lessons from Shapiro. Its a weak tactic to deflect or pretend you didnt notice thats not the only thing I said.

Far be it from me to place words in your keyboard, so this is the quote to which I was responding: "In order to have established sentience you do have to demonstrate the ability to breath on your own. Otherwise you would be dead unless someone or something breathed for you."

Now, care to deal with what I gave you? I recognize stalling tactics. We can deal with the other two points you raised, but you weren't in that part, so I didn't either.

I dont deal with deflections. Once I saw you were deflecting I shut your weak sauce deflection tactic down.

It's a direct answer to your contention. Like I said, I recognize tactics, and I'm seeing lame ones in you. Very sad. I've seen this before. Someone makes a bold statement, then when presented with a vulnerability in it, suddenly starts yelling, "deflection", "irrelevant", anything BUT dealing with what they said. I also noticed a distinct lack of strong liberal debaters from you. Google not responding quick enough?

 

[Asclepias]

I agree your post is an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out when making that post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. When talking about how a person would hypothetically fare in a face to face argument with another person, what else do you have?

In this case, I've seen Shapiro think on his feet and heard his answers. I've also seen the fear he inspired in the average modern liberal, especially in places where they're supposed to be learning, but who would rather destroy their own environment then be exposed to differing thoughts. You haven't named anyone you think would be a formidable opponent, so there's nothing BUT opinion that can be formed at this juncture. Again, stating the obvious.

I just stated the kid he was debating would have beaten him if he had simply said established sentience instead of potential sentience. Shapiro is weak so there is no need to bring out anyone thats actually formidable.

So no one then. Okay, good to know. See, here's the thing. You don't know what Shapiro would have said to that, so your argument is moot.

The kid is someone. If he wasnt then there would be no thread right? What do you think Shapiro would have said? If you can come up with a coherent response to that then I would show you that your argument is moot.

I'm not Shapiro, so I'm not going to even guess what he would have said. That's really the whole point, isn't it? You think changing that one word would have confounded him, obviously the kid thought his question would do the same thing. It didn't. I'm fairly confident that had you posed your exact question to Shapiro, he would have had a good answer, but unlike you, I don't read minds without permission.

First I would have never lowered myself to debating him. It would be like me debating a kid. (Kinda like he did right?)

If for some reason I were to debate him I would never make the opening statement like the kid did.

If for some reason it got that far to the point where I said the kid would have won the debate by changing his wording I again ask what is it you think Shapiro would have been able to say to regain the upper hand?