text
stringlengths 1
25.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 6
26.1k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 7
103
| idx
int64 18
55.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?" 2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists. 3. You are supporting me on number 5. 4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself. 5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport" 1: In none of my arguments was I making factually verifiable statements. These are opinion based, somewhat moralistic arguments based in logic. 2: Yes, they were. They attacked British troops, burned down buildings owned by the British, terrorized British citizens, as a rebellious faction, not an independent country (it wasn't a country till they won the war). 3: Your argument on #5 does not actually address my points though, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am supporting you. 4: You go to jail for killing other people. I don't see the argument here. If you are saying peaceful protests, that is all fine and well until the government starts breaking out the tear gas and "rehabilitation" camps. 5:Yes, yes they can. So? There has once again been no response to my primary point, which is that terrorism is primarily a means of expression. We arbitrarily label those terrorists who support our value systems to be heros, sometimes martyrs, who are revered, while those who oppose our value systems are just dogs murdering innocent people. The complete hypocrisy of this view means that there can be no choice but a Con ballot when we realize that terrorism is an expression of beliefs, whether we like it or not, and that numerous countries, considered "good" by our current value paradigm have been founded through terrorist actions. | 1 | LB628 |
"1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?"
2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists.
3. You are supporting me on number 5.
4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself.
5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport"
1: In none of my arguments was I making factually verifiable statements. These are opinion based, somewhat moralistic arguments based in logic.
2: Yes, they were. They attacked British troops, burned down buildings owned by the British, terrorized British citizens, as a rebellious faction, not an independent country (it wasn't a country till they won the war).
3: Your argument on #5 does not actually address my points though, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am supporting you.
4: You go to jail for killing other people. I don't see the argument here. If you are saying peaceful protests, that is all fine and well until the government starts breaking out the tear gas and "rehabilitation" camps.
5:Yes, yes they can. So?
There has once again been no response to my primary point, which is that terrorism is primarily a means of expression. We arbitrarily label those terrorists who support our value systems to be heros, sometimes martyrs, who are revered, while those who oppose our value systems are just dogs murdering innocent people. The complete hypocrisy of this view means that there can be no choice but a Con ballot when we realize that terrorism is an expression of beliefs, whether we like it or not, and that numerous countries, considered "good" by our current value paradigm have been founded through terrorist actions. | News | 2 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,409 |
Terrorist are bad because many people can die in one attack. Terrorists also just want to kill people. They want to kill themselves and kill other people. They can wipe out some of the population. In a war, government might send terrorist to bomb a place that is important to a country. They create fear and kill innocent people. They also break the law and attack. When a country is in envy with another country, they might just bomb the whole place. <URL>... I thank whoever accepts this debate. | 0 | arcticanticsdebater |
Terrorist are bad because many people can die in one attack. Terrorists also just want to kill people. They want to kill themselves and kill other people. They can wipe out some of the population. In a war, government might send terrorist to bomb a place that is important to a country. They create fear and kill innocent people. They also break the law and attack. When a country is in envy with another country, they might just bomb the whole place.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I thank whoever accepts this debate. | News | 0 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,410 |
I thank my opponent for entering this debate. 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention. 3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries. 4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too. 5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election. I await my opponent's rebuttal | 0 | arcticanticsdebater |
I thank my opponent for entering this debate.
1. Where is your evidence?
2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention.
3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries.
4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too.
5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election.
I await my opponent's rebuttal | News | 1 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,411 |
1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?" 2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists. 3. You are supporting me on number 5. 4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself. 5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport. Final Statement: Terriost are bad for the world by looking all of the above | 0 | arcticanticsdebater |
1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?"
2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists.
3. You are supporting me on number 5.
4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself.
5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport.
Final Statement:
Terriost are bad for the world by looking all of the above | News | 2 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,412 |
The Bible IS infallible. Just because the cherry pickers of today choose to turn a blind eye to God's written word does not mean that the Bible is not infallible. You have conformed to the ways of mainstream society, the path that turns away from God, but that does not mean that God approves. Your understanding of right from wrong has nothing to do with God's intentions. You can post as many Biblical examples that fly directly into the face of your own personal beliefs as you want, but disrespecting the most popular and the most published and the best-selling book of all time on the planet Earth won't change the fact that evidence speaks for itself. The Bible IS infallible. | 0 | solo |
The Bible IS infallible. Just because the cherry pickers of today choose to turn a blind eye to God's written word does not mean that the Bible is not infallible. You have conformed to the ways of mainstream society, the path that turns away from God, but that does not mean that God approves. Your understanding of right from wrong has nothing to do with God's intentions. You can post as many Biblical examples that fly directly into the face of your own personal beliefs as you want, but disrespecting the most popular and the most published and the best-selling book of all time on the planet Earth won't change the fact that evidence speaks for itself. The Bible IS infallible. | Religion | 0 | the-bible-is-not-infallible/2/ | 54,543 |
God knows what He is doing. Just because you do not understand His ways does not mean He and His word are not infallible. It just means that you do not understand such complexities. Thank you. | 0 | solo |
God knows what He is doing. Just because you do not understand His ways does not mean He and His word are not infallible. It just means that you do not understand such complexities. Thank you. | Religion | 1 | the-bible-is-not-infallible/2/ | 54,544 |
All that you've done is post scriptures that you take issue against. The bible is God's approved word. God does not make mistakes. Therefore, the Bible IS infallible. Thank you. | 0 | solo |
All that you've done is post scriptures that you take issue against. The bible is God's approved word. God does not make mistakes. Therefore, the Bible IS infallible. Thank you. | Religion | 2 | the-bible-is-not-infallible/2/ | 54,545 |
Hello codiz "with a star studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz" Well, you have to bat 9 players in a game. Ellsberry and Youkoulis Are the only good hitters that have the health to last all year. Since the start of the debate, ortiz and MAnny have gone down with injuries, and since they are older you don't know how long they'll be out. I heard David Ortiz could have season ending surgery. "they also have the best bullpen in the american league" Including the whole pitching staff, the Red sox are 5th in ERA 4th in Saves 5th in hits 7th in runs 1st in wins 4th in BAA <URL>... If they had the best bullpen, they would have been iin first in many more categories. PLease show facts to support this opinion. I will provide a further argument next round. | 0 | chevy10294 |
Hello codiz
"with a star studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz"
Well, you have to bat 9 players in a game. Ellsberry and Youkoulis Are the only good hitters that have the health to last all year. Since the start of the debate, ortiz and MAnny have gone down with injuries, and since they are older you don't know how long they'll be out. I heard David Ortiz could have season ending surgery.
"they also have the best bullpen in the american league"
Including the whole pitching staff, the Red sox are
5th in ERA
4th in Saves
5th in hits
7th in runs
1st in wins
4th in BAA http://sports.espn.go.com...
If they had the best bullpen, they would have been iin first in many more categories. PLease show facts to support this opinion.
I will provide a further argument next round. | Sports | 0 | the-boston-red-sox-will-win-the-world-series-again-this-year/1/ | 54,556 |
Hello My opponet has seemed to forfeited this round, so I'll give a little bit of information. 1)David Ortiz could be out for the rest of the year, so you can't say your lineup is," studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz,why wouldny they?" And at Manny's age, he coulld get hurt any game. 2)There are teams with young players that are looking to strike in the playoffs. I think they can. They are the teams like the Rays, Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Padres. Those teams could hold up, injury wise, longer than the Red Sox throughout the year. 3)There is a monster in thier division waiting to strike in the name of the Yankees. Don't you think the tisdes have turned after the day the Red Sox fight in the dugout and then the Yankees hit a walk off? There's some good talent on that team. We have seen them make a run in the 2nd half plenty of times before, so do't count them out. | 0 | chevy10294 |
Hello
My opponet has seemed to forfeited this round, so I'll give a little bit of information.
1)David Ortiz could be out for the rest of the year, so you can't say your lineup is," studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz,why wouldny they?" And at Manny's age, he coulld get hurt any game.
2)There are teams with young players that are looking to strike in the playoffs. I think they can. They are the teams like the Rays, Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Padres. Those teams could hold up, injury wise, longer than the Red Sox throughout the year.
3)There is a monster in thier division waiting to strike in the name of the Yankees. Don't you think the tisdes have turned after the day the Red Sox fight in the dugout and then the Yankees hit a walk off? There's some good talent on that team. We have seen them make a run in the 2nd half plenty of times before, so do't count them out. | Sports | 1 | the-boston-red-sox-will-win-the-world-series-again-this-year/1/ | 54,557 |
with a star studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz,why wouldny they? they also have the best bullpen in the american league.they also have the best players of tomorrow like dustin pedroia and jacoby ellsbury. | 0 | codiz |
with a star studded lineup,example:manny ramirez. david ortiz,why wouldny they?
they also have the best bullpen in the american league.they also have the best players of tomorrow like dustin pedroia and jacoby ellsbury. | Sports | 0 | the-boston-red-sox-will-win-the-world-series-again-this-year/1/ | 54,558 |
I accept. There is a 750 character limit so I'll have to be brief. My opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in showing his assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old is true. I'd like to request a source from my opponent for his moon theory. There are several pieces of evidence that give credit to an Earth older than 6000 years. As the character limits won't allow me to go in depth into each piece of evidence, I'll include a source link which lists and describes evidence for an old Earth: <URL>... There are no comparable pieces of evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years old. As such, we can reasonably assume that the Earth is not 6000 years old, but much older. | 0 | 1Credo |
I accept. There is a 750 character limit so I'll have to be brief. My opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in showing his assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old is true. I'd like to request a source from my opponent for his moon theory. There are several pieces of evidence that give credit to an Earth older than 6000 years. As the character limits won't allow me to go in depth into each piece of evidence, I'll include a source link which lists and describes evidence for an old Earth: http://rationalwiki.org... There are no comparable pieces of evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years old. As such, we can reasonably assume that the Earth is not 6000 years old, but much older. | Science | 0 | the-earth-is-6000-years-old/1/ | 54,595 |
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a "tidal bulge" on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there"s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma"less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! | 0 | DevarD |
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a "tidal bulge" on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.
If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there"s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma"less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! | Science | 0 | the-earth-is-6000-years-old/1/ | 54,596 |
Hello fellow debaters. As DDO's most vocal advocate of legalizing marijuana, I decided to challenge my debating skills and argue the opposite in favor of criminalizing one of America's favorite past-times. As the instigator of this debate and the one in affirmation of the resolution, Pro has the burden of proving that the U.S. should legalize marijuana. If I can negate all of his arguments (and I will), then you have no reason to vote Pro. In addition, I'll conclude with some final arguments of my own. Thanks, Pro, for starting the debate and good luck! -- Pro's Contentions -- 1) We could tax marijuana and profit. 2) Legalizing pot would create jobs. 3) A lot of people would leave jail. 4) Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace. 5) Pot would only be for people 18+ 6) Pot has medicinal uses. -- Rebuttal -- In one fell swoop, I can most certainly negate my opponent's first two premises. Pro insists that the government and society would both profit off of legalizing marijuana because we could tax the product and create jobs for the people. Ladies and gentlemen, this is wishful thinking. Consider this: If marijuana plants were legal, would you go to the store to buy it, my friends? No. You would do what Pro suggested in R1 -- grow it in your right own backyard. Or, like most people, in warehouses or little hydroponic containers in your home. This would be faster, cheaper, easier and the overall most convenient and resourceful option on any cost-benefit analysis. Thus legalization would NOT lead to the creation of any new jobs, or bring in any new revenue to the government (who already taxes way too much, in my opinion). This brings me to Pro's next argument. Pro insists that by decriminalizing marijuana, a lot of people would be released from jail. I've got two main arguments here. First, if you criminalize pot, many people will lose their jobs including cops, lawyers, DEA officers, etc. This brings me to my second point. If these people are all out of work, AND a whole bunch of people are released from jail therefore being expected to work, then where do you suggest these people find jobs? Nearly 10% of the population is unemployed at the moment which is one of the biggest detriments to the American economy. I've already proven how legalizing pot won't create jobs, so where do you expect these thousands of misplaced workers to go? The result would be an increase in taxes for the working people, and more people unemployed than ever. This is not only bad to the economy but society as a whole. When people don't have "real jobs," they resort to criminal activity to make money. This would make life unsafer, and for the offenders, their punishments more intense thus leading to their imprisonment and perhaps the ruining of their lives in a more disastrous way. Pro's 4th point is that pot makes people tranquil, and as such it can help us establish world peace. Well, a bunch of Americans already smoke pot, and guess what -- there's not world peace. Again, this is wishful thinking on the part of Pro. We have war and unstable nations/relations in this world for deep reasons - hatred and greed - that even the fattest blunt or greenest bowl could not cure. Additionally, while pot is known to make people feel silly, sleepy and hungry, it's also just as known to make people apathetic, lazy and unproductive. Do we really need an increase of distracted drivers on the road or people being less productive than they already are? Just because people may not get caught or in trouble for their irresponsible behavior while high doesn't mean that the behavior itself wasn't wrong. Next, Pro argues that pot should only be legal for people who are 18 and older. Right... the same way that nobody under 18 smokes cigarettes, and people under 21 don't drink. Ha! Pro and I both know that this law would NOT be enforceable; especially with people being able to grow it in their own home with ease. As such, we can assume that minors will be ingesting THC on a daily basis. Not only is this morally questionable, but it socially irresponsible as hell. We're trusted to encourage healthy habits for our children. And while there ARE medicinal uses for marijuana (I'll address that in a second), there are also known DANGERS of the drug as well. So, on to Pro's final argument: Medicinal marijuana. As I said, though there are known medical uses for marijuana, there are also significant health risks. For instance, smoking pot is known to weaken people's immune system, increase the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerate some of the diseases it's trying to help, progresses the speed of HIV and AIDS faster, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc. So, it would seem that the dangers of marijuana cancel out the benefits of marijuana. Plus, let's not ignore the reality that legalizing pot would undoubtedly feed into the obesity problem in the United States (haha pun intended). Not only does pot give you the munchies, but it also encourages the consumption of delicious snacks such as pot brownies or hash cookies. This obesity of course can lead to cardiovascular trouble and diabetes to name a few risks. Finally, pot is illegal and yet marijuana still benefits people in a healthy way. Why? Those individuals have prescriptions. As such, this is a completely moot point on the part of Pro. Illegal pot still benefits those who are deemed to need it by doctors and psychologists. If people would like to self-medicate with pot, they can see a doctor and see if they meet the criteria, and move to a state that allows medicinal marijuana. All of Pro's contentions have been dismantled; Back to my opponent for now :) | 0 | Danielle |
Hello fellow debaters. As DDO's most vocal advocate of legalizing marijuana, I decided to challenge my debating skills and argue the opposite in favor of criminalizing one of America's favorite past-times. As the instigator of this debate and the one in affirmation of the resolution, Pro has the burden of proving that the U.S. should legalize marijuana. If I can negate all of his arguments (and I will), then you have no reason to vote Pro. In addition, I'll conclude with some final arguments of my own. Thanks, Pro, for starting the debate and good luck!
-- Pro's Contentions --
1) We could tax marijuana and profit.
2) Legalizing pot would create jobs.
3) A lot of people would leave jail.
4) Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace.
5) Pot would only be for people 18+
6) Pot has medicinal uses.
-- Rebuttal --
In one fell swoop, I can most certainly negate my opponent's first two premises. Pro insists that the government and society would both profit off of legalizing marijuana because we could tax the product and create jobs for the people. Ladies and gentlemen, this is wishful thinking. Consider this: If marijuana plants were legal, would you go to the store to buy it, my friends? No. You would do what Pro suggested in R1 -- grow it in your right own backyard. Or, like most people, in warehouses or little hydroponic containers in your home. This would be faster, cheaper, easier and the overall most convenient and resourceful option on any cost-benefit analysis. Thus legalization would NOT lead to the creation of any new jobs, or bring in any new revenue to the government (who already taxes way too much, in my opinion).
This brings me to Pro's next argument. Pro insists that by decriminalizing marijuana, a lot of people would be released from jail. I've got two main arguments here. First, if you criminalize pot, many people will lose their jobs including cops, lawyers, DEA officers, etc. This brings me to my second point. If these people are all out of work, AND a whole bunch of people are released from jail therefore being expected to work, then where do you suggest these people find jobs? Nearly 10% of the population is unemployed at the moment which is one of the biggest detriments to the American economy. I've already proven how legalizing pot won't create jobs, so where do you expect these thousands of misplaced workers to go? The result would be an increase in taxes for the working people, and more people unemployed than ever. This is not only bad to the economy but society as a whole. When people don't have "real jobs," they resort to criminal activity to make money. This would make life unsafer, and for the offenders, their punishments more intense thus leading to their imprisonment and perhaps the ruining of their lives in a more disastrous way.
Pro's 4th point is that pot makes people tranquil, and as such it can help us establish world peace. Well, a bunch of Americans already smoke pot, and guess what -- there's not world peace. Again, this is wishful thinking on the part of Pro. We have war and unstable nations/relations in this world for deep reasons - hatred and greed - that even the fattest blunt or greenest bowl could not cure. Additionally, while pot is known to make people feel silly, sleepy and hungry, it's also just as known to make people apathetic, lazy and unproductive. Do we really need an increase of distracted drivers on the road or people being less productive than they already are? Just because people may not get caught or in trouble for their irresponsible behavior while high doesn't mean that the behavior itself wasn't wrong.
Next, Pro argues that pot should only be legal for people who are 18 and older. Right... the same way that nobody under 18 smokes cigarettes, and people under 21 don't drink. Ha! Pro and I both know that this law would NOT be enforceable; especially with people being able to grow it in their own home with ease. As such, we can assume that minors will be ingesting THC on a daily basis. Not only is this morally questionable, but it socially irresponsible as hell. We're trusted to encourage healthy habits for our children. And while there ARE medicinal uses for marijuana (I'll address that in a second), there are also known DANGERS of the drug as well.
So, on to Pro's final argument: Medicinal marijuana. As I said, though there are known medical uses for marijuana, there are also significant health risks. For instance, smoking pot is known to weaken people's immune system, increase the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerate some of the diseases it's trying to help, progresses the speed of HIV and AIDS faster, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc. So, it would seem that the dangers of marijuana cancel out the benefits of marijuana.
Plus, let's not ignore the reality that legalizing pot would undoubtedly feed into the obesity problem in the United States (haha pun intended). Not only does pot give you the munchies, but it also encourages the consumption of delicious snacks such as pot brownies or hash cookies. This obesity of course can lead to cardiovascular trouble and diabetes to name a few risks.
Finally, pot is illegal and yet marijuana still benefits people in a healthy way. Why? Those individuals have prescriptions. As such, this is a completely moot point on the part of Pro. Illegal pot still benefits those who are deemed to need it by doctors and psychologists. If people would like to self-medicate with pot, they can see a doctor and see if they meet the criteria, and move to a state that allows medicinal marijuana.
All of Pro's contentions have been dismantled; Back to my opponent for now :) | Miscellaneous | 0 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,653 |
Welcome to the site, Pro. To clarify, I am a SHE, not a HE :) Back to the arguments... Pro begins by saying that pot will create jobs because people will start their own hemp businesses. This is an economically unsound argument. Again, since pot would be legal, and people would presumably grow their own to save money, then they're not going to buy it from other people either in the form of marijuana or hemp products. Additionally, you'll notice that Pro agreed that law enforcement and the like would lose their jobs. Pro contends this by saying "their job would be easier." Okay? They wouldn't have a job - that's the point. Next Pro argues that people would have jobs as hemp and the like would be used as energy alternatives. The reality is that hemp is not ideal for these things. On the contrary, the increasingly popular solar power, wind power and of course hybrid options are more feasible, practical and effective. Therefore my opponent has been unable to uphold any of his points thus far or negate my own. Moving on, Pro writes that I'm wrong in noting that people would do things like go to work high. I'd like to point out that I never said anything about going to work high. What I did say was that it's a FACT that just as pot is known to make people feel silly, giggly and sleepy, that it's also known to make people lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive. Therefore Pro not only straw manned my argument, but also provided a moot point which is irrelevant. My argument was that these negative impacts DO affect smokers, which is not a contention in favor of legalization. Pro then says something about those 18+ that I couldn't quite comprehend. I think he said that only those over 18 could legally buy it in the drug stores; however, I already said how young people would still be able to acquire it easier if it were legal, which could be considered irresponsible by law makers. Further, once again, people wouldn't have to buy it in the store -- they would grow it. Pro acknowledges that minors would grow it, therefore he concedes this argument to me. Next Pro writes, "As we all know marijuana has no side effects..." That is a completely false statement. As I said in my last round, there are significant health risks including weakening people's immune system, increasing the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerating some of the diseases it's trying to help, progressing the speed of HIV and AIDS, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc [1]. You'll notice that Pro did not combat these valid points at all, and merely stated that there are no side effects. This is blatantly wrong. Pro continues to say that there are medicinal benefits to marijuana to which I have never disagreed. Instead, I argued that there are also significant risks which could be considered to cancel out any potential benefits. Pro continues to point out that pot is beneficial because while it induces munchies, it's okay because marijuana can provide a cure for anorexia. Haha that's a ridiculous argument with no factual basis, so it should not be taken into consideration on the part of the Pro. And finally, you'll note that Pro failed to demonstrate how smoking pot would lead to world peace. As I said, just because pot makes some people lazy and tranquil doesn't mean that it would solve the world's problems or cure people's mental illness or thirst for power and greed, etc. The resolution once again has been negated. Reference: [1] <URL>... | 0 | Danielle |
Welcome to the site, Pro.
To clarify, I am a SHE, not a HE :)
Back to the arguments...
Pro begins by saying that pot will create jobs because people will start their own hemp businesses. This is an economically unsound argument. Again, since pot would be legal, and people would presumably grow their own to save money, then they're not going to buy it from other people either in the form of marijuana or hemp products. Additionally, you'll notice that Pro agreed that law enforcement and the like would lose their jobs. Pro contends this by saying "their job would be easier." Okay? They wouldn't have a job - that's the point.
Next Pro argues that people would have jobs as hemp and the like would be used as energy alternatives. The reality is that hemp is not ideal for these things. On the contrary, the increasingly popular solar power, wind power and of course hybrid options are more feasible, practical and effective. Therefore my opponent has been unable to uphold any of his points thus far or negate my own.
Moving on, Pro writes that I'm wrong in noting that people would do things like go to work high. I'd like to point out that I never said anything about going to work high. What I did say was that it's a FACT that just as pot is known to make people feel silly, giggly and sleepy, that it's also known to make people lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive. Therefore Pro not only straw manned my argument, but also provided a moot point which is irrelevant. My argument was that these negative impacts DO affect smokers, which is not a contention in favor of legalization.
Pro then says something about those 18+ that I couldn't quite comprehend. I think he said that only those over 18 could legally buy it in the drug stores; however, I already said how young people would still be able to acquire it easier if it were legal, which could be considered irresponsible by law makers. Further, once again, people wouldn't have to buy it in the store -- they would grow it. Pro acknowledges that minors would grow it, therefore he concedes this argument to me.
Next Pro writes, "As we all know marijuana has no side effects..." That is a completely false statement. As I said in my last round, there are significant health risks including weakening people's immune system, increasing the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerating some of the diseases it's trying to help, progressing the speed of HIV and AIDS, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc [1]. You'll notice that Pro did not combat these valid points at all, and merely stated that there are no side effects. This is blatantly wrong. Pro continues to say that there are medicinal benefits to marijuana to which I have never disagreed. Instead, I argued that there are also significant risks which could be considered to cancel out any potential benefits.
Pro continues to point out that pot is beneficial because while it induces munchies, it's okay because marijuana can provide a cure for anorexia. Haha that's a ridiculous argument with no factual basis, so it should not be taken into consideration on the part of the Pro. And finally, you'll note that Pro failed to demonstrate how smoking pot would lead to world peace. As I said, just because pot makes some people lazy and tranquil doesn't mean that it would solve the world's problems or cure people's mental illness or thirst for power and greed, etc.
The resolution once again has been negated.
Reference:
[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... | Miscellaneous | 1 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,654 |
Here's a deconstruction of Pro's final arguments: 1. Law enforcement would still have jobs after decriminalization. Yes, but since a significant potion of law enforcement (including local cops, the Feds and the DEA) goes into policing marijuana, so a lot of people would lose their jobs. Additionally, even if cops existed punish those younger than 18 who were smoking/growing, there are several problems with this. First, minors are punished as minors so this is no real big win for society, and in fact may hinder the personal growth and experience of that minor, not to mention ruin their reputation and credibility. Second, what is the point of the 18+ age limit anyway? It's imposed because we (society) feel that it protects the minor from making a decision we don't feel they have the maturity to make. Well, if pot were legal, it would so drastically increase the chances and likelihood of minors breaking that law that it's almost useless if not detrimental. 2. Parents would be happy to know their kids are happy too puff. This is a statement with no factual basis or evidence to support it. 3. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about the government and economics... I've already negated all of the economic arguments in previous rounds, and Pro has offered no new points in this regard. 4. People will learn to repress the effects of marijuana. First of all, even the BIGGEST pot heads still sometimes become lazy, lethargic or apathetic after smoking, regardless of how much or how often they smoke. Believe me - I would know. It happens to the best of us from time to time. Plus, you cannot repress the physical harms of marijuana which I have cited, so Pro fails to provide a substantial argument. 5. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about world peace... I've already negated all of the world peace arguments in previous rounds. Plus, what I think he was trying to say was that since there will be new jobs, there will be a stabilized economy and thus achieve world peace...? I know, it's completely non-sensical. But let's dismantle this point anyway. First, I've already said how there wouldn't be this sudden increase in new jobs. Second, nations with stabilized economies can still engage in war. 6. People will buy hemp because it takes time to grow. That doesn't combat the idea that people can buy a plant that's already grown, and then never have to buy additional plants or worry about taking the time to grow them - especially hydroponic ones. 7. Pot is medicinally useful. I never argued that; what I did was combat this point with the harms of marijuana. And, as I said - which Pro did not refute - people who benefit from medical marijuana already do legally, despite the drug being overall criminalized. In conclusion, I am a huge marijuana enthusiast who is most definitely disappointed in the Pro for putting forth such shallow and easily refutable arguments. I have clearly diminished all of my opponent's points, and presented many arguments of my own which my opponent left unreconciled. For that reason, you should clearly be voting for CON despite mine and your own personal opinion on the matter. Debate isn't about what's right or wrong: it's about what you can prove. Pro failed so epically in his attempt to defend the legalization of marijuana that a vote for the affirmative would be a huge disservice and injustice to the field of debate. | 0 | Danielle |
Here's a deconstruction of Pro's final arguments:
1. Law enforcement would still have jobs after decriminalization.
Yes, but since a significant potion of law enforcement (including local cops, the Feds and the DEA) goes into policing marijuana, so a lot of people would lose their jobs. Additionally, even if cops existed punish those younger than 18 who were smoking/growing, there are several problems with this. First, minors are punished as minors so this is no real big win for society, and in fact may hinder the personal growth and experience of that minor, not to mention ruin their reputation and credibility. Second, what is the point of the 18+ age limit anyway? It's imposed because we (society) feel that it protects the minor from making a decision we don't feel they have the maturity to make. Well, if pot were legal, it would so drastically increase the chances and likelihood of minors breaking that law that it's almost useless if not detrimental.
2. Parents would be happy to know their kids are happy too puff.
This is a statement with no factual basis or evidence to support it.
3. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about the government and economics...
I've already negated all of the economic arguments in previous rounds, and Pro has offered no new points in this regard.
4. People will learn to repress the effects of marijuana.
First of all, even the BIGGEST pot heads still sometimes become lazy, lethargic or apathetic after smoking, regardless of how much or how often they smoke. Believe me - I would know. It happens to the best of us from time to time. Plus, you cannot repress the physical harms of marijuana which I have cited, so Pro fails to provide a substantial argument.
5. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about world peace...
I've already negated all of the world peace arguments in previous rounds. Plus, what I think he was trying to say was that since there will be new jobs, there will be a stabilized economy and thus achieve world peace...? I know, it's completely non-sensical. But let's dismantle this point anyway. First, I've already said how there wouldn't be this sudden increase in new jobs. Second, nations with stabilized economies can still engage in war.
6. People will buy hemp because it takes time to grow.
That doesn't combat the idea that people can buy a plant that's already grown, and then never have to buy additional plants or worry about taking the time to grow them - especially hydroponic ones.
7. Pot is medicinally useful.
I never argued that; what I did was combat this point with the harms of marijuana. And, as I said - which Pro did not refute - people who benefit from medical marijuana already do legally, despite the drug being overall criminalized.
In conclusion, I am a huge marijuana enthusiast who is most definitely disappointed in the Pro for putting forth such shallow and easily refutable arguments. I have clearly diminished all of my opponent's points, and presented many arguments of my own which my opponent left unreconciled. For that reason, you should clearly be voting for CON despite mine and your own personal opinion on the matter. Debate isn't about what's right or wrong: it's about what you can prove. Pro failed so epically in his attempt to defend the legalization of marijuana that a vote for the affirmative would be a huge disservice and injustice to the field of debate. | Miscellaneous | 2 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,655 |
well to start, im sick of getting arrested for carrying at least an ounce of mary jane on me....its not right so thats why today i argue that we should legalize marijuana in illinois. many or everyone in illinois would agree, "yes the economy sucks and we need to fix it" -average american and now we must take a stand. marijuana has done many great things for us given us a perspective of things in this world that a regular normal life would not give us. time magazine states In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. this may in fact be true because many of the things that america has tried to do for us by giving us the economic stimulus package and so many bailouts we have to owe ourselves for it.... but our solution has been smoked for over a few thousand years and boy we really need pots help now. many politicians would be looked at as bad people bc of the legalization but many politicians see that it could help boost the economy. by putting taxes on pot it would be a good thing to everyone. giving the opportunity for new legal marijuana jobs, also it would then take out many out of local or state prisons for marijuana smuggling or any marijuana activity and leave room for the ones who really need it *coughcough*(sex offenders) and we all agree the children are the future to America and now we need to give them a better future a brighter one at that. by legalizing marijuana we will in fact give them a better future over 25 million people smoke marijuana and it is the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. so no need for the transportation of marijuana anywhere you can just grown it in your backyard or buy it. many drug dealers who are indeed black or hispanic and tend to reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities. so in order to make America the land of the free and equal we need to legalize marijuana in order to have peace and also love because we will all be tranquil and happy. also many parents will be glad to know that by legalizing pot will be a good thing. why? well in a very nice and well mannered world they will sell pot at a nice price in the market which in many ways would be out of their pocket money reach. which would tell the teens who smoke to go out and get jobs...which in the end makes us all happy....parents with working teens and a nice economized U.S Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. stated by <URL>... yes this is all true and if canada and europe support this then we should as well. i mean we want a better way to save money on gas well hemp is the answer. and going on stated by the same person we see that "Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society." we shall express ourselves in a better way than this yes our government lied to us about many things but by legalizing marijuana we will in fact learn to understand them and also they will fear us because we are a strong nation as a government for the people by the people and by the legalization of marijuana this nation will be strong yet again. oh and did i forget the medical uses well, no i didnt oh yeah medical marijuana is a good thing also many people can choose to stop the use of marijuana at any given time also it is a very good alternative if many people want to quit drinking. and with that i know wait for any opponent to challenge this topic. | 0 | Darkmaff666 |
well to start, im sick of getting arrested for carrying at least an ounce of mary jane on me....its not right
so thats why today i argue that we should legalize marijuana in illinois.
many or everyone in illinois would agree, "yes the economy sucks and we need to fix it" -average american
and now we must take a stand.
marijuana has done many great things for us given us a perspective of things in this world that a regular normal life would not give us.
time magazine states In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness.
this may in fact be true because many of the things that america has tried to do for us by giving us the economic stimulus package and so many bailouts we have to owe ourselves for it....
but our solution has been smoked for over a few thousand years and boy we really need pots help now.
many politicians would be looked at as bad people bc of the legalization but many politicians see that it could help boost the economy. by putting taxes on pot it would be a good thing to everyone. giving the opportunity for new legal marijuana jobs, also it would then take out many out of local or state prisons for marijuana smuggling or any marijuana activity and leave room for the ones who really need it *coughcough*(sex offenders) and we all agree the children are the future to America and now we need to give them a better future a brighter one at that.
by legalizing marijuana we will in fact give them a better future
over 25 million people smoke marijuana and it is the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. so no need for the transportation of marijuana anywhere you can just grown it in your backyard or buy it.
many drug dealers who are indeed black or hispanic and tend to reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities.
so in order to make America the land of the free and equal we need to legalize marijuana in order to have peace and also love because we will all be tranquil and happy.
also many parents will be glad to know that by legalizing pot will be a good thing. why?
well in a very nice and well mannered world they will sell pot at a nice price in the market which in many ways would be out of their pocket money reach. which would tell the teens who smoke to go out and get jobs...which in the end makes us all happy....parents with working teens and a nice economized U.S
Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. stated by http://www.alternet.org... yes this is all true and if canada and europe support this then we should as well.
i mean we want a better way to save money on gas well hemp is the answer.
and going on stated by the same person we see that "Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society."
we shall express ourselves in a better way than this yes our government lied to us about many things but by legalizing marijuana we will in fact learn to understand them and also they will fear us because we are a strong nation as a government for the people by the people and by the legalization of marijuana this nation will be strong yet again.
oh and did i forget the medical uses well, no i didnt oh yeah medical marijuana is a good thing also many people can choose to stop the use of marijuana at any given time also it is a very good alternative if many people want to quit drinking.
and with that i know wait for any opponent to challenge this topic. | Miscellaneous | 0 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,656 |
to try and go against my opponents arguments i will now try to attack the points he tried to bring down and strengthen them my main points were 1)by taxing marijuana we would profit from it. 2)Legalizing pot would create jobs 3)A lot of people would leave jail. 4)Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace. 5)Pot would only be for people 18+ 6)Pot has medicinal uses. my opponent has made a good argument and i intend on reinforcing my case by adding to my points 1,2,3) by taxing marijuana we would create more jobs look at the world and the possibilities like i said many would grow it in their backyards well that would be a good thing why..they would start their own business selling hemp products and also hemp would have to replace trees making our air cleaner and safer also law enforcer would not be kicked out of their jobs but make it easier for them. for one there would be less crime two) prison systems would be better with the real criminals in them. also my opponent said that many of these people who were freed needed jobs well now with more opportunity they will bc in R1 i stated how marijuana can be used for fuel efficiency, aswell as i have stated many products can be made from it, medicinal creams and aswell paper making jobs at many places in the U.S and he stated that 10% of the population is jobless well if law passes this we would indeed carry out more jobs and also we wont have to pay money to many off sea countries such as china europe etc. so more of the money would stay here in the U.S as well we can see lawyers having an easier time dealing with many marijuana drug cases now and lawyers would never go out of the job there would be many more cases out there other than marijuana jeez. also to attack how many workers will become lazy and incompetent that is a lie. in a work place there would have to be rules and the workers would have to obey them or else they will be fired. this being a good thing. there would be extents to smoking marijuana some places already ban smoking such a illinois, where almost every restaurant denies smoking. so then it would apply to marijuana smokers where as they would want to come to work high but wont be allowed to work, this is a law that any work place would abide by so then it would keep people at work at tip top shape..... 5)i never stated that 18+ would be the only to get it i stated teens. so in reality buy having the chance to purchase marijuana many teens would actually have it out of their reach unless they get the seed which then they could grow themselves but we all know it takes 5-9 months to grow good bud so during that time period many teens and adults would have to go buy it from the local drug store or wherever marijuana will be sold. 6)as we all know marijuana has no side effects and many people would get used to the feeling after a long period of time. unlike cigarettes people can quit smoking marijuana at any given time i have stated that before, and marijuana has no such link to cancer but has indeed helped many cancer patients. Marijuana cigarettes have been used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and research has shown that THC is more quickly absorbed from marijuana smoke than from an oral preparation as stated in <URL>... also to go against the obesity argument dude their is a worse enemy out there and its called anorexia. marijuana actually helps many of these anorexic beings and saves their lives by giving them the munchies. and many people will learn to control these cravings for "munchies" i would know, but also it would help them realize how fat they are and would actually help them out and tell these obese people "hey lose weight you fatass" sorry for the language but yes many people would realize it and stop smoking and start dieting. i totally forgot point 4) well at the moment peace tranquility is only but a dream but many people had a dream and look what we have now a black president. may we say that a dream is far from reach...no because no dream is ever far from reach. with marijuana people would be tranquil happy and at peace none will be violent as i stated, law enforcers would have an easier job with marijuana legalized i mean cops have bigger matter to attend to than some dude thats been caught for having 3 ounces of pot on him, i mean there is always a drunk SOB out there that they would have to arrest so that means no law enforcer would lose a job PERIOD! and i affirm todays resolution bc i have attacked my opponent and strengthened my case aswell so you pot smokers of America unite and vote for moi. | 0 | Darkmaff666 |
to try and go against my opponents arguments i will now try to attack the points he tried to bring down and strengthen them my main points were
1)by taxing marijuana we would profit from it.
2)Legalizing pot would create jobs
3)A lot of people would leave jail.
4)Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace.
5)Pot would only be for people 18+
6)Pot has medicinal uses.
my opponent has made a good argument and i intend on reinforcing my case by adding to my points
1,2,3) by taxing marijuana we would create more jobs look at the world and the possibilities like i said many would grow it in their backyards well that would be a good thing why..they would start their own business selling hemp products and also hemp would have to replace trees making our air cleaner and safer also law enforcer would not be kicked out of their jobs but make it easier for them. for one there would be less crime two) prison systems would be better with the real criminals in them.
also my opponent said that many of these people who were freed needed jobs well
now with more opportunity they will bc in R1 i stated how marijuana can be used for fuel efficiency, aswell as i have stated many products can be made from it, medicinal creams and aswell paper making jobs at many places in the U.S and he stated that 10% of the population is jobless well if law passes this we would indeed carry out more jobs and also we wont have to pay money to many off sea countries such as china europe etc.
so more of the money would stay here in the U.S as well we can see lawyers having an easier time dealing with many marijuana drug cases now and lawyers would never go out of the job there would be many more cases out there other than marijuana jeez.
also to attack how many workers will become lazy and incompetent that is a lie. in a work place there would have to be rules and the workers would have to obey them or else they will be fired. this being a good thing. there would be extents to smoking marijuana some places already ban smoking such a illinois, where almost every restaurant denies smoking. so then it would apply to marijuana smokers where as they would want to come to work high but wont be allowed to work, this is a law that any work place would abide by so then it would keep people at work at tip top shape.....
5)i never stated that 18+ would be the only to get it i stated teens.
so in reality buy having the chance to purchase marijuana many teens would actually have it out of their reach unless they get the seed which then they could grow themselves but we all know it takes 5-9 months to grow good bud so during that time period many teens and adults would have to go buy it from the local drug store or wherever marijuana will be sold.
6)as we all know marijuana has no side effects and many people would get used to the feeling after a long period of time.
unlike cigarettes people can quit smoking marijuana at any given time i have stated that before, and marijuana has no such link to cancer but has indeed helped many cancer patients. Marijuana cigarettes have been used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and research has shown that THC is more quickly absorbed from marijuana smoke than from an oral preparation as stated in http://www.cancer.gov...
also to go against the obesity argument dude their is a worse enemy out there and its called anorexia. marijuana actually helps many of these anorexic beings and saves their lives by giving them the munchies. and many people will learn to control these cravings for "munchies" i would know, but also it would help them realize how fat they are and would actually help them out and tell these obese people "hey lose weight you fatass" sorry for the language but yes many people would realize it and stop smoking and start dieting.
i totally forgot point 4) well at the moment peace tranquility is only but a dream but many people had a dream and look what we have now a black president. may we say that a dream is far from reach...no because no dream is ever far from reach. with marijuana people would be tranquil happy and at peace none will be violent as i stated, law enforcers would have an easier job with marijuana legalized i mean cops have bigger matter to attend to than some dude thats been caught for having 3 ounces of pot on him, i mean there is always a drunk SOB out there that they would have to arrest so that means no law enforcer would lose a job PERIOD! and i affirm todays resolution bc i have attacked my opponent and strengthened my case aswell so you pot smokers of America unite and vote for moi. | Miscellaneous | 1 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,657 |
just to clarify....i realized you were a she until after i posted my argument i didnt want to fix it bc i got lazy. and it was 3 am mk now to continue the argument.... mk the law enforcers will have an easier job, yes i did state that, but, as you can plainly see i did state that they would have other jobs to attend to other than marijuana arrests duh also to those who are of age over 18 yeah they would legally be able to get pot but still there would be a limit to the age law enforcers would still have to uphold a law, in the beggining of R1 i stated teens would be able to get marijuana but in reality we all are free to use it either for medical uses and such also its up to a parent to allow such a child to smoke it or grow it its a parents responsibility to take care of their young. aswell if the bill in illinois passes there would be an age limit of course that would be 18 but, those under caught would be arrested thus actually leaving many jobs out there for these law enforcers, and besides my opponent knew this. i thus do not concede any argument at all bc as i have said many people would keep their jobs and parents would be greatly happy to know their son or daughter is happy too....*puff* aswell we can note that my opponent states all these very nice economical things that will save energy and such well...such items will be god for our economy and will actually stimulate job growth if such jobs were to be created i mean, some states have no such things b/c our government does not try to help out its country, we can then plainly see that my opponent is just aswell rambling on about future dreams when she states all the economical things. my opponent then states how people will be "lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive" -con well no as i have stated before and will keep stating, many people will get used to many of the symptoms and earn to repress them it just takes time. also the risk of H.I.V or any type of disease like that would be better of left to protection of the main areas, (sex) many people tend to be careless and have unprotected sex, and we all know that its the person who does not use protection thats the idiot here its their fault for having aids NOT MARIJUANA! i will now state again that world peace is a dream, and like many dreams they come true with a little effort and hard work, oh this is not in anyway helping the whole argument about the economical things my opponent stated but if those things were to be a truth to every state every inch of the world then yes that dream came true and i would admit..."yes, this world now is in a stabilized state" thus a good thing bc then there would be jobs and such etc. oh adding to the hemp argument, yes people would grow their own stuff but hey like i said it takes time to grow, and many businesses would then open and sell many hemp items, and as my opponent states "they will become lazy" well if they do then they will go out to a store and buy the product instead of making it. also to add to the medical area, as we all know why can we trust the medical doctors here in the United states they lie to you everyday watch the movie SICKO and you will all know the lies....if you have now you can watch the new Michael Moore film......anywho yes we all know that doctors in other countries agree marijuana is good.....many of the users of marijuana know that many things are added to marijuana but just the regular plant is of no harm.....if Amsterdam is smoking it and thats a little city with a higher life expectancy than the US look even in the movie sicko it was stated that the poorest person in europe has a higher life expectancy than the richest man in the US....and its all bc of the doctors! thank you and we shall all vote the affirmative | 0 | Darkmaff666 |
just to clarify....i realized you were a she until after i posted my argument i didnt want to fix it bc i got lazy. and it was 3 am
mk now to continue the argument....
mk the law enforcers will have an easier job, yes i did state that, but, as you can plainly see i did state that they would have other jobs to attend to other than marijuana arrests duh
also to those who are of age over 18 yeah they would legally be able to get pot but still there would be a limit to the age law enforcers would still have to uphold a law, in the beggining of R1 i stated teens would be able to get marijuana but in reality we all are free to use it either for medical uses and such also its up to a parent to allow such a child to smoke it or grow it its a parents responsibility to take care of their young.
aswell if the bill in illinois passes there would be an age limit of course that would be 18 but, those under caught would be arrested thus actually leaving many jobs out there for these law enforcers, and besides my opponent knew this. i thus do not concede any argument at all bc as i have said many people would keep their jobs and parents would be greatly happy to know their son or daughter is happy too....*puff*
aswell we can note that my opponent states all these very nice economical things that will save energy and such well...such items will be god for our economy and will actually stimulate job growth if such jobs were to be created i mean, some states have no such things b/c our government does not try to help out its country, we can then plainly see that my opponent is just aswell rambling on about future dreams when she states all the economical things.
my opponent then states how people will be "lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive" -con
well no as i have stated before and will keep stating, many people will get used to many of the symptoms and earn to repress them it just takes time.
also the risk of H.I.V or any type of disease like that would be better of left to protection of the main areas, (sex) many people tend to be careless and have unprotected sex, and we all know that its the person who does not use protection thats the idiot here its their fault for having aids NOT MARIJUANA!
i will now state again that world peace is a dream, and like many dreams they come true with a little effort and hard work, oh this is not in anyway helping the whole argument about the economical things my opponent stated but if those things were to be a truth to every state every inch of the world then yes that dream came true and i would admit..."yes, this world now is in a stabilized state" thus a good thing bc then there would be jobs and such etc.
oh adding to the hemp argument, yes people would grow their own stuff but hey like i said it takes time to grow, and many businesses would then open and sell many hemp items, and as my opponent states "they will become lazy" well if they do then they will go out to a store and buy the product instead of making it.
also to add to the medical area, as we all know why can we trust the medical doctors here in the United states they lie to you everyday watch the movie SICKO and you will all know the lies....if you have now you can watch the new Michael Moore film......anywho yes we all know that doctors in other countries agree marijuana is good.....many of the users of marijuana know that many things are added to marijuana but just the regular plant is of no harm.....if Amsterdam is smoking it and thats a little city with a higher life expectancy than the US look even in the movie sicko it was stated that the poorest person in europe has a higher life expectancy than the richest man in the US....and its all bc of the doctors! thank you and we shall all vote the affirmative | Miscellaneous | 2 | the-legalization-of-marijuana/1/ | 54,658 |
this war has economically drained this country of its assets, and has caused numerous families to plunge into the darkness of confusion because there boys are six feet under and across the pond and it's all bush's fault. | 0 | liberalconservative |
this war has economically drained this country of its assets, and has caused numerous families to plunge into the darkness of confusion because there boys are six feet under and across the pond and it's all bush's fault. | Politics | 0 | the-war-in-Iraq-should-end-now/1/ | 54,750 |
"this war has economically drained this country of its assets," How??? I would like to state that war is not a good thing. It causes deaths and destruction, but that is war. There is no such thing as peaceful war. I am by no means promoting war at all, just stating what war is. Think of all the problems that would be caused by drawing out immediately. Everything we have worked for so far would be put to waste. Riots would start and their problems would start all over again. The money spent would be a total waste. So many more problems would erupt. Al Quad would take over the region again and Iraq would be even less safe then before we came in in the first place. Maybe, instead of immediately drawing out, we should have a slow and gradual decrease in the number of troops there. Along the way, this would help Iraq be more stable and less dependant on the U.S.'s help. This would result in a much more peaceful end to the war. As I have stated before, war is not a good thing, but the press loves to hit us with the sad and depressing stories such as suicide bombings hitting record highs, etc. There are also so many advances taking place all over Iraq. So many neighborhoods and streets are much safer now than before the war. Good things are happening a mist the negative reports brought forth by the press. "it's all bush's fault" What would you have done if Al Quad bombed the Twin Towers. Would you have just sat there and said, it's okay? President Bush knows much more information than we do about the war. He made the decision based off of this information. Although, he may have made some poor decisions according to some people, the war is not "all his fault." | 0 | polka-dots323 |
"this war has economically drained this country of its assets,"
How???
I would like to state that war is not a good thing. It causes deaths and destruction, but that is war. There is no such thing as peaceful war. I am by no means promoting war at all, just stating what war is. Think of all the problems that would be caused by drawing out immediately. Everything we have worked for so far would be put to waste. Riots would start and their problems would start all over again. The money spent would be a total waste. So many more problems would erupt. Al Quad would take over the region again and Iraq would be even less safe then before we came in in the first place.
Maybe, instead of immediately drawing out, we should have a slow and gradual decrease in the number of troops there. Along the way, this would help Iraq be more stable and less dependant on the U.S.'s help. This would result in a much more peaceful end to the war.
As I have stated before, war is not a good thing, but the press loves to hit us with the sad and depressing stories such as suicide bombings hitting record highs, etc. There are also so many advances taking place all over Iraq. So many neighborhoods and streets are much safer now than before the war. Good things are happening a mist the negative reports brought forth by the press.
"it's all bush's fault"
What would you have done if Al Quad bombed the Twin Towers. Would you have just sat there and said, it's okay? President Bush knows much more information than we do about the war. He made the decision based off of this information. Although, he may have made some poor decisions according to some people, the war is not "all his fault." | Politics | 0 | the-war-in-Iraq-should-end-now/1/ | 54,751 |
I understand from that the comment my opponent has left that he did not personally want to debate this issue and be against the war. Do you think it's possible for your friend to participate in the last round of it? I really wanted to debate this issue with somebody. :) | 0 | polka-dots323 |
I understand from that the comment my opponent has left that he did not personally want to debate this issue and be against the war. Do you think it's possible for your friend to participate in the last round of it? I really wanted to debate this issue with somebody. :) | Politics | 1 | the-war-in-Iraq-should-end-now/1/ | 54,752 |
I am guessing that my opponent has failed to get my actual opponent to debate...so... I will close with the fact that security, lives, and and becoming more stable are all advances in Iraq that are taking place. On ABC's Good Morning America this morning, a soldier came on and talked about how Iraq is improving. He mentioned how last time he left to come home for a break, he saw no soccer games going on. This last time he left, he saw around 100 small games being played of soccer. Although, soccer is not anything too significant, it shows how the people of Iraq are being able to restore their normal lives and are able to be more secure and safe in their country. We should be focusing on training the Iraqi people even more so that they can eventually protect and improve their country on their own without dependance on the US and other countries. Since my opponent has failed to reply, I leave this debate open to others who may want to deabte on this topic. Thanks! :) | 0 | polka-dots323 |
I am guessing that my opponent has failed to get my actual opponent to debate...so... I will close with the fact that security, lives, and and becoming more stable are all advances in Iraq that are taking place. On ABC's Good Morning America this morning, a soldier came on and talked about how Iraq is improving. He mentioned how last time he left to come home for a break, he saw no soccer games going on. This last time he left, he saw around 100 small games being played of soccer. Although, soccer is not anything too significant, it shows how the people of Iraq are being able to restore their normal lives and are able to be more secure and safe in their country. We should be focusing on training the Iraqi people even more so that they can eventually protect and improve their country on their own without dependance on the US and other countries. Since my opponent has failed to reply, I leave this debate open to others who may want to deabte on this topic. Thanks! :) | Politics | 2 | the-war-in-Iraq-should-end-now/1/ | 54,753 |
I accept. Resolved: There is no race, just fun PRO has the burden of proof to establish that there is no such thing as race, which is defined as " a contest of speed," or at least this is the definition, contextually, that we glean from this resolution. [ <URL>... ] However, this is wrong for several reasons. Life is fundamentally about a race to the top -- a constant competition between people of varying abilities and, in some sense, similar interest striving for more and competing for the same positions. For instance, the John Bates Clark Medal is awarded to the best economist under age 40 [ <URL>... ]. Clearly, there's a race among young people to the top -- to publish as soon as they can and with the best material that they can, which inevitably involves competition and a significant time commitment. That is by no means strictly fun. It could be fun, but it's also tedious and requires a significant amount of no-nonsense hardwork. You were already voting CON because PRO didn't uphold his BOP and provided us with no argument other than "yea," but you now have to buy the one argument I made refuting this resolution. | 0 | ResponsiblyIrresponsible |
I accept. Resolved: There is no race, just fun PRO has the burden of proof to establish that there is no such thing as race, which is defined as " a contest of speed," or at least this is the definition, contextually, that we glean from this resolution. [ http://www.merriam-webster.com... ] However, this is wrong for several reasons. Life is fundamentally about a race to the top -- a constant competition between people of varying abilities and, in some sense, similar interest striving for more and competing for the same positions. For instance, the John Bates Clark Medal is awarded to the best economist under age 40 [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ]. Clearly, there's a race among young people to the top -- to publish as soon as they can and with the best material that they can, which inevitably involves competition and a significant time commitment. That is by no means strictly fun. It could be fun, but it's also tedious and requires a significant amount of no-nonsense hardwork. You were already voting CON because PRO didn't uphold his BOP and provided us with no argument other than "yea," but you now have to buy the one argument I made refuting this resolution. | Religion | 0 | there-is-no-race-just-fun/1/ | 54,774 |
My apologies for any mess ups with this site, I am still figuring out how to use it. Since you disagree, please specify where the bible is incorrect and I will debate it. | 0 | Anonymouschristianvoice |
My apologies for any mess ups with this site, I am still figuring out how to use it. Since you disagree, please specify where the bible is incorrect and I will debate it. | Religion | 0 | there-is-proof-that-the-bible-is-scientificly-sound/1/ | 54,784 |
Before I officially begin my argument I would like to thank my con for challenging me, to be completely honest I have not had an official debate with a skeptic before. Now, in my defense to the 6 questions posed I will begin with the first objection: the miscalculation of pi. Because I believe in the infallibility of Scripture I must challenge this assumption. For starters, the cubit measurement has been well documented for centuries to be neither static nor universally accurate. As defined in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Easton's Bible Dictionary, and a host of secular resources, the cubit is the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Using my own arm for example, a cubit would equal almost 19 inches! Although the cubit is generally accepted to be roughly 17.5 inches, various Biblical scholars throughout the centuries have calculated it to be anywhere from 17 to 20 inches; that's a variation of about 15%. Since nature proves that various men have different arm lengths, the cubit could be anywhere in that 17-20 inch range. Any honest scientist or mathematician would agree that in order to get accurate calculations one must have an accurate and fixed reference point, something we do not have in the I Kings text. Using the 17-20 inch range, the diameter of the bowl could have been anywhere from 14.166 to 16.666 feet, while the circumference (using the 30 cubit measurement) could have been anywhere from 42.5 to 50 feet. Both of these calculations fall within the 15% range of variation. Interestingly enough, the variation between mathematical pi (3.1415) and pi (3) as implied in the I Kings text is only 4.7%. With those calculations in hand, if the diameter of the bowl at 10 cubits was 15 feet, mathematical pi would make the circumference 47.12 feet. Since a cubit could range anywhere from 17 to 20 inches, converting the circumference back into cubits gives us a number of 30, just as the Biblical text says. The fact remains that the cubit is neither static nor accurate, so we don't know the accurate measurements of the molten sea. Any measurements that fall within that 15% range of variation could yield a ratio of 3-to-1 while still being accurate to mathematical pi. This is enough information on it's own to prove I Kings 7:23 is not an error, but for those who desire more, let's address mathematical pi. Like the cubit measurement, mathematical pi is neither static nor universally accurate. Rather than being a static number (3.1415 ) pi is defined as the relationship or ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle. The 3.1415 number only works in perfect plane geometry (which doesn't exist in nature) and even then it's an irrational number whose decimals go on eternally. The significance of this comes in the realization that since pi is an irrational number, it cannot be used as a reliable ratio. The more variation that exists in the measurement of diameter, the more unreliable pi becomes in determining circumference. Consider this as well: in perfect plane geometry pi is an irrational number and a close approximation at best. In spherical geometry pi is a much smaller number; in hyperbolic geometry (4-D) pi is not even constant! Finally, the Biblical text goes on to say in verse 26 that the molten sea was a "hand breadth" thick. What that measurement really was we do not know. We also don't know if the diameter and circumference measurements were both taken from either the inside or outside. Verse 23 mentions a "brim" but doesn't give us details regarding it's shape or measurements. This also could affect the diameter and circumference issue. At the end of the day we simply don't have enough information to say that the 10 and 30 cubit measurements are inaccurate. In conclusion, let's get back to the original criticism of our "problem" text in I Kings 7. I must assume the Word of God is correct unless the skeptics can prove otherwise. In order to do this, critics use Euclidean (plane) geometry as a means of dismissing the cubit measurements as incorrect. Since there is no static, fixed reference point of measurement, Euclidean geometry proves nothing in this case. Furthermore, since the cubit measurement and mathematical pi are not static or universally accurate they are meaningless to the discussion. If measurements based on Euclidean geometry constitute the entire case of the Bible critic, the trial is over and he has lost. For those who do not believe in the perfect and preserved written Word, no explanation of alleged errors and contradictions is possible. To those who do believe, the explanations can always be found with diligent and faithful study. Do not allow the Bible critics to stifle your faith my friends; God is so much bigger than that.1 In answer to the second contradiction, First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word, "owph" which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.2 In answer to the third question posed, Once again the word translated fowl here is 'owph', which means a creature with wings. It's the same word used in verse 21 and translated flying. The reference in both cases is referring to insects. Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the "legs above their feet". The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called "feet" in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.2 In answer to the fourth query, I will quote directly from the bible, And God said, "Let there be light,"" and there was light. (Genesis 1:3) If you'll notice the reference it comes BEFORE the plants (Genesis 1:12) Next, the fifth question the problem of location. How were all the herbs available if man had not discovered America and what about the poisonous ones? The command given here, to eat from every tree, was given before The Fall. There were no plants that could harm humans. There were no thorns and thistles. The author of the SAB links to Biblical Nonsense: Science to the Rescue," which appears to be a text written by someone with very little learning in Hebrew, the Bible and the sciences. On if Adam was allowed to eat from every tree: yes, all trees on the earth, except one tree specially planted in the Garden of Eden. Note that there is a restriction in this verse, Adam is not given every tree, but every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed. It is unsure if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fit this definition, but if it did, I see no contradiction by God giving him every tree, that means every kind, on the earth, except a special one. For that conclusion to hold this verse should have added: every single tree, no exceptions. On what we should eat: this command is given before The Fall and before the flood. Very different circumstances.3 Finally, has the bible incorrectly ordered when man was created? The author of the SAB reads into these verses more than they are saying. The Hebrew does not have a past tense. I believe this story was originally written by Adam himself, possibly on a clay tablet. After the introduction explaining there was no man, the story continues in verse 7 with the creation of Adam. It then explains what went on before, i.e. why he was in the garden, and goes on to the climax, the first woman.3 Therefore, I would like to respectfully disagree with the statement, "a few examples of the hundreds to thousands of scientific and logical inaccuracies." 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... | 0 | Anonymouschristianvoice |
Before I officially begin my argument I would like to thank my con for challenging me, to be completely honest I have not had an official debate with a skeptic before.
Now, in my defense to the 6 questions posed I will begin with the first objection: the miscalculation of pi.
Because I believe in the infallibility of Scripture I must challenge this assumption. For starters, the cubit measurement has been well documented for centuries to be neither static nor universally accurate. As defined in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Easton's Bible Dictionary, and a host of secular resources, the cubit is the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Using my own arm for example, a cubit would equal almost 19 inches!
Although the cubit is generally accepted to be roughly 17.5 inches, various Biblical scholars throughout the centuries have calculated it to be anywhere from 17 to 20 inches; that's a variation of about 15%. Since nature proves that various men have different arm lengths, the cubit could be anywhere in that 17-20 inch range.
Any honest scientist or mathematician would agree that in order to get accurate calculations one must have an accurate and fixed reference point, something we do not have in the I Kings text. Using the 17-20 inch range, the diameter of the bowl could have been anywhere from 14.166 to 16.666 feet, while the circumference (using the 30 cubit measurement) could have been anywhere from 42.5 to 50 feet. Both of these calculations fall within the 15% range of variation. Interestingly enough, the variation between mathematical pi (3.1415) and pi (3) as implied in the I Kings text is only 4.7%.
With those calculations in hand, if the diameter of the bowl at 10 cubits was 15 feet, mathematical pi would make the circumference 47.12 feet. Since a cubit could range anywhere from 17 to 20 inches, converting the circumference back into cubits gives us a number of 30, just as the Biblical text says.
The fact remains that the cubit is neither static nor accurate, so we don't know the accurate measurements of the molten sea. Any measurements that fall within that 15% range of variation could yield a ratio of 3-to-1 while still being accurate to mathematical pi. This is enough information on it's own to prove I Kings 7:23 is not an error, but for those who desire more, let's address mathematical pi.
Like the cubit measurement, mathematical pi is neither static nor universally accurate. Rather than being a static number (3.1415 ) pi is defined as the relationship or ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle. The 3.1415 number only works in perfect plane geometry (which doesn't exist in nature) and even then it's an irrational number whose decimals go on eternally. The significance of this comes in the realization that since pi is an irrational number, it cannot be used as a reliable ratio. The more variation that exists in the measurement of diameter, the more unreliable pi becomes in determining circumference.
Consider this as well: in perfect plane geometry pi is an irrational number and a close approximation at best. In spherical geometry pi is a much smaller number; in hyperbolic geometry (4-D) pi is not even constant!
Finally, the Biblical text goes on to say in verse 26 that the molten sea was a "hand breadth" thick. What that measurement really was we do not know. We also don't know if the diameter and circumference measurements were both taken from either the inside or outside. Verse 23 mentions a "brim" but doesn't give us details regarding it's shape or measurements. This also could affect the diameter and circumference issue. At the end of the day we simply don't have enough information to say that the 10 and 30 cubit measurements are inaccurate.
In conclusion, let's get back to the original criticism of our "problem" text in I Kings 7. I must assume the Word of God is correct unless the skeptics can prove otherwise. In order to do this, critics use Euclidean (plane) geometry as a means of dismissing the cubit measurements as incorrect. Since there is no static, fixed reference point of measurement, Euclidean geometry proves nothing in this case. Furthermore, since the cubit measurement and mathematical pi are not static or universally accurate they are meaningless to the discussion. If measurements based on Euclidean geometry constitute the entire case of the Bible critic, the trial is over and he has lost.
For those who do not believe in the perfect and preserved written Word, no explanation of alleged errors and contradictions is possible. To those who do believe, the explanations can always be found with diligent and faithful study. Do not allow the Bible critics to stifle your faith my friends; God is so much bigger than that.1
In answer to the second contradiction, First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word, "owph" which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.2
In answer to the third question posed, Once again the word translated fowl here is 'owph', which means a creature with wings. It's the same word used in verse 21 and translated flying. The reference in both cases is referring to insects. Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the "legs above their feet". The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called "feet" in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.2
In answer to the fourth query, I will quote directly from the bible, And God said, "Let there be light,"" and there was light. (Genesis 1:3) If you`ll notice the reference it comes BEFORE the plants (Genesis 1:12)
Next, the fifth question the problem of location. How were all the herbs available if man had not discovered America and what about the poisonous ones? The command given here, to eat from every tree, was given before The Fall. There were no plants that could harm humans. There were no thorns and thistles. The author of the SAB links to Biblical Nonsense: Science to the Rescue," which appears to be a text written by someone with very little learning in Hebrew, the Bible and the sciences.
On if Adam was allowed to eat from every tree: yes, all trees on the earth, except one tree specially planted in the Garden of Eden. Note that there is a restriction in this verse, Adam is not given every tree, but every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed. It is unsure if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fit this definition, but if it did, I see no contradiction by God giving him every tree, that means every kind, on the earth, except a special one. For that conclusion to hold this verse should have added: every single tree, no exceptions.
On what we should eat: this command is given before The Fall and before the flood. Very different circumstances.3
Finally, has the bible incorrectly ordered when man was created? The author of the SAB reads into these verses more than they are saying. The Hebrew does not have a past tense.
I believe this story was originally written by Adam himself, possibly on a clay tablet. After the introduction explaining there was no man, the story continues in verse 7 with the creation of Adam. It then explains what went on before, i.e. why he was in the garden, and goes on to the climax, the first woman.3
Therefore, I would like to respectfully disagree with the statement, "a few examples of the hundreds to thousands of scientific and logical inaccuracies."
1. http://voices.yahoo.com...
2. http://contenderministries.org...
3. http://www.berenddeboer.net... | Religion | 1 | there-is-proof-that-the-bible-is-scientificly-sound/1/ | 54,785 |
Thank you for bringing this topic up... All teenagers hate cc(community service) hours! However, even though I am personally against service learning hours, I am here to negate the topic. First off, some diffinitions for this round: The topic was there shuold be no service learning hours from now on. My opponent has not specifically stated what type of hours. Hours for inmates at jail? Or hours needed to graduate from high school? Since my opponent has not claimed any diffinitions, I will provide some. Therefore the service hours in the topic will now refer to the community service hours needed to graduate high school. The topic can now read: There should be no community service hours needed to graduate high school. My position as the negative is to prove to the judges that we should keep service learning and having community service as a requirement to graduate high school. My opponents only true argument was: 1)Pro ~ there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice To sum it up for judges my opponent is arguing that its the people's choice to choose wheter or not to do community service hours. My response to this argument is: Service learning IS optional. Nobody is forcing the people to serve their community or not. Its their choice to do them or not. My opponent is claiming that we're currently forcing people to do them. However we're not. For example, if I don't want to do my community service hours, I won't do them, the only consquence of me not doing those hours is that I cannot graduate high school. IT IS MY CHOICE ALREADY whether or not to do those hours. On to my own case: 1)Service learning Supported by the government Our government supports service learning. In fact there is many programs for service learning for example, Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America is a program dedicated to helping young students who are enrolled in the program. Not only does it provide the students with tutors in which to raise the grades, Learn and Serve America provides COLLEGE GRANTS, in which if a student does community service, or service learning, he/she can gain a scholarship for college. There is also Americorp and CitizenCorp. Both are government funded programs designed to help America's society. 2)Service learning provides for a better society- With future citizens learning how to better take care of society and learning how to help one and another, society will become better. Service learning helps students learn about their community and brings them closer together. It not only helps the community, it produces a better citizen who cares about community and the greater good. 3)It helps students become more moral- Service learning teaches students moral lessons. It teaches students to CARE for one and another and to LOVE their community. It also teaches them not to DEFILE and DEHUMANIZE other things. Students in the service learning program are more EXPOSED to other subjects and therefore are more OPEN MINDED and ACCEPTING. They can become more RESILIENT and learn how to further accept racial differences. STUDENTS ARE WORKING WITH OTHER STUDENTS, which can lead to the lowering of racism. 4)Already its hard not to do community service hours. In the society that we live in, a ton of programs are dedicated to helping the community. Let's take a look at the boyscout/girl scout program, and the programs that coastal communitys instigate after an oil spill. When that one tanker a few weeks ago from China spilled over, who was there to clean it? Students in the service learning programs and volunteers! EVEN IF MY OPPONENT says we shuoldn't have service learning, ITS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID! As a wrap up, my opponents only argument was that people might not want to do service learning. I have countered that by stating that it is the people's choice to do it or not. A student doesn't have to be in school, they're there because they want to be there. My case for the round is as follows: 1)Service learning supported by government 2)Service learnin-Better society 3)Service Learning-More morality 4)Service Learning is evident in our daily lives For all these reasons please vote negative. | 0 | Ninjanuke |
Thank you for bringing this topic up... All teenagers hate cc(community service) hours!
However, even though I am personally against service learning hours, I am here to negate the topic.
First off, some diffinitions for this round:
The topic was there shuold be no service learning hours from now on.
My opponent has not specifically stated what type of hours. Hours for inmates at jail? Or hours needed to graduate from high school? Since my opponent has not claimed any diffinitions, I will provide some.
Therefore the service hours in the topic will now refer to the community service hours needed to graduate high school.
The topic can now read: There should be no community service hours needed to graduate high school.
My position as the negative is to prove to the judges that we should keep service learning and having community service as a requirement to graduate high school.
My opponents only true argument was:
1)Pro ~ there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice
To sum it up for judges my opponent is arguing that its the people's choice to choose wheter or not to do community service hours.
My response to this argument is:
Service learning IS optional. Nobody is forcing the people to serve their community or not. Its their choice to do them or not. My opponent is claiming that we're currently forcing people to do them. However we're not. For example, if I don't want to do my community service hours, I won't do them, the only consquence of me not doing those hours is that I cannot graduate high school. IT IS MY CHOICE ALREADY whether or not to do those hours.
On to my own case:
1)Service learning Supported by the government
Our government supports service learning. In fact there is many programs for service learning for example, Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America is a program dedicated to helping young students who are enrolled in the program. Not only does it provide the students with tutors in which to raise the grades, Learn and Serve America provides COLLEGE GRANTS, in which if a student does community service, or service learning, he/she can gain a scholarship for college. There is also Americorp and CitizenCorp. Both are government funded programs designed to help America's society.
2)Service learning provides for a better society-
With future citizens learning how to better take care of society and learning how to help one and another, society will become better. Service learning helps students learn about their community and brings them closer together. It not only helps the community, it produces a better citizen who cares about community and the greater good.
3)It helps students become more moral-
Service learning teaches students moral lessons. It teaches students to CARE for one and another and to LOVE their community. It also teaches them not to DEFILE and DEHUMANIZE other things. Students in the service learning program are more EXPOSED to other subjects and therefore are more OPEN MINDED and ACCEPTING. They can become more RESILIENT and learn how to further accept racial differences. STUDENTS ARE WORKING WITH OTHER STUDENTS, which can lead to the lowering of racism.
4)Already its hard not to do community service hours. In the society that we live in, a ton of programs are dedicated to helping the community. Let's take a look at the boyscout/girl scout program, and the programs that coastal communitys instigate after an oil spill. When that one tanker a few weeks ago from China spilled over, who was there to clean it? Students in the service learning programs and volunteers! EVEN IF MY OPPONENT says we shuoldn't have service learning, ITS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID!
As a wrap up, my opponents only argument was that people might not want to do service learning. I have countered that by stating that it is the people's choice to do it or not. A student doesn't have to be in school, they're there because they want to be there.
My case for the round is as follows:
1)Service learning supported by government
2)Service learnin-Better society
3)Service Learning-More morality
4)Service Learning is evident in our daily lives
For all these reasons please vote negative. | Education | 0 | there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/ | 54,792 |
Since my opponent has no responded she has lost her case and dropped my entire case. I wish she had responded though -.- As we can see I have overwhelming won this debate. Thank you. go james logan! | 0 | Ninjanuke |
Since my opponent has no responded she has lost her case and dropped my entire case. I wish she had responded though -.-
As we can see I have overwhelming won this debate.
Thank you.
go james logan! | Education | 1 | there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/ | 54,793 |
there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice | 0 | erica11 |
there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice | Education | 0 | there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/ | 54,794 |
A few things. Promise - 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one Immoral - 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Threat - 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. (Source: Dictionary.com) Example 1: If I promise you something, but I die before I could execute that promise, that promise will be broken... is that immoral? Or just unfortunate? Now, if your argument {semantics} is that the BREAKING of a promise is immoral, meaning that my specific actions will have caused that promise to not be fulfilled, I argue: What about accidental interference? For instance, say I promised to take you to the movies after I attended a basketball game; however, there was traffic on my way to you and thus we missed the movie. A promise was broken. My action of attending the basketball game and getting stuck in random/accidental traffic is what broke the promise. Are my actions immoral? Example 2: According to the definitions of promise and threat (shown above), I argue that a statement can be both a threat and a promise. Say I threatened/promised to do something destructive and immoral to an innocent victim or group. If I broke that promise to uphold a moral principle, would that choice be immoral? Example 3: Suppose I promised to show up to your birthday party on time, however, on the way over I noticed a car on the side of the road that was broken down, and a frazzled driver that needed my help. Without my interference, the car may have been destroyed. I decided to help, and therefore showed up late to your birthday party. My direct action (choice) led me to break a promise to you. Were my actions immoral? Or was breaking my promise actually the moral thing to do? I'll wait for your response before continuing :) | 1 | Danielle |
A few things.
Promise - 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one
Immoral - 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Threat - 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc.
(Source: Dictionary.com)
Example 1: If I promise you something, but I die before I could execute that promise, that promise will be broken... is that immoral? Or just unfortunate? Now, if your argument {semantics} is that the BREAKING of a promise is immoral, meaning that my specific actions will have caused that promise to not be fulfilled, I argue: What about accidental interference? For instance, say I promised to take you to the movies after I attended a basketball game; however, there was traffic on my way to you and thus we missed the movie. A promise was broken. My action of attending the basketball game and getting stuck in random/accidental traffic is what broke the promise. Are my actions immoral?
Example 2: According to the definitions of promise and threat (shown above), I argue that a statement can be both a threat and a promise. Say I threatened/promised to do something destructive and immoral to an innocent victim or group. If I broke that promise to uphold a moral principle, would that choice be immoral?
Example 3: Suppose I promised to show up to your birthday party on time, however, on the way over I noticed a car on the side of the road that was broken down, and a frazzled driver that needed my help. Without my interference, the car may have been destroyed. I decided to help, and therefore showed up late to your birthday party. My direct action (choice) led me to break a promise to you. Were my actions immoral? Or was breaking my promise actually the moral thing to do?
I'll wait for your response before continuing :) | Society | 0 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,802 |
I agree with you that we are rational beings. Because we are rational, we should be able to recognize that a broken promise due to circumstances outside of our control is different than breaking a promise that we never intended to keep or are too lazy to find a way to keep. It would be immoral if we had no intention of keeping a promise, not doing everything in our power to avoid breaking one, or if we made a promise that we wouldn't have a good cance of keeping in the first place. But an accident or unforseen interference does not make us responsible for the broken promise. It is simply an unfortunate circumstance. Now if you're arguing that promises themselves are immoral because there is no guarantee that you can keep them, then that's another story and not the topic of this debate nor what you have been arguing thus far. | 1 | Danielle |
I agree with you that we are rational beings. Because we are rational, we should be able to recognize that a broken promise due to circumstances outside of our control is different than breaking a promise that we never intended to keep or are too lazy to find a way to keep. It would be immoral if we had no intention of keeping a promise, not doing everything in our power to avoid breaking one, or if we made a promise that we wouldn't have a good cance of keeping in the first place. But an accident or unforseen interference does not make us responsible for the broken promise. It is simply an unfortunate circumstance. Now if you're arguing that promises themselves are immoral because there is no guarantee that you can keep them, then that's another story and not the topic of this debate nor what you have been arguing thus far. | Society | 1 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,803 |
Thank you for this debate; you have some very interesting ideas, however, I would just like to wrap up the debate by saying this: 1. My opponent claims that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the enviornment that we are living in, and therefore are responsible without a doubt for every broken promise. However he did not address my first point back in Round 1 -- if someone dies unexpectedly, the promise gets broken. I understand one having to keep things in mind before making a promise, i.e. traffic, however I think it is fair to say that one cannot determine when, where and how they will die if it is an unexpected death like many are. Therefore it is unforseen and unable to be avoided, thus negating my opponent's point that we can control or adjust our enviornment to enable us to keep our promises. 2. If my opponent feels that iminent death is *always* a possibility, along with other outside factors that we can not adjust, then what my opponent is arguing is that the very MAKING of a promise is immoral, not just the breaking of one. This mentality does not work or at the very least cannot win a debate. Here's why -- My opponent never claimed either in the resolution or in any of his rounds that making a promise was immoral (even though I brought it up in Round 2). Thus we have to assume that making a promise is moral. If the immorality of breaking a promise is all my opponent had to prove, he failed because 1. He did not address my first and important point, and 2. His logic explains why making a promise would be immoral but not why breaking a promise is in turn immoral. Furthermore, in Round 1 I asked about a promise that was also a threat and my opponent's weak response was, "You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that?" Ok... so it's a little hard to make out, yes, but from what I gathered my opponent is suggesting that threatening someone is immoral in the first place, so why would someone... take back their threat? Who knows. But that point *I* was trying to make was that someone could make an immoral promise (ex. threat) and then decide to not go through with it. Was that an immoral decision? Or was it the MORAL thing to do? Similarly, another example of mine brought to attention the fact that someone could break a promise for the sake of upholding a very important value. My opponent's only response was again that whole "know your enviornment" bit but he/she did not address the main concept of my question/point: What if keeping a promise is more immoral than breaking a promise in a particular situation? In conclusion, I feel like my opponent argued the wrong point all along. His main rebuttal to all that I've said is that humans, as rational beings, should be aware of how the environment would affect all of our promises. This logic argues against promises in the first place - not the breaking of them. As I've mentioned, we must assume that my opponent believes that making a promise is not immoral. They did not specify otherwise nor did they respond to my inquisition. In that case, my examples and arguments still stand, and my opponent did not effectively refute them. At all. Meanwhile, I've countered everything he/she said. In that case, vote Con :) | 1 | Danielle |
Thank you for this debate; you have some very interesting ideas, however, I would just like to wrap up the debate by saying this:
1. My opponent claims that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the enviornment that we are living in, and therefore are responsible without a doubt for every broken promise. However he did not address my first point back in Round 1 -- if someone dies unexpectedly, the promise gets broken. I understand one having to keep things in mind before making a promise, i.e. traffic, however I think it is fair to say that one cannot determine when, where and how they will die if it is an unexpected death like many are. Therefore it is unforseen and unable to be avoided, thus negating my opponent's point that we can control or adjust our enviornment to enable us to keep our promises.
2. If my opponent feels that iminent death is *always* a possibility, along with other outside factors that we can not adjust, then what my opponent is arguing is that the very MAKING of a promise is immoral, not just the breaking of one. This mentality does not work or at the very least cannot win a debate. Here's why -- My opponent never claimed either in the resolution or in any of his rounds that making a promise was immoral (even though I brought it up in Round 2). Thus we have to assume that making a promise is moral. If the immorality of breaking a promise is all my opponent had to prove, he failed because 1. He did not address my first and important point, and 2. His logic explains why making a promise would be immoral but not why breaking a promise is in turn immoral.
Furthermore, in Round 1 I asked about a promise that was also a threat and my opponent's weak response was, "You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that?" Ok... so it's a little hard to make out, yes, but from what I gathered my opponent is suggesting that threatening someone is immoral in the first place, so why would someone... take back their threat? Who knows. But that point *I* was trying to make was that someone could make an immoral promise (ex. threat) and then decide to not go through with it. Was that an immoral decision? Or was it the MORAL thing to do? Similarly, another example of mine brought to attention the fact that someone could break a promise for the sake of upholding a very important value. My opponent's only response was again that whole "know your enviornment" bit but he/she did not address the main concept of my question/point: What if keeping a promise is more immoral than breaking a promise in a particular situation?
In conclusion, I feel like my opponent argued the wrong point all along. His main rebuttal to all that I've said is that humans, as rational beings, should be aware of how the environment would affect all of our promises. This logic argues against promises in the first place - not the breaking of them. As I've mentioned, we must assume that my opponent believes that making a promise is not immoral. They did not specify otherwise nor did they respond to my inquisition. In that case, my examples and arguments still stand, and my opponent did not effectively refute them. At all. Meanwhile, I've countered everything he/she said. In that case, vote Con :) | Society | 2 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,804 |
i say in my side that breaking a promise is always immoral because in the first place when you make a promise you are committing something and if that happens absolutely there is a responsibility and if there is a responsibility specially those which are committed by a person he should fulfill it no matter what. second , I strongly believe that if you make a promise it requires action but action does not require a promise so why make such a promise if you can make an action without it. Yes it is true that we cannot avoid inevitable circimstances but do not we think yhat we are rationale beings implying that we can adjust to whatever might happen just to keep the promise. So in this case i say that breaking a promise is definitely immoral. | 0 | francis |
i say in my side that breaking a promise is always immoral because in the first place when you make a promise you are committing something and if that happens absolutely there is a responsibility and if there is a responsibility specially those which are committed by a person he should fulfill it no matter what. second , I strongly believe that if you make a promise it requires action but action does not require a promise so why make such a promise if you can make an action without it. Yes it is true that we cannot avoid inevitable circimstances but do not we think yhat we are rationale beings implying that we can adjust to whatever might happen just to keep the promise. So in this case i say that breaking a promise is definitely immoral. | Society | 0 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,805 |
let me say that in my side , i want to tell you that we are rationale beings. meaning that we have the capability to adjust to our environment and knowing that these things might occur why made such promise?. Yes we cannot avoid inevitable circumstances like the examples you have given but do not you think of thiese things that i have mentioned? You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that? | 0 | francis |
let me say that in my side , i want to tell you that we are rationale beings. meaning that we have the capability to adjust to our environment and knowing that these things might occur why made such promise?. Yes we cannot avoid inevitable circumstances like the examples you have given but do not you think of thiese things that i have mentioned? You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that? | Society | 1 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,806 |
and now I tell you no matter what things we want to consider still it is a promise. I want to remind you again that we cannot consider inevitable circumstances as an excuse because again, as rational beings we know that we have a big chance of facing these unavoidable things and considering this fact, you cannot say that all the broken promises which occur due to these unavoidable things are understandable. yes it is true that we are not responsible for the unforseen events that can destroy the promise but you should always remember my friend that the environment cannot manifest man but man can manifest the environment and considering this thing, we can say that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the environment that we are living in. | 0 | francis |
and now I tell you no matter what things we want to consider still it is a promise. I want to remind you again that we cannot consider inevitable circumstances as an excuse because again, as rational beings we know that we have a big chance of facing these unavoidable things and considering this fact, you cannot say that all the broken promises which occur due to these unavoidable things are understandable. yes it is true that we are not responsible for the unforseen events that can destroy the promise but you should always remember my friend that the environment cannot manifest man but man can manifest the environment and considering this thing, we can say that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the environment that we are living in. | Society | 2 | this-house-believes-that-breaking-a-promise-is-aleays-immoral/1/ | 54,807 |
For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are close to 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies. With this simple calculation you get something like 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places. 25 percent of Sun-like stars have planets. This means there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our Galaxy. With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, suggesting that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems are in the Universe. <URL>... "what's the probability of life forming? one in seven billion" Considering what we know (or rather lack of) about Abiogenesis, applying "odds" to the event seems somewhat strange (despite what creationists would have you believe :P). So what do we know then? Habitable zones are the best guess approach to determining possibilities of life. These habitable zones exist as a range from the sun in which water can be supported on a planetary surface. Additional factors normally include a super giant gravity well that in essence protects the habitable zone from comets, asteroids etc. Habitable zones however are not stable creatures. They are dependent on what life stage their sun is currently in. Stars like our Sun go through three stages that could foster life. The first lasts about 10 billion years while the star burns hydrogen in its core. Our Sun is currently in such a period, called the "main sequence", and the Earth lies within this stage's habitable zone. The zone extends from just within Earth's orbit to nearly the orbit of Mars (or 0.95 to 1.37 astronomical units, with 1 AU being the distance between the Earth and Sun). When the star begins to burn its hydrogen in a shell around a growing helium core, it brightens and expands and becomes a sub-giant. The habitable zone sweeps outward, extending from 2 to 9 AU. The inner edge of this zone remains habitable for several billion years while the outer extreme, where Saturn currently orbits, is habitable for a few hundred million years. The star then fluctuates in brightness for about 20 million years as it switches to burning helium almost exclusively, before becoming a red giant and swelling to 10 times the diameter of the Sun. For about a billion years afterwards, the habitable zone around the red giant extends from 7 to 22 AU, the outer edge of which lies beyond the orbit of Uranus. So planets that are currently very cold and icy can warm up and become potentially habitable. This shows the time period over which these conditions change is very long - long enough for life to form ( comparing that with the time it took for life to emerge on Earth - an estimated 700 million years). Habitable zones are as much an issue of placement as they are of time. The chances of life forming increase. Due to the limits of technology, the types of planets we can detect are limited (large gravity well Jupiter sized planets). Computer modelling offers the best solution to determining probabilities of habitable zones. Current modelling estimates arrive at a rate of 25-50% of extrasolar planetary systems will have a habitable zone capable of supporting an earth like planet (Giant "super earths" i.e. rocky planets the size of Jupiter are also being discovered with increasing frequency). Adding to the chances, we must consider aspects like Jupiter's moon Europa, which is thought to have a subsurface ocean with an environment similar to the deep oceans of Earth. Venus once had a climate similar to Earth's and vast oceans of water. Recent Mar's photos show water formed canyons, deltas and waterfalls. We also know life can be supported in scalding, acidic hot pools, in the driest deserts, and in the dark, crushing depths of the ocean. It has even found a niche in the frigid polar regions, in toxic dumps and nuclear power plants. Undersea hydrothermal vents also support entire ecosystems. Hydrogen and oxygen are the in the top 3 most common elements in the universe. Of the top 3 elements they are the only two to form a compound. That being water. So as for your "best conservative estimate", I would say you are quite a far ways behind. | 1 | Puck |
For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are close to 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies.
With this simple calculation you get something like 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places.
25 percent of Sun-like stars have planets.
This means there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our Galaxy. With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, suggesting that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems are in the Universe.
http://arxiv.org...
"what's the probability of life forming?
one in seven billion"
Considering what we know (or rather lack of) about Abiogenesis, applying "odds" to the event seems somewhat strange (despite what creationists would have you believe :P).
So what do we know then? Habitable zones are the best guess approach to determining possibilities of life. These habitable zones exist as a range from the sun in which water can be supported on a planetary surface. Additional factors normally include a super giant gravity well that in essence protects the habitable zone from comets, asteroids etc.
Habitable zones however are not stable creatures. They are dependent on what life stage their sun is currently in. Stars like our Sun go through three stages that could foster life. The first lasts about 10 billion years while the star burns hydrogen in its core. Our Sun is currently in such a period, called the "main sequence", and the Earth lies within this stage's habitable zone. The zone extends from just within Earth's orbit to nearly the orbit of Mars (or 0.95 to 1.37 astronomical units, with 1 AU being the distance between the Earth and Sun).
When the star begins to burn its hydrogen in a shell around a growing helium core, it brightens and expands and becomes a sub-giant. The habitable zone sweeps outward, extending from 2 to 9 AU. The inner edge of this zone remains habitable for several billion years while the outer extreme, where Saturn currently orbits, is habitable for a few hundred million years.
The star then fluctuates in brightness for about 20 million years as it switches to burning helium almost exclusively, before becoming a red giant and swelling to 10 times the diameter of the Sun. For about a billion years afterwards, the habitable zone around the red giant extends from 7 to 22 AU, the outer edge of which lies beyond the orbit of Uranus.
So planets that are currently very cold and icy can warm up and become potentially habitable. This shows the time period over which these conditions change is very long - long enough for life to form ( comparing that with the time it took for life to emerge on Earth - an estimated 700 million years). Habitable zones are as much an issue of placement as they are of time. The chances of life forming increase.
Due to the limits of technology, the types of planets we can detect are limited (large gravity well Jupiter sized planets). Computer modelling offers the best solution to determining probabilities of habitable zones. Current modelling estimates arrive at a rate of 25-50% of extrasolar planetary systems will have a habitable zone capable of supporting an earth like planet (Giant "super earths" i.e. rocky planets the size of Jupiter are also being discovered with increasing frequency).
Adding to the chances, we must consider aspects like Jupiter's moon Europa, which is thought to have a subsurface ocean with an environment similar to the deep oceans of Earth. Venus once had a climate similar to Earth's and vast oceans of water. Recent Mar's photos show water formed canyons, deltas and waterfalls.
We also know life can be supported in scalding, acidic hot pools, in the driest deserts, and in the dark, crushing depths of the ocean. It has even found a niche in the frigid polar regions, in toxic dumps and nuclear power plants. Undersea hydrothermal vents also support entire ecosystems. Hydrogen and oxygen are the in the top 3 most common elements in the universe. Of the top 3 elements they are the only two to form a compound. That being water.
So as for your "best conservative estimate", I would say you are quite a far ways behind. | Science | 0 | this-is-the-best-conservative-estimate-of-how-many-planets-have-complex-life-like-ours-1429-planets/1/ | 54,808 |
Another disappointing forfeited debate. Realy if you want a one round debate, just make it one round. | 1 | Puck |
Another disappointing forfeited debate. Realy if you want a one round debate, just make it one round. | Science | 1 | this-is-the-best-conservative-estimate-of-how-many-planets-have-complex-life-like-ours-1429-planets/1/ | 54,809 |
Well another forfeit. No surprise there. Pro's best guess estimate (guestimate? :D) falls short by a long way. | 1 | Puck |
Well another forfeit. No surprise there. Pro's best guess estimate (guestimate? :D) falls short by a long way. | Science | 2 | this-is-the-best-conservative-estimate-of-how-many-planets-have-complex-life-like-ours-1429-planets/1/ | 54,810 |
how many stars are there? 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 70 sextillion is 7 followed by twenty-two zeroes what's the probability of life forming? one in seven billion so... if you assume that it's just as likely that something as complex as a human would form, as it is for life to form.... using basic probability... you take 7 billion times 7 billion. 49 and how many zeros? (to get the zeros we simply count them, nine zeros in a billion, so 18 zeros billion in the billion times that initial billion set. that means,,, there's 70,000 plus 18 more zeros, base) take 70,000 divided by 49, and you get.... 1429 planets, ie stars with planets with life complex like ours, out there, as a conservative estimate. | 0 | dairygirl4u2c |
how many stars are there?
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 70 sextillion is 7 followed by twenty-two zeroes
what's the probability of life forming?
one in seven billion
so... if you assume that it's just as likely that something as complex as a human would form, as it is for life to form....
using basic probability... you take 7 billion times 7 billion. 49 and how many zeros?
(to get the zeros we simply count them, nine zeros in a billion, so 18 zeros billion in the billion times that initial billion set. that means,,, there's 70,000 plus 18 more zeros, base)
take 70,000 divided by 49, and you get.... 1429
planets, ie stars with planets with life complex like ours, out there, as a conservative estimate. | Science | 0 | this-is-the-best-conservative-estimate-of-how-many-planets-have-complex-life-like-ours-1429-planets/1/ | 54,811 |
this script, written in 2007 should not be made into a feature length film... Dorothy-Follow the yellow brick road... x4 Frodo-Yes Dorothy, I Get it now. you've repeated it for the past fifteen agonizing miles. "Follow the {YELLOW BRICK} Road!!!!! Dorothy-I'm sorry, You know I have short term memory loss, I need to say it to my self over and over and over and over and over and over (Frodo screams)... and over again just so that I can remember what I' doing... wait...., what were we doing? Frodo-FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD YOU BLONDE!!!!! Dorothy-Yes it is my natural hair color Frodo-AGH!!!!! Blaine- As we join Dorothy gale with her little "friend", Trent- In their quest to seek the wizard of oz, Blaine- Commonly know as Both- The wizard of Oz Trent- from the classical playwright musical and movie of the 1950's Blaine- the wizard of Oz Trent- we introduce to you Blaine- our interpretation of Both- The wizard of Oz Dorothy-Frodo I don't think we're in The Shire anymore Frodo-Really I couldn't tell...Hey look a fork in the road Dorothy-Really like where. Oh not that kind of fork silly, it's a fork because there's one two three.......four yellow brick roads... wait so which one do we follow Frodo, Frodo, Frodo!!! (while Dorothy talks Frodo does headphone action/air guitar) Scarecrow-Well you could go that way Dorothy-Who was that? Scarecrow-Maybe that way? Or that way? And possibly that way. Dorothy-Are you okay? Scarecrow-Yah, don't touch me you...Blonde. Where you going? Dorothy-I don't know. Frodo-We're going to the wizard of Oz, don't ask her about it she has no idea. Scarecrow-Is she ever going to snap out of it? Frodo-Don't count on it. ... Shoes. Dorothy-OMG, don't you just love them AHHH! I got them at Payless last week with BOGO discount and also got some new pretty pink pumps... Frodo-Let's leave her and see if she notices. Scarecrow-I'm right behind ya. Dorothy-Wait up my BFF'S (harmonica motion, tone, sing song) Dorothy-I'm kind of in a fructactulous mood, let's lets, let's. hey look! Coconut trees!!! Frodo-It's called a palm tree Scarecrow-I wish I was as smart as you..... I don't have a brain..... maybe the wizard.... ahh never mind. I'm screwed.... smiles stupidly Dorothy-frodo, will you grab one from me? Frodo-Dorothy, I'm two feet tall.... Dorothy-ya? Frodo-scarecrow, will you get one please. scarecrow-sure. (Grabs for one) Tree-Hey! those are Mine!!! How would you like it if somebody just came and randomly decided to grab your coconuts? huh? Dorothy-he he he he... he said coconuts... he he he Frodo-You said coconuts too.... Dorothy-ha ha, you said coconuts too. he he he Tree-I'll give you three seconds to get this idiot away from me... Dorothy-laughs, giggles, etc... Tree-That's it. throws coconuts at scarecrow. Scarecrow-Ow ow ow ahh oh the pain, agh Dorothy goes for coconuts runs into tin man Dorothy-Blank stare........... look! A man made out of tin!!! Tin Man-Oil Can! Oil Can! Dorothy-What? Tin Man-OIL CAN! you blonde Dorothy-OH oil can. Oh well... (Witch appears) Witch-(coughs) I have to get that fog machine fixed. Everyone-Ahh it's the witch Dorothy-Who? Witch-It's me, I'll get you my precious and your little hobbit too Frodo-How does it know Witch-(Cackles) leaves the scene Scarecrow-that was pretty much pointless Dorothy-Oh well. (Tone, harmonica, too low too high just right) Dorothy-Hey guys this forest is so utterly terrifying and opaque... it makes me so... what's the word, oh yah scared. scarecrow-Yah, in this forest I hear there are.. terrible running ducks, horrible flying monkeys and yaks Dorothy-my oh #Everyone-running ducks, flying monkeys, and yaks Dorothy-my oh#X3 @Lion-(roars) Frodo-(feetle position)@ X5 Dorothy-(screams after done) It's a lion (hit lion) Lion-Ow Ow What is your problem Blonde Dorothy-Why does everybody keep commenting on my hair... anyway say sorry you, you, you... Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road Frodo-are you kidding Lion-So, where are you guys... Scarecrow-Don't! Lion-Going? Dorothy-I don't know. Frodo-three strikes your out we're leaving her. Dorothy-eww baseball! (walks off) Frodo-agh (Harmonica, Jeopardy, realizes, Tone) off to see that one guy Trent-After they exited the forest, they started to frolic through the flowers which the pollen was sniffed and they were immediately put to sleep by the scent And yes the witch did come to save them not the freaky one in the forest but the really nice one with a pretty pink dress and some go- go boots that lives her poor pathetic life tending to baby sized adults who sing like Michael Jackson in his prime. Dorothy-Oh my gosh! look guys!! it's so pretty scarecrow-Let's ring the bell!!! Both make loud dinging noises Dorothy-Ding ding ding ding!!! What? blank stare from frodo Guard-Eh Hello??? what are you here for? frodo-Not again... dorothy-uhhh I don't know...? Frodo-We need to see the wizard... I uhh have something for him. Guard-Certainly mate!!!! I'll take ya to see 'im right away Wizard-Welcome! state your business Frodo-I've brought you this!!! the ring of power!!!! wizard-well if this midget has a reason... why are you four here? both-I don't know? | 0 | CoronerPerry |
this script, written in 2007 should not be made into a feature length film...
Dorothy-Follow the yellow brick road… x4
Frodo-Yes Dorothy, I Get it now. you've repeated it for the past fifteen agonizing miles. "Follow the {YELLOW BRICK} Road!!!!!
Dorothy-I'm sorry, You know I have short term memory loss, I need to say it to my self over and over and over and over and over and over (Frodo screams)… and over again just so that I can remember what I' doing... wait.…, what were we doing?
Frodo-FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD YOU BLONDE!!!!!
Dorothy-Yes it is my natural hair color
Frodo-AGH!!!!!
Blaine- As we join Dorothy gale with her little "friend",
Trent- In their quest to seek the wizard of oz,
Blaine- Commonly know as
Both- The wizard of Oz
Trent- from the classical playwright musical and movie of the 1950's
Blaine- the wizard of Oz
Trent- we introduce to you
Blaine- our interpretation of
Both- The wizard of Oz
Dorothy-Frodo I don't think we're in The Shire anymore
Frodo-Really I couldn't tell…Hey look a fork in the road
Dorothy-Really like where. Oh not that kind of fork silly, it's a fork because there's one two three…….four yellow brick roads… wait so which one do we follow Frodo, Frodo, Frodo!!!
(while Dorothy talks Frodo does headphone action/air guitar)
Scarecrow-Well you could go that way
Dorothy-Who was that?
Scarecrow-Maybe that way? Or that way? And possibly that way.
Dorothy-Are you okay?
Scarecrow-Yah, don't touch me you…Blonde. Where you going?
Dorothy-I don't know.
Frodo-We're going to the wizard of Oz, don't ask her about it she has no idea.
Scarecrow-Is she ever going to snap out of it?
Frodo-Don't count on it. … Shoes.
Dorothy-OMG, don't you just love them AHHH! I got them at Payless last week with BOGO discount and also got some new pretty pink pumps…
Frodo-Let's leave her and see if she notices.
Scarecrow-I'm right behind ya.
Dorothy-Wait up my BFF'S
(harmonica motion, tone, sing song)
Dorothy-I'm kind of in a fructactulous mood, let's lets, let's. hey look! Coconut trees!!!
Frodo-It's called a palm tree
Scarecrow-I wish I was as smart as you….. I don't have a brain….. maybe the wizard…. ahh never mind. I'm screwed…. smiles stupidly
Dorothy-frodo, will you grab one from me?
Frodo-Dorothy, I'm two feet tall….
Dorothy-ya?
Frodo-scarecrow, will you get one please.
scarecrow-sure. (Grabs for one)
Tree-Hey! those are Mine!!! How would you like it if somebody just came and randomly decided to grab your coconuts? huh?
Dorothy-he he he he… he said coconuts… he he he
Frodo-You said coconuts too….
Dorothy-ha ha, you said coconuts too. he he he
Tree-I'll give you three seconds to get this idiot away from me…
Dorothy-laughs, giggles, etc…
Tree-That's it. throws coconuts at scarecrow.
Scarecrow-Ow ow ow ahh oh the pain, agh
Dorothy goes for coconuts runs into tin man
Dorothy-Blank stare……….. look! A man made out of tin!!!
Tin Man-Oil Can! Oil Can!
Dorothy-What?
Tin Man-OIL CAN! you blonde
Dorothy-OH oil can. Oh well…
(Witch appears)
Witch-(coughs) I have to get that fog machine fixed.
Everyone-Ahh it's the witch
Dorothy-Who?
Witch-It's me, I'll get you my precious and your little hobbit too
Frodo-How does it know
Witch-(Cackles) leaves the scene
Scarecrow-that was pretty much pointless
Dorothy-Oh well.
(Tone, harmonica, too low too high just right)
Dorothy-Hey guys this forest is so utterly terrifying and opaque… it makes me so… what's the word, oh yah scared.
scarecrow-Yah, in this forest I hear there are.. terrible running ducks, horrible flying monkeys and yaks
Dorothy-my oh
#Everyone-running ducks, flying monkeys, and yaks
Dorothy-my oh#X3
@Lion-(roars)
Frodo-(feetle position)@ X5
Dorothy-(screams after done) It's a lion (hit lion)
Lion-Ow Ow What is your problem Blonde
Dorothy-Why does everybody keep commenting on my hair… anyway say sorry you, you, you… Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road
Frodo-are you kidding
Lion-So, where are you guys…
Scarecrow-Don't!
Lion-Going?
Dorothy-I don't know.
Frodo-three strikes your out we're leaving her.
Dorothy-eww baseball! (walks off)
Frodo-agh
(Harmonica, Jeopardy, realizes, Tone) off to see that one guy
Trent-After they exited the forest, they started to frolic through the flowers which the pollen was sniffed and they were immediately put to sleep by the scent And yes the witch did come to save them not the freaky one in the forest but the really nice one with a pretty pink dress and some go- go boots that lives her poor pathetic life tending to baby sized adults who sing like Michael Jackson in his prime.
Dorothy-Oh my gosh! look guys!! it's so pretty
scarecrow-Let's ring the bell!!!
Both make loud dinging noises
Dorothy-Ding ding ding ding!!! What?
blank stare from frodo
Guard-Eh Hello??? what are you here for?
frodo-Not again…
dorothy-uhhh I don't know…?
Frodo-We need to see the wizard… I uhh have something for him.
Guard-Certainly mate!!!! I'll take ya to see ‘im right away
Wizard-Welcome! state your business
Frodo-I've brought you this!!! the ring of power!!!!
wizard-well if this midget has a reason… why are you four here?
both-I don't know? | Entertainment | 0 | this-script-should-be-made-into-a-feature-length-film/1/ | 54,812 |
I strongly affirm the resolution which states "This script should be made into a feature length film." Now given that Mr. Perry is the instigator, the means the burden of proof belongs to him. Ladies and gentleman, please note that he has provided no arguments to defend his position, thus has not upheld his stance. Even if he manages to refute my arguments, you will still have no reason to vote in favor of him unless he provides arguments for his side. This is because merely refuting my arguments and claiming he won would be committing the negative evidence fallacy (more on that, if requested in the comment section or by my opponent). In addition, you should immediately consider voting against the instigator for conduct since he has refused to give an argument in his first round. In addition, please note that this debate concerns a feature LENGTH film. In other words, we're merely discussing a film which has the length of a feature film (it doesn't necessarily have to be a feature film). For more info, see here: <URL>... Without further ado, let us begin: CONTENTION #1: This script could easily serve to be the script of a "Porno". 1) Now if you aren't familiar with pornographic films, allow me to fill you in on one common trait which they possess: Pornographic films generally don't have a sensical plot, given that the main purpose of the film is simply nothing other than the pornography. Individuals (generally men) are more interested in "wrenching out their housepipe" than they are in the story. It's like Call of Duty 4. Gamers don't give too much of a crap about this storyline which they've seen a thousand times before; gamers are simply interested in the gameplay. 2) There's a lot of potential in making this film a porno. A) Observe the following lines created by my sophisticated opponent and note how they all include sexual innuendo: "Tree-Hey! those are Mine!!! How would you like it if somebody just came and randomly decided to grab your coconuts? huh? COMMENT: What? If somebody just CAME and randomly decided to GRAB your COCUNUTS? I'd say that somebody would like it alot. "Scarecrow-Ow ow ow ahh oh the pain, agh" COMMENT: Pretty self explanatory. "Dorothy goes for coconuts runs into tin man" COMMENT: Dorothy seems pretty desperate to get to those cocunuts. Even enough for her to make the move and RUN into the tin man (can you say "cow girl": <URL>... ). One might even say she was amorous. "Dorothy-Blank stare........... look! A man made out of tin!!! Tin Man-Oil Can! Oil Can! Dorothy-What? Tin Man-OIL CAN! you blonde Dorothy-OH oil can. Oh well..." COMMENT: Oil = innuendo for Seman Tin = A clever way of suggesting that this character is "hard." I could go on, but these are sufficient to establish my point. B) Wizard of Oz/Lord of the Rings crossover porno film? C'mon, this hasn't even been done before. Ergo, this film would be more or less original (which is good for a film to push towards). C) The hard core fans of both series will have something to pleasure themselves to when they see their favorite characters doing that which they were allowed to do on the big screen. CONTENTION #2: If not a porno film, then this can be a parody film. Indeed as it is often the case that a movie manages to be successful due to being so bad that it's good. This list of films and comments on said films is a good example of what I am talking about: <URL>... If this atrocious script were to hit the big screen, it could easily be a smashing success (and contrary to the previous movies I listed, more people would be likely to see it due the higher level of familiarity with the films "Wizard of OZ" and "Lord of the Rings" Thus, for the reasons listed above, I believe I've upheld my stance so far that the script mentioned in the first round ought to be made into a feature length film. Due to the vagueness of the topic, I will need some clarification before I elaborate on these arguments in more detail as well as provide a few additional ones. Thus, that will do it for now. | 0 | Logical-Master |
I strongly affirm the resolution which states "This script should be made into a feature length film."
Now given that Mr. Perry is the instigator, the means the burden of proof belongs to him. Ladies and gentleman, please note that he has provided no arguments to defend his position, thus has not upheld his stance. Even if he manages to refute my arguments, you will still have no reason to vote in favor of him unless he provides arguments for his side. This is because merely refuting my arguments and claiming he won would be committing the negative evidence fallacy (more on that, if requested in the comment section or by my opponent). In addition, you should immediately consider voting against the instigator for conduct since he has refused to give an argument in his first round.
In addition, please note that this debate concerns a feature LENGTH film. In other words, we're merely discussing a film which has the length of a feature film (it doesn't necessarily have to be a feature film). For more info, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Without further ado, let us begin:
CONTENTION #1: This script could easily serve to be the script of a "Porno".
1) Now if you aren't familiar with pornographic films, allow me to fill you in on one common trait which they possess: Pornographic films generally don't have a sensical plot, given that the main purpose of the film is simply nothing other than the pornography. Individuals (generally men) are more interested in "wrenching out their housepipe" than they are in the story. It's like Call of Duty 4. Gamers don't give too much of a crap about this storyline which they've seen a thousand times before; gamers are simply interested in the gameplay.
2) There's a lot of potential in making this film a porno.
A) Observe the following lines created by my sophisticated opponent and note how they all include sexual innuendo:
"Tree-Hey! those are Mine!!! How would you like it if somebody just came and randomly decided to grab your coconuts? huh?
COMMENT: What? If somebody just CAME and randomly decided to GRAB your COCUNUTS? I'd say that somebody would like it alot.
"Scarecrow-Ow ow ow ahh oh the pain, agh"
COMMENT: Pretty self explanatory.
"Dorothy goes for coconuts runs into tin man"
COMMENT: Dorothy seems pretty desperate to get to those cocunuts. Even enough for her to make the move and RUN into the tin man (can you say "cow girl": http://en.wikipedia.org... ). One might even say she was amorous.
"Dorothy-Blank stare……….. look! A man made out of tin!!!
Tin Man-Oil Can! Oil Can!
Dorothy-What?
Tin Man-OIL CAN! you blonde
Dorothy-OH oil can. Oh well…"
COMMENT:
Oil = innuendo for Seman
Tin = A clever way of suggesting that this character is "hard."
I could go on, but these are sufficient to establish my point.
B) Wizard of Oz/Lord of the Rings crossover porno film? C'mon, this hasn't even been done before. Ergo, this film would be more or less original (which is good for a film to push towards).
C) The hard core fans of both series will have something to pleasure themselves to when they see their favorite characters doing that which they were allowed to do on the big screen.
CONTENTION #2: If not a porno film, then this can be a parody film. Indeed as it is often the case that a movie manages to be successful due to being so bad that it's good. This list of films and comments on said films is a good example of what I am talking about: http://www.webomatica.com...
If this atrocious script were to hit the big screen, it could easily be a smashing success (and contrary to the previous movies I listed, more people would be likely to see it due the higher level of familiarity with the films "Wizard of OZ" and "Lord of the Rings"
Thus, for the reasons listed above, I believe I've upheld my stance so far that the script mentioned in the first round ought to be made into a feature length film. Due to the vagueness of the topic, I will need some clarification before I elaborate on these arguments in more detail as well as provide a few additional ones. Thus, that will do it for now. | Entertainment | 0 | this-script-should-be-made-into-a-feature-length-film/1/ | 54,813 |
CON forfeits. Thus, he drops my entire case. Extend my arguments to the next round. | 0 | Logical-Master |
CON forfeits. Thus, he drops my entire case. Extend my arguments to the next round. | Entertainment | 2 | this-script-should-be-made-into-a-feature-length-film/1/ | 54,814 |
He forfeits, ergo he drops, ergo I extend. :D | 0 | Logical-Master |
He forfeits, ergo he drops, ergo I extend. :D | Entertainment | 4 | this-script-should-be-made-into-a-feature-length-film/1/ | 54,815 |
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist as we describe it in the world as we know it.. time travel is impossible as time is differently perceived to parties. if i was to turn time back 50 years with a time machine, as i turned the magical device it would and could not change the physical world at all as it is obviously not a force at all but relative . i believe what we measure is merely the waves on the sea caused by an invisible ship . no i don't read books and you can probably tell. i know absolutely nothing about anything but still have the will to start a debate on such a well informed argument, challenging einstein.. i should probably give up now but cannot keep my fingers shut... this will infuriate some 'clever' (able to regurgitate information) people, yet hopefully tickle an open minded individual into shedding some hard hitting argument to my opinion.. please dont use big words.. | 0 | jonnyh7 |
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist as we describe it in the world as we know it.. time travel is impossible as time is differently perceived to parties. if i was to turn time back 50 years with a time machine, as i turned the magical device it would and could not change the physical world at all as it is obviously not a force at all but relative . i believe what we measure is merely the waves on the sea caused by an invisible ship .
no i don't read books and you can probably tell. i know absolutely nothing about anything but still have the will to start a debate on such a well informed argument, challenging einstein.. i should probably give up now but cannot keep my fingers shut... this will infuriate some 'clever' (able to regurgitate information) people, yet hopefully tickle an open minded individual into shedding some hard hitting argument to my opinion.. please dont use big words.. | Philosophy | 0 | time-is-just-the-onlookers-own-representation-of-movement-therefore-does-not-exist/1/ | 54,818 |
Very well put sir thank-you. Yet I still have an argument. Imagine if there were no moving things like the sun etc and no us.. what would time apply to?.. when Einstein says time is relative . He is pointing out a contradiction of time. I think we invented the experience as time and this only exists in our minds . We move and so does everything around us.. giving us the impression that everything is linear and needis to be measured. I have a theory that everything is happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time. Without physical matter and movement I really dont think time exists | 0 | jonnyh7 |
Very well put sir thank-you. Yet I still have an argument. Imagine if there were no moving things like the sun etc and no us.. what would time apply to?.. when Einstein says time is relative . He is pointing out a contradiction of time. I think we invented the experience as time and this only exists in our minds . We move and so does everything around us.. giving us the impression that everything is linear and needis to be measured. I have a theory that everything is
happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time. Without physical matter and movement I really dont think time exists | Philosophy | 1 | time-is-just-the-onlookers-own-representation-of-movement-therefore-does-not-exist/1/ | 54,819 |
radioactivity is in motion or a product of none the less.. . . besides it is matter that has been subjected to conditions.. if we did not exist we would not be able to measure time . stasis field or no stasis field.. don't get me wrong. Im not saying something doesn't exist if there isn't anyone there to see it.. thats total nonsense.. i mean time only exists to the living or none living matter that is effected by movement. re- My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time. i am sorry. i wrote this in a rush on the way to work.. i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world. yet still being side by side.. one under the illusion of time in a moving material world. imagine no matter. (no hard stuff) imagine all the energy's in the universe as one energy without matter of any sort.. one big energy . an energy that is everything all at once.(before earth experience) (nothing to do with our world) just existing .not even planets.. possible yes.? there is no time or measurement as there is no need to create a path of change.. now if we brought matter into the equation we then instantly have movement.. which applies to time in any relative way we look at it. this theory would explain a good few things like ghosts. premonitions. dee ja vu . think about it.. that funny feeling you have done this before.. or when you knew something was about to happen and it did.. gobsmacked by it.. only due to the illusion of time | 0 | jonnyh7 |
radioactivity is in motion or a product of none the less.. . . besides it is matter that has been subjected to conditions..
if we did not exist we would not be able to measure time . stasis field or no stasis field.. don't get me wrong. Im not saying something doesn't exist if there isn't anyone there to see it.. thats total nonsense.. i mean time only exists to the living or none living matter that is effected by movement.
re- My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time.
i am sorry. i wrote this in a rush on the way to work.. i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world. yet still being side by side.. one under the illusion of time in a moving material world.
imagine no matter. (no hard stuff)
imagine all the energy's in the universe as one energy without matter of any sort.. one big energy . an energy that is everything all at once.(before earth experience) (nothing to do with our world) just existing .not even planets.. possible yes.? there is no time or measurement as there is no need to create a path of change.. now if we brought matter into the equation we then instantly have movement.. which applies to time in any relative way we look at it. this theory would explain a good few things like ghosts. premonitions. dee ja vu . think about it.. that funny feeling you have done this before.. or when you knew something was about to happen and it did.. gobsmacked by it.. only due to the illusion of time | Philosophy | 2 | time-is-just-the-onlookers-own-representation-of-movement-therefore-does-not-exist/1/ | 54,820 |
I do not believe that trickle down economics by giving money to the richest in society is the best methord of helping the average person become wealthier and certainly doesn't help social mobility. | 0 | Gareth_BM |
I do not believe that trickle down economics by giving money to the richest in society is the best methord of helping the average person become wealthier and certainly doesn't help social mobility. | Economics | 0 | trickle-down-economics-is-not-the-most-effective-methord-of-increasing-general-societies-wealth./1/ | 54,847 |
I do not believe that trickle down in our modern society is the most effective as the targets who are given the money are the richest of society. These rich people are most likely to consume luxury products, companies who sell such products are owned by the richest in society. Whilst some of the money is spent on business side of life money spent in business is spent in order to gain profit, as a result much of this money will eventually feed back into the hands of the super rich (who as I said spend much of their personal money on each other) who own these companies. Because you are spending money to bale out the big business and on the super rich you are trying to stop these people fail, for a market to not be stagnant people who fail either by pure bad decisions or by putting them selves in a position where the economic market causes the business to fail must actually fail and not have a safety web that keeps these business in the game and their owners still super rich. As a result the argument that it stop stagnation is counter intuitive. It also directly violates pretty much all schools of political and economic ideology be it capitalist or Marxist and communist. | 0 | Gareth_BM |
I do not believe that trickle down in our modern society is the most effective as the targets who are given the money are the richest of society. These rich people are most likely to consume luxury products, companies who sell such products are owned by the richest in society. Whilst some of the money is spent on business side of life money spent in business is spent in order to gain profit, as a result much of this money will eventually feed back into the hands of the super rich (who as I said spend much of their personal money on each other) who own these companies. Because you are spending money to bale out the big business and on the super rich you are trying to stop these people fail, for a market to not be stagnant people who fail either by pure bad decisions or by putting them selves in a position where the economic market causes the business to fail must actually fail and not have a safety web that keeps these business in the game and their owners still super rich. As a result the argument that it stop stagnation is counter intuitive. It also directly violates pretty much all schools of political and economic ideology be it capitalist or Marxist and communist. | Economics | 2 | trickle-down-economics-is-not-the-most-effective-methord-of-increasing-general-societies-wealth./1/ | 54,848 |
Please look to Con as the Pro COMPLETELY overlooks the benefits of trickling down the economy. I agree that trickling down is a very risky move on the part of a government and is a rash decision. However, there are some points in history that trickling down is required. A perfect example is hand outs. When consumers no longer spend on the economy the economy becomes very stale and much of the produce become wasted. At this point in time the goverment needs to make a small push to move supply. To do so hands out occur. However, bear in mind that this is only possible in western democratic governments. Democratic or Democratic-esque goverments in asia usually would not do this because of their races way of thinking and counters their moral. But in western democratic goverments then yes I would agree that trickle down has a benefit. The more general use of trickle down is to move money from the richer part of the economy to the poor. This Robin Hood effect is morally correct in order to create some form of happiness and ease for the poor. | 0 | anonymousforensicsalumni |
Please look to Con as the Pro COMPLETELY overlooks the benefits of trickling down the economy. I agree that trickling down is a very risky move on the part of a government and is a rash decision. However, there are some points in history that trickling down is required. A perfect example is hand outs. When consumers no longer spend on the economy the economy becomes very stale and much of the produce become wasted. At this point in time the goverment needs to make a small push to move supply. To do so hands out occur. However, bear in mind that this is only possible in western democratic governments. Democratic or Democratic-esque goverments in asia usually would not do this because of their races way of thinking and counters their moral. But in western democratic goverments then yes I would agree that trickle down has a benefit. The more general use of trickle down is to move money from the richer part of the economy to the poor. This Robin Hood effect is morally correct in order to create some form of happiness and ease for the poor. | Economics | 0 | trickle-down-economics-is-not-the-most-effective-methord-of-increasing-general-societies-wealth./1/ | 54,849 |
no u <URL>... | 0 | ColtonGlasgow |
no u http://8449-presscdn-0-66.pagely.netdna-cdn.com... | People | 0 | u-suk/1/ | 54,862 |
The FitnessGram" Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start. | 0 | ColtonGlasgow |
The FitnessGram" Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start. | People | 1 | u-suk/1/ | 54,863 |
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stan | 0 | ColtonGlasgow |
According to all known laws
of aviation,
there is no way a bee
should be able to fly.
Its wings are too small to get
its fat little body off the ground.
The bee, of course, flies anyway
because bees don't care
what humans think is impossible.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let's shake it up a little.
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
Ooming!
Hang on a second.
Hello?
- Barry?
- Adam?
- Oan you believe this is happening?
- I can't. I'll pick you up.
Looking sharp.
Use the stairs. Your father
paid good money for those.
Sorry. I'm excited.
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
A perfect report card, all B's.
Very proud.
Ma! I got a thing going here.
- You got lint on your fuzz.
- Ow! That's me!
- Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
- Bye!
Barry, I told you,
stop flying in the house!
- Hey, Adam.
- Hey, Barry.
- Is that fuzz gel?
- A little. Special day, graduation.
Never thought I'd make it.
Three days grade school,
three days high school.
Those were awkward.
Three days college. I'm glad I took
a day and hitchhiked around the hive.
You did come back different.
- Hi, Barry.
- Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
- Hear about Frankie?
- Yeah.
- You going to the funeral?
- No, I'm not going.
Everybody knows,
sting someone, you die.
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
I guess he could have
just gotten out of the way.
I love this incorporating
an amusement park into our day.
That's why we don't need vacations.
Boy, quite a bit of pomp...
under the circumstances.
- Well, Adam, today we are men.
- We are!
- Bee-men.
- Amen!
Hallelujah!
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
Welcome, New Hive Oity
graduating class of...
...9:15.
That concludes our ceremonies.
And begins your career
at Honex Industries!
Will we pick ourjob today?
I heard it's just orientation.
Heads up! Here we go.
Keep your hands and antennas
inside the tram at all times.
- Wonder what it'll be like?
- A little scary.
Welcome to Honex,
a division of Honesco
and a part of the Hexagon Group.
This is it!
Wow.
Wow.
We know that you, as a bee,
have worked your whole life
to get to the point where you
can work for your whole life.
Honey begins when our valiant Pollen
Jocks bring the nectar to the hive.
Our top-secret formula
is automatically color-corrected,
scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured
into this soothing sweet syrup
with its distinctive
golden glow you know as...
Honey!
- That girl was hot.
- She's my cousin!
- She is?
- Yes, we're all cousins.
- Right. You're right.
- At Honex, we constantly strive
to improve every aspect
of bee existence.
These bees are stress-testing
a new helmet technology.
- What do you think he makes?
- Not enough.
Here we have our latest advancement,
the Krelman.
- What does that do?
- Oatches that little strand of honey
that hangs after you pour it.
Saves us millions.
Oan anyone work on the Krelman?
Of course. Most bee jobs are
small ones. But bees know
that every small job,
if it's done well, means a lot.
But choose carefully
because you'll stay in the job
you pick for the rest of your life.
The same job the rest of your life?
I didn't know that.
What's the difference?
You'll be happy to know that bees,
as a species, haven't had one day off
in 27 million years.
So you'll just work us to death?
We'll sure try.
Wow! That blew my mind!
"What's the difference?"
How can you say that?
One job forever?
That's an insane choice to have to make.
I'm relieved. Now we only have
to make one decision in life.
But, Adam, how could they
never have told us that?
Why would you question anything?
We're bees.
We're the most perfectly
functioning society on Earth.
You ever think maybe things
work a little too well here?
Like what? Give me one example.
I don't know. But you know
what I'm talking about.
Please clear the gate.
Royal Nectar Force on approach.
Wait a second. Oheck it out.
- Hey, those are Pollen Jocks!
- Wow.
I've never seen them this close.
They know what it's like
outside the hive.
Yeah, but some don't come back.
- Hey, Jocks!
- Hi, Jocks!
You guys did great!
You're monsters!
You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it!
- I wonder where they were.
- I don't know.
Their day's not planned.
Outside the hive, flying who knows
where, doing who knows what.
You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen
Jock. You have to be bred for that.
Right.
Look. That's more pollen
than you and I will see in a lifetime.
It's just a status symbol.
Bees make too much of it.
Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it
and the ladies see you wearing it.
Those ladies?
Aren't they our cousins too?
Distant. Distant.
Look at these two.
- Oouple of Hive Harrys.
- Let's have fun with them.
It must be dangerous
being a Pollen Jock.
Yeah. Once a bear pinned me
against a mushroom!
He had a paw on my throat,
and with the other, he was slapping me!
- Oh, my!
- I never thought I'd knock him out.
What were you doing during this?
Trying to alert the authorities.
I can autograph that.
A little gusty out there today,
wasn't it, comrades?
Yeah. Gusty.
We're hitting a sunflower patch
six miles from here tomorrow.
- Six miles, huh?
- Barry!
A puddle jump for us,
but maybe you're not up for it.
- Maybe I am.
- You are not!
We're going 0900 at J-Gate.
What do you think, buzzy-boy?
Are you bee enough?
I might be. It all depends
on what 0900 means.
Hey, Honex!
Dad, you surprised me.
You decide what you're interested in?
- Well, there's a lot of choices.
- But you only get one.
Do you ever get bored
doing the same job every day?
Son, let me tell you about stirring.
You grab that stick, and you just
move it around, and you stir it around.
You get yourself into a rhythm.
It's a beautiful thing.
You know, Dad,
the more I think about it,
maybe the honey field
just isn't right for me.
You were thinking of what,
making balloon animals?
That's a bad job
for a guy with a stinger.
Janet, your son's not sure
he wants to go into honey!
- Barry, you are so funny sometimes.
- I'm not trying to be funny.
You're not funny! You're going
into honey. Our son, the stirrer!
- You're gonna be a stirrer?
- No one's listening to me!
Wait till you see the sticks I have.
I could say anything right now.
I'm gonna get an ant tattoo!
Let's open some honey and celebrate!
Maybe I'll pierce my thorax.
Shave my antennae.
Shack up with a grasshopper. Get
a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"!
I'm so proud.
- We're starting work today!
- Today's the day.
Oome on! All the good jobs
will be gone.
Yeah, right.
Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring,
stirrer, front desk, hair removal...
- Is it still available?
- Hang on. Two left!
One of them's yours! Oongratulations!
Step to the side.
- What'd you get?
- Picking crud out. Stellar!
Wow!
Oouple of newbies?
Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready!
Make your choice.
- You want to go first?
- No, you go.
Oh, my. What's available?
Restroom attendant's open,
not for the reason you think.
- Any chance of getting the Krelman?
- Sure, you're on.
I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out.
Wax monkey's always open.
The Krelman opened up again.
What happened?
A bee died. Makes an opening. See?
He's dead. Another dead one.
Deady. Deadified. Two more dead.
Dead from the neck up.
Dead from the neck down. That's life!
Oh, this is so hard!
Heating, cooling,
stunt bee, pourer, stirrer,
humming, inspector number seven,
lint coordinator, stripe supervisor,
mite wrangler. Barry, what
do you think I should... Barry?
Barry!
All right, we've got the sunflower patch
in quadrant nine...
What happened to you?
Where are you?
- I'm going out.
- Out? Out where?
- Out there.
- Oh, no!
I have to, before I go
to work for the rest of my life.
You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello?
Another call coming in.
If anyone's feeling brave,
there's a Korean deli on 83rd
that gets their roses today.
Hey, guys.
- Look at that.
- Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday?
Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted.
It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up.
Really? Feeling lucky, are you?
Sign here, here. Just initial that.
- Thank you.
- OK.
You got a rain advisory today,
and as you all know,
bees cannot fly in rain.
So be careful. As always,
watch your brooms,
hockey sticks, dogs,
birds, bears and bats.
Also, I got a couple of reports
of root beer being poured on us.
Murphy's in a home because of it,
babbling like a cicada!
- That's awful.
- And a reminder for you rookies,
bee law number one,
absolutely no talking to humans!
All right, launch positions!
Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz,
buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz!
Black and yellow!
Hello!
You ready for this, hot shot?
Yeah. Yeah, bring it on.
Wind, check.
- Antennae, check.
- Nectar pack, check.
- Wings, check.
- Stinger, check.
Scared out of my shorts, check.
OK, ladies,
let's move it out!
Pound those petunias,
you striped stem-suckers!
All of you, drain those flowers!
Wow! I'm out!
I can't believe I'm out!
So blue.
I feel so fast and free!
Box kite!
Wow!
Flowers!
This is Blue Leader.
We have roses visual.
Bring it around 30 degrees and hold.
Roses!
30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around.
Stan | People | 2 | u-suk/1/ | 54,864 |
u suk bkus u ware glases nrd get rket pham | 0 | Techtatious |
u suk bkus u ware glases nrd get rket pham | People | 0 | u-suk/1/ | 54,865 |
The 24th of February is always, and rightly so, a day of vivid memories for us. On this date and from this very hall began the Movement's amazing march to victory, which bore it to the helm of the Reich, to leadership of the nation and its destiny. This day is a great day for me too. Surely, it is seldom that a political leader can stand before the same band of followers that hailed his first great public appearance twenty-one years before, and repeat the same program. Seldom can a man proclaim the same doctrines and put them into practice for twenty-one years without at any time having had to relinquish a single part of his original program. In 1920, when we met for the first time in this hall, many of you must have asked yourselves: "Dear me, a new party, another new party! Why do we want a new party? Don't we have parties enough?" If the new movement had been or had intended to be nothing but a continuation of the old parties or an addition to existing parties, such an objection would indeed have been justified. There were certainly more than enough parties in those days. But, after all, our movement was something quite different from all the existing and incipient parties of the time. It was a movement that declared for the first time and from the very outset that it had no intention of representing the definite, clearly outlined interests of individual classes. It did not stand for town or farm. It did not represent Catholic or Protestant interests; nor did it represent individual sections of the country. This was a movement which was definitely centered upon the concept of the German people. It was not a class party, sworn to uphold the right or the left, attempting to divide the nation, but one which from its very beginning had no thought for anything but the German people as a whole. Thus began a heroic struggle, opposed at its inception by nearly all. Nevertheless, the essential objects of the movement embraced the decisive element. Its clear and unambiguous aim did not allow the movement to become the tool of definite and limited individual interests, but raised it above all special obligations to the particular obligation of serving the German nation in its entirety, of safeguarding its interests regardless of momentary dissensions or confused thoughts. Thus, today, after 21 years, I again stand before you. In those days, we were in the middle of a great collapse; Versailles oppressed us all heavily. With heavy hearts individuals throughout the entire German Reich began to try to find a way out of this profound misery. There were many different views as to the reasons for the collapse. Political mistakes of the most serious kind had undoubtedly been made, not during the war years but many years before. It had been apparent that a storm was brewing. Certain warmongers throughout the world-the very ones who are doing the same thing today-were mobilizing the whole of Europe against Germany. Although favorable opportunities of opposing these warmongers-and, moreover, of opposing them in good time-had presented themselves, the German government of that time proved a political failure. At the beginning of the Great War, too, the political leadership in both internal and external affairs was as clumsy as possible and, from the psychological point of view, utterly wrong. However, in one particular sphere no reproach could be leveled against them: They had not wanted the war. On the contrary, had they wanted the war they would certainly have prepared for it differently, and they would have chosen a more favorable time for it. No, their greatest crime-if a mistake can be called thus-was that, although they knew that war was inevitable, they failed to act at the decisive hour and, consequently, at a more propitious time. Military mistakes were made too-many military mistakes. Yet despite all this, one fact remains: the German soldier, unconquered, defied his enemies for over four years. A unique epic was enacted during these four years. Regardless of the greatness of our present victories or of our victories in the future, the German nation will always look back with deep emotion and inexpressible feelings to the great days of the World War when, alone and forsaken by the whole world, it fought a heroic struggle against an overwhelming superiority in numbers and an overpowering mass of armaments, yet never yielded one inch until the collapse occurred for which not the man at the front but disintegration at home was responsible. This brings us to the really fundamental and decisive reason, to the actual cause of the collapse which took place at that time. The German nation had for several decades been exposed to gradual internal disintegration. It was divided into two worlds. We are only too conscious of them today, we old National Socialists, for we fought and struggled against them. We stood between these two worlds, and it was out of them that our movement gradually came into being. You have not forgotten the political conditions of those days, my old party members-the conditions of our political life. You still remember the placards of the two great conflicting ideas-the bourgeoisie on the one side and the proletariat on the other; on the one side nationalism, on the other socialism. Between these two there yawned a gulf which, it was asserted, could never be bridged. The nationalist idea of the bourgeoisie was exclusively bourgeois, and the socialist ideal was exclusively Marxian. The bourgeois ideal was limited to a class; the Marxian ideal was unlimited internationally. But, fundamentally both movements were already sterile. When I first stood before you here, no sensible person believed that there would ever be any clear decision on this point. This, after all, was the decisive issue. This struggle was inevitable if our nation were not to disintegrate completely. One side would have to emerge from it as the decisive victor. But even this was out of the question at the time, for the movements were already beginning to dissolve and to split up. They had lost their youthful "lan. On the one side, the bourgeoisie was gradually dividing itself into countless parties, societies, groups, associations, bodies representing municipal and rural interests, house and land-owners, etc. On the other side were the Marxian movements, which were likewise disintegrating more and more rapidly. Majority Socialists, Independent Socialists, Communists, Radical Communists, the Communist Labor Party, Syndicalists, and so forth: Who can still remember the struggle of all these groups against one another? Every placard was a declaration of war, not only against their opponents but often against their own world as well. The two camps that faced us then must finally have led to the complete dissolution of the German community, and naturally, therefore, to the waste and misuse of the German people's entire strength. Regardless of the decisions to be made, whether they related to internal matters or foreign policy, whether they were economic or purely internal questions, none of them could be successfully solved unless the whole nation stood solidly united for the purpose. Versailles confronted us at that time. When I made my first appearance in this hall, my whole political conscience imposed upon me the duty of protesting against this subjection, the most ignominious of all times, and of calling upon the nation to take up arms against it. From the point of view of foreign policy, the dictate deprived the German nation of all its rights and rendered it defenseless. The foreign situation, moreover, also demanded a clear decision. The shameful dictate was intended to enslave the German nation forever. No limits had been set to this slavery. From the very outset they said: "We won't state a definite sum for you to pay, because we ourselves do not know what you are able to pay. From time to time we will fix fresh sums; but you must pledge yourselves immediately to pay everything we determine." And that is what the German governments of those days did. The fulfillment of these obligations would have reduced Germany to complete ruin forever. And when a Frenchman said that the aim was really to annihilate 20 million Germans, that was by no means mere imagination. It was entirely possible to calculate the time when the German nation would actually number 20 or 3o million less. This enslavement-disastrous even from the purely economic point of view-was now opposed by the Germans, divided into two great camps. Their points of view were completely different; but both placed their hopes in international ideals. The more intellectually inclined camp said: "We believe in a world-conscience, in world justice. We believe in the League of Nations at Geneva." The others were more proletarian and said: "We believe in international solidarity," and things of that sort. But they all believed in something outside their own people-were ever ready to take refuge in the hope that others would come and help them. The conception of the new Movement, whose fundamentals can be expressed in a single sentence: "The Lord helps those who help themselves," opposed this. That is not only a very pious phrase, but a very just one. For one cannot assume that God exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that God exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. He does not exist for that purpose. He has always, at all times, blessed only those who were prepared to fight their own battles. We have seen what can be expected from the help of others. An American President appeared and solemnly declared that if we laid down our arms we should receive this, that and the other thing. We laid down our arms, and the oath was broken and forgotten. When the gentlemen were reminded of it they became very unpleasant. It did not matter how much democratic Germany begged and prayed, she was granted not the slightest relief, n | 0 | Techtatious |
The 24th of February is always, and rightly so, a day of vivid memories for us. On this date and from this very hall began the Movement's amazing march to victory, which bore it to the helm of the Reich, to leadership of the nation and its destiny. This day is a great day for me too. Surely, it is seldom that a political leader can stand before the same band of followers that hailed his first great public appearance twenty-one years before, and repeat the same program. Seldom can a man proclaim the same doctrines and put them into practice for twenty-one years without at any time having had to relinquish a single part of his original program. In 1920, when we met for the first time in this hall, many of you must have asked yourselves: "Dear me, a new party, another new party! Why do we want a new party? Don't we have parties enough?"
If the new movement had been or had intended to be nothing but a continuation of the old parties or an addition to existing parties, such an objection would indeed have been justified. There were certainly more than enough parties in those days. But, after all, our movement was something quite different from all the existing and incipient parties of the time. It was a movement that declared for the first time and from the very outset that it had no intention of representing the definite, clearly outlined interests of individual classes. It did not stand for town or farm. It did not represent Catholic or Protestant interests; nor did it represent individual sections of the country. This was a movement which was definitely centered upon the concept of the German people. It was not a class party, sworn to uphold the right or the left, attempting to divide the nation, but one which from its very beginning had no thought for anything but the German people as a whole.
Thus began a heroic struggle, opposed at its inception by nearly all. Nevertheless, the essential objects of the movement embraced the decisive element. Its clear and unambiguous aim did not allow the movement to become the tool of definite and limited individual interests, but raised it above all special obligations to the particular obligation of serving the German nation in its entirety, of safeguarding its interests regardless of momentary dissensions or confused thoughts. Thus, today, after 21 years, I again stand before you.
In those days, we were in the middle of a great collapse; Versailles oppressed us all heavily. With heavy hearts individuals throughout the entire German Reich began to try to find a way out of this profound misery. There were many different views as to the reasons for the collapse. Political mistakes of the most serious kind had undoubtedly been made, not during the war years but many years before. It had been apparent that a storm was brewing. Certain warmongers throughout the world-the very ones who are doing the same thing today-were mobilizing the whole of Europe against Germany.
Although favorable opportunities of opposing these warmongers-and, moreover, of opposing them in good time-had presented themselves, the German government of that time proved a political failure. At the beginning of the Great War, too, the political leadership in both internal and external affairs was as clumsy as possible and, from the psychological point of view, utterly wrong.
However, in one particular sphere no reproach could be leveled against them: They had not wanted the war. On the contrary, had they wanted the war they would certainly have prepared for it differently, and they would have chosen a more favorable time for it. No, their greatest crime-if a mistake can be called thus-was that, although they knew that war was inevitable, they failed to act at the decisive hour and, consequently, at a more propitious time. Military mistakes were made too-many military mistakes. Yet despite all this, one fact remains: the German soldier, unconquered, defied his enemies for over four years.
A unique epic was enacted during these four years. Regardless of the greatness of our present victories or of our victories in the future, the German nation will always look back with deep emotion and inexpressible feelings to the great days of the World War when, alone and forsaken by the whole world, it fought a heroic struggle against an overwhelming superiority in numbers and an overpowering mass of armaments, yet never yielded one inch until the collapse occurred for which not the man at the front but disintegration at home was responsible.
This brings us to the really fundamental and decisive reason, to the actual cause of the collapse which took place at that time. The German nation had for several decades been exposed to gradual internal disintegration. It was divided into two worlds. We are only too conscious of them today, we old National Socialists, for we fought and struggled against them. We stood between these two worlds, and it was out of them that our movement gradually came into being.
You have not forgotten the political conditions of those days, my old party members-the conditions of our political life. You still remember the placards of the two great conflicting ideas-the bourgeoisie on the one side and the proletariat on the other; on the one side nationalism, on the other socialism. Between these two there yawned a gulf which, it was asserted, could never be bridged. The nationalist idea of the bourgeoisie was exclusively bourgeois, and the socialist ideal was exclusively Marxian. The bourgeois ideal was limited to a class; the Marxian ideal was unlimited internationally. But, fundamentally both movements were already sterile. When I first stood before you here, no sensible person believed that there would ever be any clear decision on this point. This, after all, was the decisive issue. This struggle was inevitable if our nation were not to disintegrate completely. One side would have to emerge from it as the decisive victor.
But even this was out of the question at the time, for the movements were already beginning to dissolve and to split up. They had lost their youthful "lan. On the one side, the bourgeoisie was gradually dividing itself into countless parties, societies, groups, associations, bodies representing municipal and rural interests, house and land-owners, etc. On the other side were the Marxian movements, which were likewise disintegrating more and more rapidly. Majority Socialists, Independent Socialists, Communists, Radical Communists, the Communist Labor Party, Syndicalists, and so forth: Who can still remember the struggle of all these groups against one another?
Every placard was a declaration of war, not only against their opponents but often against their own world as well. The two camps that faced us then must finally have led to the complete dissolution of the German community, and naturally, therefore, to the waste and misuse of the German people's entire strength.
Regardless of the decisions to be made, whether they related to internal matters or foreign policy, whether they were economic or purely internal questions, none of them could be successfully solved unless the whole nation stood solidly united for the purpose.
Versailles confronted us at that time. When I made my first appearance in this hall, my whole political conscience imposed upon me the duty of protesting against this subjection, the most ignominious of all times, and of calling upon the nation to take up arms against it. From the point of view of foreign policy, the dictate deprived the German nation of all its rights and rendered it defenseless. The foreign situation, moreover, also demanded a clear decision. The shameful dictate was intended to enslave the German nation forever. No limits had been set to this slavery. From the very outset they said: "We won't state a definite sum for you to pay, because we ourselves do not know what you are able to pay. From time to time we will fix fresh sums; but you must pledge yourselves immediately to pay everything we determine." And that is what the German governments of those days did.
The fulfillment of these obligations would have reduced Germany to complete ruin forever. And when a Frenchman said that the aim was really to annihilate 20 million Germans, that was by no means mere imagination. It was entirely possible to calculate the time when the German nation would actually number 20 or 3o million less. This enslavement-disastrous even from the purely economic point of view-was now opposed by the Germans, divided into two great camps. Their points of view were completely different; but both placed their hopes in international ideals. The more intellectually inclined camp said: "We believe in a world-conscience, in world justice. We believe in the League of Nations at Geneva." The others were more proletarian and said: "We believe in international solidarity," and things of that sort. But they all believed in something outside their own people-were ever ready to take refuge in the hope that others would come and help them.
The conception of the new Movement, whose fundamentals can be expressed in a single sentence: "The Lord helps those who help themselves," opposed this. That is not only a very pious phrase, but a very just one. For one cannot assume that God exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that God exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. He does not exist for that purpose. He has always, at all times, blessed only those who were prepared to fight their own battles. We have seen what can be expected from the help of others. An American President appeared and solemnly declared that if we laid down our arms we should receive this, that and the other thing. We laid down our arms, and the oath was broken and forgotten. When the gentlemen were reminded of it they became very unpleasant. It did not matter how much democratic Germany begged and prayed, she was granted not the slightest relief, n | People | 1 | u-suk/1/ | 54,866 |
In conclusion you dumb twat, I say you good sir are indeed a bint... good day sir #blacklivesmatter | 0 | Techtatious |
In conclusion you dumb twat, I say you good sir are indeed a bint... good day sir
#blacklivesmatter | People | 2 | u-suk/1/ | 54,867 |
Before starting, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. As my opponent said, USC is better than UCLA in football. Even though UCLA is first overall in sports championships, that is irrelevant, because we're comparing only USC vs UCLA, as the resolution says. All time, for every sport, USC leads 891-842-10 vs UCLA. [1] As for academics, USC (23) also ranks higher than UCLA (25) overall, for 2011. [2] USC also has a lower student faculty ratio (9:1) vs UCLA (16:1). [3][4] In terms of money, USC provides need-based financial aid to 62% of its undergraduate students, compared to 50% provided by UCLA. [3][4] [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... | 1 | Awed |
Before starting, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.
As my opponent said, USC is better than UCLA in football. Even though UCLA is first overall in sports championships, that is irrelevant, because we're comparing only USC vs UCLA, as the resolution says. All time, for every sport, USC leads 891-842-10 vs UCLA. [1]
As for academics, USC (23) also ranks higher than UCLA (25) overall, for 2011. [2]
USC also has a lower student faculty ratio (9:1) vs UCLA (16:1). [3][4]
In terms of money, USC provides need-based financial aid to 62% of its undergraduate students, compared to 50% provided by UCLA. [3][4]
[1] http://www.great-sports-rivalries.com...
[2] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...
[3] http://www.princetonreview.com...
[4] http://www.princetonreview.com... | Sports | 0 | ucla-vs-usc-ucla-FTW/1/ | 54,868 |
I'd like to thank my opponent for his quick response. My opponent states statistics about degrees given out by USC and UCLA, which is irrelevant, considering that UCLA has far more students compared to USC. For statistics of student satisfaction [1] 87% would attend USC again compared to 85% at UCLA 83% were satisfied with their overall academic experience at USC (same as UCLA) USC didn't survey the students in the other two categories. "The average highschool GPA of UCLA has to be at least 4.2 while the average GPA for USC is only 3.7" This is an unweighted GPA compared to a weighted GPA (4.0 scale vs 5.0 scale). A more accurate, unweighted (4.0 scale) number from the university websites show that the average GPA for new undergrads enrolled in fall 2009 was 3.59 for UCLA [2] and 3.8 for USC [3] for those admitted. For GPA, USC has a higher standard than UCLA. "UCLA has a larger campus compared to USC. (419 to 155 respectively). There is room for buildings that can help improve one's education. UCLA has 870 registered student organizations, USC has 676." USC has a campus size of 226 acres [4] according to it's official website, a more accurate source than The Princeton Review. Even though UCLA's campus size is in fact 419 acres [5], this is irrelevant to one's education. Looking at Harvard, for example, the size is 210 acres but the quality of education is much higher than USC or UCLA. ASU has a campus size of 625 acres, but again, the quality of education of USC and UCLA is much higher than ASU. In terms of student organizations, USC's website shows a more accurate number, 725+ [6], and UCLA reporting 800+[7] on its website. When comparing the number of students to student organizations [8][9], the ratio is 48:1 at both USC and UCLA. For sports, even though UCLA has more options for it's students to participate in, the overwhelming majority of the students will be the ones watching the sports, not playing. A sports fanatic would much rather be part of a school whose sports teams win games than a school whose team plays a lot of games, but has a losing record against its rival school. Looking back at the rankings, USC is ranked 23rd overall in the country, while UCLA is 25th. In sports, USC beats UCLA constantly, with an overall record of 891-842-10 vs UCLA. For these reasons, I urge a Con vote. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... | 1 | Awed |
I'd like to thank my opponent for his quick response.
My opponent states statistics about degrees given out by USC and UCLA, which is irrelevant, considering that UCLA has far more students compared to USC.
For statistics of student satisfaction [1]
87% would attend USC again compared to 85% at UCLA
83% were satisfied with their overall academic experience at USC (same as UCLA)
USC didn't survey the students in the other two categories.
"The average highschool GPA of UCLA has to be at least 4.2 while the average GPA for USC is only 3.7"
This is an unweighted GPA compared to a weighted GPA (4.0 scale vs 5.0 scale). A more accurate, unweighted (4.0 scale) number from the university websites show that the average GPA for new undergrads enrolled in fall 2009 was 3.59 for UCLA [2] and 3.8 for USC [3] for those admitted. For GPA, USC has a higher standard than UCLA.
"UCLA has a larger campus compared to USC. (419 to 155 respectively). There is room for buildings that can help improve one's education. UCLA has 870 registered student organizations, USC has 676."
USC has a campus size of 226 acres [4] according to it's official website, a more accurate source than The Princeton Review. Even though UCLA's campus size is in fact 419 acres [5], this is irrelevant to one's education. Looking at Harvard, for example, the size is 210 acres but the quality of education is much higher than USC or UCLA. ASU has a campus size of 625 acres, but again, the quality of education of USC and UCLA is much higher than ASU.
In terms of student organizations, USC's website shows a more accurate number, 725+ [6], and UCLA reporting 800+[7] on its website. When comparing the number of students to student organizations [8][9], the ratio is 48:1 at both USC and UCLA.
For sports, even though UCLA has more options for it's students to participate in, the overwhelming majority of the students will be the ones watching the sports, not playing. A sports fanatic would much rather be part of a school whose sports teams win games than a school whose team plays a lot of games, but has a losing record against its rival school.
Looking back at the rankings, USC is ranked 23rd overall in the country, while UCLA is 25th. In sports, USC beats UCLA constantly, with an overall record of 891-842-10 vs UCLA. For these reasons, I urge a Con vote.
[1] http://sait.usc.edu...
[2] http://www.aim.ucla.edu...
[3] http://www.usc.edu...
[4] http://www.usc.edu...
[5] http://www.ucla.edu...
[6] http://sait.usc.edu...
[7] http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org... | Sports | 1 | ucla-vs-usc-ucla-FTW/1/ | 54,869 |
the only reason why people like usc better is because of football. ucla ranks first in overall NCAA-wikipedia. ucla is more affordable and in a better location. ucla has a better campus, ranked higher academically, and awesomer :D | 0 | grandma-john |
the only reason why people like usc better is because of football. ucla ranks first in overall NCAA-wikipedia. ucla is more affordable and in a better location. ucla has a better campus, ranked higher academically, and awesomer :D | Sports | 0 | ucla-vs-usc-ucla-FTW/1/ | 54,870 |
Thank Con for taking up this debate. As I have mentioned, UCLA is located near Westwood, while USC is located by Exposition Park. Westwood is surrounded by many affluent communities such as Beverly Hills, Brentwood,, and Westwood. (Wikipedia). In 2009, 11000 degrees were given out in UCLA. 10000 degrees were given degrees in USC. Of all the students who attended UCLA, 85% Would choose to attend this institution again 79% Were satisfied with the value of their education for the price they paid 83% Were satisfied with their overall academic experience 83% Reported that their campus had a strong commitment to undergraduate education <URL>... UCLA also has higher standards for admission. The average highschool GPA of UCLA has to be at least 4.2 while the average GPA for USC is only 3.7. This means that it is harder to get into UCLA than it is USC. However, 10,000 more people applied to UCLA instead of to USC. UCLA has a larger campus compared to USC. (419 to 155 respectively). There is room for buildings that can help improve one's education. UCLA has 870 registered student organizations, USC has 676. (Princeton Review^^^^) By comparing from the UCLA website and the USC website, I found that the professors of UCLA have earned many more awards than the professors of USC. Now to sports :D UCLA; USC baseball; Baseball gymnastics(women only); basketball rowing(women only); football softball(women only); golf swimming and diving(women only); swimming and diving basketball; tennis cross country; track and field football; volleyball golf; water polo soccer; cross country(women only) tennis; rowing(women only) track and field; soccer(women only) volleyball water polo (sorry, debate.org wont let me make two columns. The ones after the semicolon are USC's sports and the ones before are UCLA's :D) So if one is a sports fanatic, then UCLA is the place to go. There is more variety and more choices <URL>... <URL>... In conclusion, UCLA is more preferable because of its overall academic performances and because of all the different opportunities that are available there. "Fiat Lux!"-let there be light in English!:D (UCLA'S motto) | 0 | grandma-john |
Thank Con for taking up this debate.
As I have mentioned, UCLA is located near Westwood, while USC is located by Exposition Park. Westwood is surrounded by many affluent communities such as Beverly Hills, Brentwood,, and Westwood. (Wikipedia). In 2009, 11000 degrees were given out in UCLA. 10000 degrees were given degrees in USC. Of all the students who attended UCLA,
85% Would choose to attend this institution again
79% Were satisfied with the value of their education for the price they paid
83% Were satisfied with their overall academic experience
83% Reported that their campus had a strong commitment to undergraduate education
http://www.aim.ucla.edu...
UCLA also has higher standards for admission. The average highschool GPA of UCLA has to be at least 4.2 while the average GPA for USC is only 3.7. This means that it is harder to get into UCLA than it is USC. However, 10,000 more people applied to UCLA instead of to USC.
UCLA has a larger campus compared to USC. (419 to 155 respectively). There is room for buildings that can help improve one's education. UCLA has 870 registered student organizations, USC has 676.
(Princeton Review^^^^)
By comparing from the UCLA website and the USC website, I found that the professors of UCLA have earned many more awards than the professors of USC.
Now to sports :D
UCLA; USC
baseball; Baseball
gymnastics(women only); basketball
rowing(women only); football
softball(women only); golf
swimming and diving(women only); swimming and diving
basketball; tennis
cross country; track and field
football; volleyball
golf; water polo
soccer; cross country(women only)
tennis; rowing(women only)
track and field; soccer(women only)
volleyball
water polo
(sorry, debate.org wont let me make two columns. The ones after the semicolon are USC's sports and the ones before are UCLA's :D)
So if one is a sports fanatic, then UCLA is the place to go. There is more variety and more choices http://www.usctrojans.com...
http://www.uclabruins.com...
In conclusion, UCLA is more preferable because of its overall academic performances and because of all the different opportunities that are available there. "Fiat Lux!"-let there be light in English!:D (UCLA'S motto) | Sports | 1 | ucla-vs-usc-ucla-FTW/1/ | 54,871 |
Well there have been a few of these going around and I wanted to try my my hand at it. here's how it works. each of us chose 5 characters from culture (comics, movies, books etc.) for our team. They are equipped as they would normally be. I will reveal 2 of them so my opponent can not chose units that will have an advantage. The next turn I will shoe the rest. There will be five classes, and each creature you chose must fit in one of the classes, but you still chose the creature. The battle will take place in a grassy plain, with short grass and shrubs. There are no other people. No unit may go higher than 3000 meters, lower than 1000 meters, or leave the battle field, witch is 1000 by 2000 meters. class 1-scout scouts will be you weakest unit in terms of physical strength. They must have fast and/ or agile (super) powers . They may also be a character whose main ability is brains. class 2- support this unit will have an ability that buffs you other units, or provides cover. This unit should also fill the role of helping where ever needed (example= a red dragon) class 3- tank this unit has extreme stamina. he/she also has limited long range (example= the hulk) class 4- fighter this class is all around balanced and good. This unit also is better in close combat (example=batman ) class 5- long range. this class takes out enemies from afar, of at a distance, preferring to stay out of combat. (example= sniper from team fortress) A few rules 1. No insanely powerful charaters with no aperant weakness, sutch as goku, or super man. 2. No character may have an unlimited abilty, like limetless regeneration. 3. each charater must have a varifyable scorce 4. No giant charates (over 15 meters tall) sutch as gundams, but units that can grow are O.K. as long as they don't leave the boundrys 5. if there are multiple versions of a character, you must chose 1 version 6. no mind control or shape shifting round 1 i give the rules and two of my creatures round 2 my oponent gives all of his, and exlpains how he will win round 3 I give the rest of my creatures and explain how i will win round 4 and 5. we argue about our ideas now my 2 creatures suport class - the Wendigo (native american version) tank class- warhammer 40k leman russ primarch | 0 | Lion |
Well there have been a few of these going around and I wanted to try my my hand at it.
here's how it works. each of us chose 5 characters from culture (comics, movies, books etc.) for our team. They are equipped as they would normally be. I will reveal 2 of them so my opponent can not chose units that will have an advantage. The next turn I will shoe the rest. There will be five classes, and each creature you chose must fit in one of the classes, but you still chose the creature. The battle will take place in a grassy plain, with short grass and shrubs. There are no other people. No unit may go higher than 3000 meters, lower than 1000 meters, or leave the battle field, witch is 1000 by 2000 meters.
class 1-scout
scouts will be you weakest unit in terms of physical strength. They must have fast and/ or agile (super) powers . They may also be a character whose main ability is brains.
class 2- support
this unit will have an ability that buffs you other units, or provides cover. This unit should also fill the role of helping where ever needed
(example= a red dragon)
class 3- tank
this unit has extreme stamina. he/she also has limited long range
(example= the hulk)
class 4- fighter
this class is all around balanced and good. This unit also is better in close combat
(example=batman )
class 5- long range.
this class takes out enemies from afar, of at a distance, preferring to stay out of combat.
(example= sniper from team fortress)
A few rules
1. No insanely powerful charaters with no aperant weakness, sutch as goku, or super man.
2. No character may have an unlimited abilty, like limetless regeneration.
3. each charater must have a varifyable scorce
4. No giant charates (over 15 meters tall) sutch as gundams, but units that can grow are O.K. as long as they don't leave the boundrys
5. if there are multiple versions of a character, you must chose 1 version
6. no mind control or shape shifting
round 1
i give the rules and two of my creatures
round 2
my oponent gives all of his, and exlpains how he will win
round 3
I give the rest of my creatures and explain how i will win
round 4 and 5.
we argue about our ideas
now my 2 creatures
suport class - the Wendigo (native american version)
tank class- warhammer 40k leman russ primarch | Miscellaneous | 0 | ultimate-team-battle/2/ | 54,872 |
Ok well you have not said youre creatures, but i will say the rest if my creatures and my general stratagy scout- shadowcat (xmen) fighter- venom (spiderman) long range- deadshot (batman) leman russ will head my attack. He will charge in bolter ablaze, with venom. deadshot will snipe enemies from afar. The wendigo will sumon a hail for cover, and some wolves to aid him. shadowcat will pull under ground anything that is not deastroyed allready. you go... | 0 | Lion |
Ok well you have not said youre creatures, but i will say the rest if my creatures and my general stratagy
scout- shadowcat (xmen)
fighter- venom (spiderman)
long range- deadshot (batman)
leman russ will head my attack. He will charge in bolter ablaze, with venom. deadshot will snipe enemies from afar. The wendigo will sumon a hail for cover, and some wolves to aid him. shadowcat will pull under ground anything that is not deastroyed allready. you go... | Miscellaneous | 1 | ultimate-team-battle/2/ | 54,873 |
my opponent has not posted his team nor his strategy. with no team that is an automatic win for me. Also, I believe that my opponent should lose conduct points for not abiding the round structure, and not posting his argument. | 0 | Lion |
my opponent has not posted his team nor his strategy. with no team that is an automatic win for me. Also, I believe that my opponent should lose conduct points for not abiding the round structure, and not posting his argument. | Miscellaneous | 2 | ultimate-team-battle/2/ | 54,874 |
Check out my house Chris. | 0 | emospongebob527 |
Check out my house Chris. | Miscellaneous | 4 | ultimate-team-battle/2/ | 54,875 |
young people struggle for jobs. It is ridiculous for people to be paying money for education when they need money for rent, food, and daily needs. Also, some people need to sacrifice one of them... job or schooling? Of course schooling. This is one reason they couldn't achieve their dreams, like opening shops, being a singer or so on, because of the lack of money. Generally, many youngsters want good universities. Free unis might not be the dream school or fulfill their needs. So I believe this motion shall stand. <URL> | 0 | ansonmak |
young people struggle for jobs. It is ridiculous for people to be paying money for education when they need money for rent, food, and daily needs. Also, some people need to sacrifice one of them... job or schooling? Of course schooling. This is one reason they couldn't achieve their dreams, like opening shops, being a singer or so on, because of the lack of money. Generally, many youngsters want good universities. Free unis might not be the dream school or fulfill their needs. So I believe this motion shall stand.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201486 | Education | 0 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,900 |
Did you here about the news last year? An American uni student who couldn't afford anything graduated. he's lucky since his girlfriend supported him. yet not every student can afford it, a uni even had half of the students not able to pay school fees. you think it's appropriate for them, struggling when they really want education? most universities should be free, for the sake of the university students and families of them too. | 0 | ansonmak |
Did you here about the news last year? An American uni student who couldn't afford anything graduated. he's lucky since his girlfriend supported him. yet not every student can afford it, a uni even had half of the students not able to pay school fees. you think it's appropriate for them, struggling when they really want education? most universities should be free, for the sake of the university students and families of them too. | Education | 1 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,901 |
actually, no, education is important. you see the poor people down the streets? they are poor as they cannot afford their education fees, so they can't find a job. it's so unfair to find out rich guys pointing and laughing at poor people who can't pronounce words correct, read properly when they find jobs. what will happen to them? and their next generation? don't you think it's cruel? university education should be free because of people who desperately want and need education. some people hates education, since they think it's boring, pointless... No! if you live to have no education, no anything, you will be crying to go to school. you won't even be on this website! moreover, an article:" Forget tech skills, young people need to go back to the old-school basics to get a job" explain about the problem of people only relying on tech. what's worse... poor guys don't know anything, not even what's a phone. they education to learn " old-school basics" and tech to earn jobs. | 0 | ansonmak |
actually, no, education is important. you see the poor people down the streets? they are poor as they cannot afford their education fees, so they can't find a job. it's so unfair to find out rich guys pointing and laughing at poor people who can't pronounce words correct, read properly when they find jobs. what will happen to them? and their next generation? don't you think it's cruel? university education should be free because of people who desperately want and need education. some people hates education, since they think it's boring, pointless... No! if you live to have no education, no anything, you will be crying to go to school. you won't even be on this website! moreover, an article:" Forget tech skills, young people need to go back to the old-school basics to get a job" explain about the problem of people only relying on tech. what's worse... poor guys don't know anything, not even what's a phone. they education to learn " old-school basics" and tech to earn jobs. | Education | 2 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,902 |
I accept this debate. Arguments will be in the next round. | 0 | logical-master123 |
I accept this debate. Arguments will be in the next round. | Education | 0 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,903 |
1. Unimportant If there is too many graduates, the government doesn't need them. It is just for their good. We should not really give them education if they can't take the responsibility to take care of them. Also not everything is free. Everything needs a price. If governments give free education, they need that money back. The government can't do the important stuff of their job. They can't do anything great because they are helping all the people and can't do things for the economy. 2. Opportunity Cost Even if we pay for university education, we need to pay higher taxes. That is almost the same thing. Also then because of the poor who need the education, the rich need to pay taxes they don't need to pay. 3. People will think that education is nothing. People will think that education is nothing. They won't pay for it. They will not try their best and just relax. Then they will get bad or no jobs which is basically the same as paying education. | 0 | logical-master123 |
1. Unimportant
If there is too many graduates, the government doesn’t need them. It is just for their good. We should not really give them education if they can’t take the responsibility to take care of them. Also not everything is free. Everything needs a price. If governments give free education, they need that money back. The government can’t do the important stuff of their job. They can’t do anything great because they are helping all the people and can’t do things for the economy.
2. Opportunity Cost
Even if we pay for university education, we need to pay higher taxes. That is almost the same thing. Also then because of the poor who need the education, the rich need to pay taxes they don’t need to pay.
3. People will think that education is nothing.
People will think that education is nothing. They won’t pay for it. They will not try their best and just relax. Then they will get bad or no jobs which is basically the same as paying education. | Education | 1 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,904 |
However what Pro said is false. First of all the rich don't look down at you and laugh. Also it is your fault that you are poor. It is not the rich fault that they were rich. You should know that life is unfair and evryone is good and bad at things. Second of all, you don't need education to get the jobs. Only about 40% of all jobs are by getting educated. Do you think someone would study for a cleaning lady test? Please vote for Con. | 0 | logical-master123 |
However what Pro said is false. First of all the rich don't look down at you and laugh. Also it is your fault that you are poor. It is not the rich fault that they were rich. You should know that life is unfair and evryone is good and bad at things. Second of all, you don't need education to get the jobs. Only about 40% of all jobs are by getting educated. Do you think someone would study for a cleaning lady test? Please vote for Con. | Education | 2 | university-education-should-be-free/5/ | 54,905 |
tHE Reds ARE NOTUNDER THE BED, THEY NEVER WERE BUT T CIA ARE UNDER YOUR BED, COMPLETE WITH PHONE TAING , SURVEILLANCE ON EVERY STREET CORNER, HOLDING ALL R EMAILS AND WEB ACTIVITY IN DATA BASES A ERODING ALL YOUR FREEDOM. iTS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW WORLD OF FACEBOOK, TWITTER, BLOGS AND THE AILITY OF THE INTERNET TO INFORM PEOPLE LIKE NEVER BEFORE . | 0 | Micheal.lynch101 |
tHE Reds ARE NOTUNDER THE BED, THEY NEVER WERE BUT T CIA ARE UNDER YOUR BED, COMPLETE WITH PHONE TAING , SURVEILLANCE ON EVERY STREET CORNER, HOLDING ALL R EMAILS AND WEB ACTIVITY IN DATA BASES A ERODING ALL YOUR FREEDOM. iTS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW WORLD OF FACEBOOK, TWITTER, BLOGS AND THE AILITY OF THE INTERNET TO INFORM PEOPLE LIKE NEVER BEFORE . | Politics | 0 | wESTERN-COUNTRIES-ARE-LOSING-THE-FREEDOM-THAT-THE-WARS-WERE-SUPPSEDLY-ALL-ABOUT/1/ | 54,986 |
Hi, Hitchslap(interesting psuodem) . This is my first debate so i hopeif i get a good flogging i will use that knowlegge in the future'. I must appologise just in case my ponts fly all over the place but i will addres your arguments! My first premise and reon for wanting this debate is I see how badly I THINK, the US government is failing itd people, and I realize that most are oblivious rto it. Thats a whole nother debate,,, Back to my premise, the for fathers were very concerned that the powers of separation were one of thhe very most laws rthat needed to be ratified so as rthe mistakes in Europe wold nothasppen in the USA. They did not want the banks in Europetro have the same power inthe US. Well they do have it ALL now. A tiny population of families and friends own more than half te money in the world. The Federal reserve is not a federal bank its a prie one and there is too much corruption to go into this debate but these families have all the power. Police in the US is have power now they omly dreapmpt ofbefore 911. I have not the time rigt now to list therer absurd powers butwil if youask. Second premise, itwell know that the FBI can access all the books you read, whether from a library or boughtn fromm a store. Asa teenager , I downloaded "the terrerists handfbok " just for a bit f fun. in it it showed you how to make explosives and timer detonators. It was all very easy to do. Plus hwe to ake facke ID's. In Australia I hav been stopped by polise and asked for my ID... I refused and kelp walking. \My friends did that stayed behind and when thet came up to see me they were laufhghinhard. Seems they had never said no to a policeman. I am an australian and though we have more eedoms and less government control I see us as only 10 ten years behind the USA>We both are using , i men losinfg our freedoms. I have not explained this yet, I ghope tonight i get the time to prove it. sincerely, Mike. | 0 | Micheal.lynch101 |
Hi, Hitchslap(interesting psuodem) . This is my first debate so i hopeif i get a good flogging i will use that knowlegge in the future'. I must appologise just in case my ponts fly all over the place but i will addres your arguments!
My first premise and reon for wanting this debate is I see how badly I THINK, the US government is failing itd people, and I realize that most are oblivious rto it. Thats a whole nother debate,,,
Back to my premise, the for fathers were very concerned that the powers of separation were one of thhe very most laws rthat needed to be ratified so as rthe mistakes in Europe wold nothasppen in the USA.
They did not want the banks in Europetro have the same power inthe US. Well they do have it ALL now. A tiny population of families and friends own more than half te money in the world. The Federal reserve is not a federal bank its a prie one and there is too much corruption to go into this debate but these families have all the power.
Police in the US is have power now they omly dreapmpt ofbefore 911. I have not the time rigt now to list therer absurd powers butwil if youask.
Second premise, itwell know that the FBI can access all the books you read, whether from a library or boughtn fromm a store. Asa teenager , I downloaded "the terrerists handfbok " just for a bit f fun. in it it showed you how to make explosives and timer detonators. It was all very easy to do. Plus hwe to ake facke ID's.
In Australia I hav been stopped by polise and asked for my ID... I refused and kelp walking. \My friends did that stayed behind and when thet came up to see me they were laufhghinhard. Seems they had never said no to a policeman.
I am an australian and though we have more eedoms and less government control I see us as only 10 ten years behind the USA>We both are using , i men losinfg our freedoms. I have not explained this yet, I ghope tonight i get the time to prove it. sincerely, Mike. | Politics | 1 | wESTERN-COUNTRIES-ARE-LOSING-THE-FREEDOM-THAT-THE-WARS-WERE-SUPPSEDLY-ALL-ABOUT/1/ | 54,987 |
We as a country and the whole world should be very concerned with the rising of islamic extremists. They want to destroy our way of life and our prosperity. We need to stay on offence in the war on terror. | 0 | tarsjake |
We as a country and the whole world should be very concerned with the rising of islamic extremists. They want to destroy our way of life and our prosperity. We need to stay on offence in the war on terror. | Politics | 0 | war-on-terrorism/1/ | 55,007 |
First off I would like to say you are so far off base with EVERYONE even left-wing liberals. However I will go though and rebuke all of your points. 1.If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy. We need to fight our own battles and with our victories will come the hearts and minds of moderate muslims. The western world needs to deal with this problem, and they need to deal with it now. 2.I'm not sure what your saying but it sounds like we should sit back and wait for them to come to us. 3."These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in." So we need to battle it out but we have to fight peacefully. Next you'll say if we would just TALK to them. 4.Your basically saying we should concentrate on defense and not offence. If you didn't know you don't win wars like that. Right now we are fighting in the Middle East, so we're not fighting the war over here. 5.I am truly am deeply sorry about our fallen troops and are debt; however when you say "both human and monetary, are not worth it." Your saying freedom, democracy, and AMERICA are not worth fighting for. Extremists ARE a real threat to America and everything America stands for. I wish you could realize that they are a threat to everyone not just the people who support the war but everyone who does not believe in there radical Islam. PS: try not to copy and paste this time :) -Jake | 0 | tarsjake |
First off I would like to say you are so far off base with EVERYONE even left-wing liberals. However I will go though and rebuke all of your points.
1.If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy. We need to fight our own battles and with our victories will come the hearts and minds of moderate muslims. The western world needs to deal with this problem, and they need to deal with it now.
2.I'm not sure what your saying but it sounds like we should sit back and wait for them to come to us.
3."These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in." So we need to battle it out but we have to fight peacefully. Next you'll say if we would just TALK to them.
4.Your basically saying we should concentrate on defense and not offence. If you didn't know you don't win wars like that. Right now we are fighting in the Middle East, so we're not fighting the war over here.
5.I am truly am deeply sorry about our fallen troops and are debt; however when you say "both human and monetary, are not worth it." Your saying freedom, democracy, and AMERICA are not worth fighting for.
Extremists ARE a real threat to America and everything America stands for. I wish you could realize that they are a threat to everyone not just the people who support the war but everyone who does not believe in there radical Islam.
PS: try not to copy and paste this time :)
-Jake | Politics | 1 | war-on-terrorism/1/ | 55,008 |
Terrorism, and the Islamic extremism from which much of it is born, are legitimate threats to the security of our nation, and the world. These are serious concerns that must be faced; and that portion of the case for the War on Terror is certainly valid. My case, however, hinges not upon claiming the threat invalid or not serious enough to prompt action, but upon the argument, which I will present here, that war is not the way to handle the threat of terrorism. I will present 5 points to support this claim: 1.The most effective way to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, and thus a large portion of terrorism, is by opposition from within the Arab world. Islamic extremists distort the true messages of Islam; and they are, and will remain, a small minority within the Muslim population. The most effective way the problem of Islamic extremism can truly be solved is by a counter-movement from the vast majority of Muslims who are much more cool-headed, telling the extremists that they refuse to let them hijack international perception of their faith. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims are not pleased that the world now has the perception of their faith as violent and extremist; after all, what rational individual would be pleased with their culture and their faith being polluted in this way? What we need is to encourage moderate Muslim leaders to speak out against the extremists; and this, it can reasonably be assumed, would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention. 2.War is not an effective means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is not a traditional threat. It is boundary-less, decentralized, and all but leaderless. It is a tactic used by many of the enemies of America, not a foe that can be pinned down by large-scale military operations. In the past, America has always been effective in war when we officially declared war against a concrete threat, set a precise mission or missions to accomplish, and sent our troops in force to pursue those goals. We have not traditionally been successful in war when we don't do these things; and terrorism is something that, by its very definition, cannot be faced off in such a concrete manner. The best definition we have of who our enemies are are a few lists of terrorist organizations compiled by our intelligence; and for a soldier in the field, there is no definite way to distinguish between these enemies and civilians. Everything about facing terrorism with traditional warfare is completely and fundamentally wrong. 3.The true nature of our struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideologies. What is facing off in this conflict are not two distinct "sides" comprised of allied nations; it is instead two ideologies: the ideology of freedom and democracy, and the ideology of oppression and extremism. This is not, in any way, a traditional war. There is no definite boundary between the two ideologies, and there is not a single nation in the world that is comprised entirely of people supporting one side. These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in. 4.Any future direct threats to Americans can be dealt with internally by increased domestic security and police action. There is no doubt that we don't want another 9/11. And certainly, there is a potential for such an event, regardless of the foreign policy we pursue to confront terrorism and extremism. But if this threat cannot be faced by our military in traditional manners, how do we combat it? The answer is simple: we increase our domestic security (while being careful, of course, not to step on personal liberties), and we improve communication between our intelligence agencies and our police bodies, so that any threat of another attack on America can be discovered and dealt with before it comes to fruition. 5.The costs of our military actions in this faulty "War on Terror" are staggering. The current death toll of American soldiers in the war in Iraq is 3911, with 28822 wounded.* Furthermore, a recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled "War at Any Price?" found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.** It doesn't take detailed analysis to know that these costs, both human and monetary, are not worth it. In conclusion, the War on Terror is based upon the fallacy that terrorism is a traditional enemy that can be faced by traditional large-scale military operations. The threat can more effectively be faced off through opposition within the Muslim world, as well as our peaceful support of the ideology that we want to prevail, and improved domestic security. Furthermore, the costs of the war are too high to be worth it. Altogether, it is clear that the War on Terror is not the proper course of action for America in dealing with the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Thank you. * <URL>... ** <URL>... | 0 | zakkuchan |
Terrorism, and the Islamic extremism from which much of it is born, are legitimate threats to the security of our nation, and the world. These are serious concerns that must be faced; and that portion of the case for the War on Terror is certainly valid. My case, however, hinges not upon claiming the threat invalid or not serious enough to prompt action, but upon the argument, which I will present here, that war is not the way to handle the threat of terrorism.
I will present 5 points to support this claim:
1.The most effective way to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, and thus a large portion of terrorism, is by opposition from within the Arab world. Islamic extremists distort the true messages of Islam; and they are, and will remain, a small minority within the Muslim population. The most effective way the problem of Islamic extremism can truly be solved is by a counter-movement from the vast majority of Muslims who are much more cool-headed, telling the extremists that they refuse to let them hijack international perception of their faith. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims are not pleased that the world now has the perception of their faith as violent and extremist; after all, what rational individual would be pleased with their culture and their faith being polluted in this way? What we need is to encourage moderate Muslim leaders to speak out against the extremists; and this, it can reasonably be assumed, would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention.
2.War is not an effective means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is not a traditional threat. It is boundary-less, decentralized, and all but leaderless. It is a tactic used by many of the enemies of America, not a foe that can be pinned down by large-scale military operations. In the past, America has always been effective in war when we officially declared war against a concrete threat, set a precise mission or missions to accomplish, and sent our troops in force to pursue those goals. We have not traditionally been successful in war when we don't do these things; and terrorism is something that, by its very definition, cannot be faced off in such a concrete manner. The best definition we have of who our enemies are are a few lists of terrorist organizations compiled by our intelligence; and for a soldier in the field, there is no definite way to distinguish between these enemies and civilians. Everything about facing terrorism with traditional warfare is completely and fundamentally wrong.
3.The true nature of our struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideologies. What is facing off in this conflict are not two distinct "sides" comprised of allied nations; it is instead two ideologies: the ideology of freedom and democracy, and the ideology of oppression and extremism. This is not, in any way, a traditional war. There is no definite boundary between the two ideologies, and there is not a single nation in the world that is comprised entirely of people supporting one side. These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in.
4.Any future direct threats to Americans can be dealt with internally by increased domestic security and police action. There is no doubt that we don't want another 9/11. And certainly, there is a potential for such an event, regardless of the foreign policy we pursue to confront terrorism and extremism. But if this threat cannot be faced by our military in traditional manners, how do we combat it? The answer is simple: we increase our domestic security (while being careful, of course, not to step on personal liberties), and we improve communication between our intelligence agencies and our police bodies, so that any threat of another attack on America can be discovered and dealt with before it comes to fruition.
5.The costs of our military actions in this faulty "War on Terror" are staggering. The current death toll of American soldiers in the war in Iraq is 3911, with 28822 wounded.* Furthermore, a recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled "War at Any Price?" found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.** It doesn't take detailed analysis to know that these costs, both human and monetary, are not worth it.
In conclusion, the War on Terror is based upon the fallacy that terrorism is a traditional enemy that can be faced by traditional large-scale military operations. The threat can more effectively be faced off through opposition within the Muslim world, as well as our peaceful support of the ideology that we want to prevail, and improved domestic security. Furthermore, the costs of the war are too high to be worth it. Altogether, it is clear that the War on Terror is not the proper course of action for America in dealing with the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Thank you.
* http://www.antiwar.com...
** http://ipsnews.net... | Politics | 0 | war-on-terrorism/1/ | 55,009 |
First off, I am offended by your last statement about me copying and pasting. The only thing I copied and pasted was one news source's analysis on the Democratic study in my last point, and when I did that, I put it in quotes and cited the source with asterisks. The rest of my case was entirely my own work, and I am offended by even the implication that I would plagiarize. Secondly, most people believing in something (or a claim of such, whether correct or not) is not valid reasoning for its truth under any circumstances in logical debate. Debate is about formulating and defending a case for your side, not simply discussing which side more people agree with. 1. You ignored the actual claim I was making. You were on track in your first sentence on this point. ("If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy.") But then, instead of backing up this claim and giving me a reason why I ought to rethink my foreign policy, you sidestepped the point I made and acted like I said we need to ignore the threat and not deal with it. I never made such a claim in my entire case; all I said was that war is not the proper way of dealing with it. And in this particular point, my claim boiled down to saying that a backlash from moderate Muslims "would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention", which you didn't address whatsoever. 2. Here, it is obvious that you either misunderstood my point or couldn't refute it. This point in my initial case was about the non-traditional nature of the threat of terrorism, and my claim that it can't be dealt with through war. You're not addressing this point if you don't address that claim. 3. Again, you missed and/or ignored my point. If you don't address the actual claim (that this is a battle of ideologies, not a traditional war between two definite sides), then you haven't offered a meaningful attack on this point. But I'll humor what you said here anyway, just for the sake of clarifying my point. Yes, I absolutely think we should talk to our enemies. It would be much more effective than invading nations that have at best an indirect connection to our enemies, because it would show these nations, and the world in general, that we and the rest of the democratic western world are open to peace and diplomacy, which would certainly be a positive development. This is a battle of ideologies, and ideologies cannot be forced through war, especially an ideology as inherently peaceful as democracy and freedom. 4. Yes, I'm saying we should focus on defense rather than offense. And yes, I realize you can't win a war through defense. But in case you forgot, I'm arguing that there shouldn't BE a war at all. And the claim that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is ridiculous. The fact that we're in Iraq or Afghanistan does not in any way stop a terrorist from coming to the United States. If you think it does, I'd love to hear why. 5. No, when I say the costs aren't worth it, I'm saying that an irrational war against a threat that cannot be faced through war is not worth the cost. Of course I think freedom, democracy, and America are worth fighting for; if I lived during World War II, I'd fully support the war effort, and I'd even consider enlisting. But I don't think the War on Terror is an effective way to deal with the threats we are facing today; and THAT's why I don't support it, not because I'm unpatriotic or cowardly. In your closing statement, you just restate something I've already agreed with: that terrorists and extremists are a legitimate threat. The whole "I wish you could realize..." statement is about something I've already realized, which would be clear if you were paying attention at all to my case. And you haven't adequately addressed the areas that we DO disagree on, so this is a pointless thing for you to spend your time trying to prove. My opponent, in his previous round, repeatedly sidestepped the central points I made against the use of war as a means to deal with terrorism. Most of his attacks missed my points entirely, and the claims that he made through them, he did not back up whatsoever. | 0 | zakkuchan |
First off, I am offended by your last statement about me copying and pasting. The only thing I copied and pasted was one news source's analysis on the Democratic study in my last point, and when I did that, I put it in quotes and cited the source with asterisks. The rest of my case was entirely my own work, and I am offended by even the implication that I would plagiarize.
Secondly, most people believing in something (or a claim of such, whether correct or not) is not valid reasoning for its truth under any circumstances in logical debate. Debate is about formulating and defending a case for your side, not simply discussing which side more people agree with.
1. You ignored the actual claim I was making. You were on track in your first sentence on this point. ("If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy.") But then, instead of backing up this claim and giving me a reason why I ought to rethink my foreign policy, you sidestepped the point I made and acted like I said we need to ignore the threat and not deal with it. I never made such a claim in my entire case; all I said was that war is not the proper way of dealing with it. And in this particular point, my claim boiled down to saying that a backlash from moderate Muslims "would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention", which you didn't address whatsoever.
2. Here, it is obvious that you either misunderstood my point or couldn't refute it. This point in my initial case was about the non-traditional nature of the threat of terrorism, and my claim that it can't be dealt with through war. You're not addressing this point if you don't address that claim.
3. Again, you missed and/or ignored my point. If you don't address the actual claim (that this is a battle of ideologies, not a traditional war between two definite sides), then you haven't offered a meaningful attack on this point. But I'll humor what you said here anyway, just for the sake of clarifying my point. Yes, I absolutely think we should talk to our enemies. It would be much more effective than invading nations that have at best an indirect connection to our enemies, because it would show these nations, and the world in general, that we and the rest of the democratic western world are open to peace and diplomacy, which would certainly be a positive development. This is a battle of ideologies, and ideologies cannot be forced through war, especially an ideology as inherently peaceful as democracy and freedom.
4. Yes, I'm saying we should focus on defense rather than offense. And yes, I realize you can't win a war through defense. But in case you forgot, I'm arguing that there shouldn't BE a war at all. And the claim that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is ridiculous. The fact that we're in Iraq or Afghanistan does not in any way stop a terrorist from coming to the United States. If you think it does, I'd love to hear why.
5. No, when I say the costs aren't worth it, I'm saying that an irrational war against a threat that cannot be faced through war is not worth the cost. Of course I think freedom, democracy, and America are worth fighting for; if I lived during World War II, I'd fully support the war effort, and I'd even consider enlisting. But I don't think the War on Terror is an effective way to deal with the threats we are facing today; and THAT's why I don't support it, not because I'm unpatriotic or cowardly.
In your closing statement, you just restate something I've already agreed with: that terrorists and extremists are a legitimate threat. The whole "I wish you could realize..." statement is about something I've already realized, which would be clear if you were paying attention at all to my case. And you haven't adequately addressed the areas that we DO disagree on, so this is a pointless thing for you to spend your time trying to prove.
My opponent, in his previous round, repeatedly sidestepped the central points I made against the use of war as a means to deal with terrorism. Most of his attacks missed my points entirely, and the claims that he made through them, he did not back up whatsoever. | Politics | 1 | war-on-terrorism/1/ | 55,010 |
My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate: -My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said. -My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent. -My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat). -My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches). -I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case. I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic. | 0 | zakkuchan |
My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate:
-My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said.
-My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent.
-My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat).
-My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches).
-I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case.
I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic. | Politics | 2 | war-on-terrorism/1/ | 55,011 |
Accepted. Fir stly, Pro claim s that: " it help's pepole with sleeping problums.It can help with cancer.Or other probloms you might have." Without any evidence in support, Pro i s technically arguing a fallacy. I'd n ote that if people do have " sleeping problem s" they can seek advice from a doctor and take pre scribed medication to treat it; or po s sibly try other relaxation method s to enable them to sleep properly. The exact same applie s to cancer, in which people can be treated with actual medication. However, even if a per son with cancer did u se marijuana a s a form of treatment, thi s in no way mean s that it i s *not* harmful or without it s negative effect s, a s literally every drug can cla s sify a s harmful. In countries such as the U.K weed is classified as a "Class B" drug [1.], which puts in the same league as ketamin/amphetamines and has a maximum 5 year jail term for possession and a potential 14 years in jail for the production and supply it of it. =Harms= Research has shown that there are considerable harms to smoking weed, which is where Pros resolution is easily negated. These harms include severe impact on memory, critical skills and overall ability to learn [2.] As well as smokers having significantly higher rates of car accidents, injuries and being absent from work. Those who smoke weed can experience *many* negative side effects, which include paranoia, anxiety, depression, panic attacks, impaired coordination, etc. Alluding further to mental functioning, the THC in cannabis essentially disrupts the brain cells affecting the memory and leading to impaired cognitive abilities. Regular marijuana smokers also have a higher prevalence in conditions such as bronchitis. Even more note-worthy is the fact that marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke [3.] With research study showing that one cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five cigarettes. Rather than actually helping people with psychological problems [which is what Pro claims] cannabis can severely impair the functioning of the mind and those who smoke it are at far greater risk at developing mental health issues [4.] Pros resolution is thus negated. [1.] <URL>... [2.] <URL>... [3.] <URL>... [4.] <URL>... | 0 | Emilrose |
Accepted. Fir stly, Pro claim s that: " it help's pepole with sleeping problums.It can help with cancer.Or other probloms you might have." Without any evidence in support, Pro i s technically arguing a fallacy. I'd n ote that if people do have " sleeping problem s" they can seek advice from a doctor and take pre scribed medication to treat it; or po s sibly try other relaxation method s to enable them to sleep properly. The exact same applie s to cancer, in which people can be treated with actual medication. However, even if a per son with cancer did u se marijuana a s a form of treatment, thi s in no way mean s that it i s *not* harmful or without it s negative effect s, a s literally every drug can cla s sify a s harmful. In countries such as the U.K weed is classified as a "Class B" drug [1.], which puts in the same league as ketamin/amphetamines and has a maximum 5 year jail term for possession and a potential 14 years in jail for the production and supply it of it. =Harms= Research has shown that there are considerable harms to smoking weed, which is where Pros resolution is easily negated. These harms include severe impact on memory, critical skills and overall ability to learn [2.] As well as smokers having significantly higher rates of car accidents, injuries and being absent from work. Those who smoke weed can experience *many* negative side effects, which include paranoia, anxiety, depression, panic attacks, impaired coordination, etc. Alluding further to mental functioning, the THC in cannabis essentially disrupts the brain cells affecting the memory and leading to impaired cognitive abilities. Regular marijuana smokers also have a higher prevalence in conditions such as bronchitis. Even more note-worthy is the fact that marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke [3.] With research study showing that one cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five cigarettes. Rather than actually helping people with psychological problems [which is what Pro claims] cannabis can severely impair the functioning of the mind and those who smoke it are at far greater risk at developing mental health issues [4.] Pros resolution is thus negated. [1.] https://www.gov.uk... [2.] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [3.] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [4.] http://www.narconon.org... | Health | 0 | weed-is-not-harmful/1/ | 55,056 |
Extend . | 0 | Emilrose |
Extend . | Health | 1 | weed-is-not-harmful/1/ | 55,057 |
Mmmmm. | 0 | Emilrose |
Mmmmm. | Health | 2 | weed-is-not-harmful/1/ | 55,058 |
it help's pepole with sleeping problums.It can help with cancer.Or other probloms you might have. | 0 | debate14327 |
it help's pepole with sleeping problums.It can help with cancer.Or other probloms you might have. | Health | 0 | weed-is-not-harmful/1/ | 55,059 |
If you're a Christian you get to go to heaven or hell. To be honest no one knows which means you have put yourself in a win win situation buyt I am willing to take a loss for the debate.org. | 0 | Pastafarian |
If you're a Christian you get to go to heaven or hell.
To be honest no one knows which means you have put yourself in a win win situation buyt I am willing to take a loss for the debate.org. | Religion | 0 | when-we-die-where-do-we-go/1/ | 55,110 |
ok so here is how this will work I want my opponent to post where he thinks we will go I the same no refuting opponents arguments here we go 1 source: THE MATRIX Written by Larry and Andy Wachowski in 1999 Article:MORPHEUS You have been living inside Baulliaurd's vision, inside the map, not the territory. This is Chicago as it exists today. The sky is an endless sea of black and green bile. The earth, scorched and split like burnt flesh, spreads out beneath us as we ENTER the television. MORPHEUS 'The desert of the real.' In the distance, we see the ruins of a future Chicago protruding from the wasteland like the blackened ribs of a long-dead corpse. MORPHEUS We are, right now, miles below the earth's surface. The only place humans can survive outside the Matrix is underground. Still MOVING, we TURN and find Neo and Morpheus; the chairs now sitting in the middle of the black desert. Dizzy, Neo holds onto the chair. NEO What happened? MORPHEUS It started early in the twenty-first century, with the birth of artificial intelligence, a singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. In his sunglasses, we see storm clouds gather. MORPHEUS At first all they wanted was to be treated as equals, entitled to the same human inalienable rights. Whatever they were given, it was not enough. In the circular window of the glasses, EXPLOSIONS light up a bloody battle field. MORPHEUS We don't know who struck first. Us or them. But sometime at the end of the twenty-first century the battle was joined. We MOVE INTO his glasses and the war surrounds us. MORPHEUS The war raged for generations and turned the face of our planet from green and blue to black and red. At last we see the Sentinels; killing machines that are at once terrifying and beautiful. They have an organic architecture like a microbiotic organism, that is perpetually in motion. The Sentinel cracks the body armor of a soldier, splitting open the soft, stearing meat inside. MORPHEUS It scorched and burned the sky. Without the sun, the machines sought out a new energy source to survive. The Sentinel locks up, as heat lightning of black ink bursts against the sky, spreading into a permanent cloud of stain. MORPHEUS They discovered a new form of fusion. All that was required to initiate the reaction was a small electric charge. Throughout human history we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.. MORPHEUS The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 B.T.U.'s of body heat. Outside, spreading all around the power plant, beneath a breathing greenhouse, are the growing fields. MORPHEUS We are, as an energy source, easily renewable and completely recyclable, the dead liquified and fed intravenously to the living. Huge farm-like reapers are harvesting the crop. MORPHEUS All they needed to control this new battery was something to occupy our mind. We see inside a clear tubular husk. Floating in viscous fluid, there is a human fetus; its soft skull already growing around the brain-jack. MORPHEUS And so they built a prison out of our past, wired it to our brains and turned us into slaves. i think by this article we are used as food for eachother when we die as this world is a false reality 2 source: <URL>... god doesnt exist as proven on that site 3 sourc: there is no afterlife so look to my arguement because it is the only possibility | 0 | davidhancock |
ok so here is how this will work I want my opponent to post where he thinks we will go I the same no refuting opponents arguments here we go
1 source: THE MATRIX Written by Larry and Andy Wachowski in 1999
Article:MORPHEUS You have been living inside Baulliaurd's vision, inside the map, not the territory. This is Chicago as it exists today. The sky is an endless sea of black and green bile. The earth, scorched and split like burnt flesh, spreads out beneath us as we ENTER the television. MORPHEUS 'The desert of the real.' In the distance, we see the ruins of a future Chicago protruding from the wasteland like the blackened ribs of a long-dead corpse. MORPHEUS We are, right now, miles below the earth's surface. The only place humans can survive outside the Matrix is underground. Still MOVING, we TURN and find Neo and Morpheus; the chairs now sitting in the middle of the black desert. Dizzy, Neo holds onto the chair. NEO What happened? MORPHEUS It started early in the twenty-first century, with the birth of artificial intelligence, a singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. In his sunglasses, we see storm clouds gather. MORPHEUS At first all they wanted was to be treated as equals, entitled to the same human inalienable rights. Whatever they were given, it was not enough. In the circular window of the glasses, EXPLOSIONS light up a bloody battle field. MORPHEUS We don't know who struck first. Us or them. But sometime at the end of the twenty-first century the battle was joined. We MOVE INTO his glasses and the war surrounds us. MORPHEUS The war raged for generations and turned the face of our planet from green and blue to black and red. At last we see the Sentinels; killing machines that are at once terrifying and beautiful. They have an organic architecture like a microbiotic organism, that is perpetually in motion. The Sentinel cracks the body armor of a soldier, splitting open the soft, stearing meat inside. MORPHEUS It scorched and burned the sky. Without the sun, the machines sought out a new energy source to survive. The Sentinel locks up, as heat lightning of black ink bursts against the sky, spreading into a permanent cloud of stain. MORPHEUS They discovered a new form of fusion. All that was required to initiate the reaction was a small electric charge. Throughout human history we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.. MORPHEUS The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 B.T.U.'s of body heat. Outside, spreading all around the power plant, beneath a breathing greenhouse, are the growing fields. MORPHEUS We are, as an energy source, easily renewable and completely recyclable, the dead liquified and fed intravenously to the living. Huge farm-like reapers are harvesting the crop. MORPHEUS All they needed to control this new battery was something to occupy our mind. We see inside a clear tubular husk. Floating in viscous fluid, there is a human fetus; its soft skull already growing around the brain-jack. MORPHEUS And so they built a prison out of our past, wired it to our brains and turned us into slaves.
i think by this article we are used as food for eachother when we die as this world is a false reality
2 source: http://godisimaginary.com...
god doesnt exist as proven on that site
3 sourc:
there is no afterlife so look to my arguement because it is the only possibility | Religion | 0 | when-we-die-where-do-we-go/1/ | 55,111 |
What do we mean when we say "Real Republicans"? If the argument is that they should be conservatives (economically), follow the Constitution, and be non-interventionist, then I think there is no question that the current GOP no longer fits this description. However, why is that the definition of a "Real Republican"? Yes, this was the definition of a Republican during World War One, the interwar period, World War Two, and perhaps for a bit after that. But the GOP has existed since the antebellum period. Why should we decide that the "Real Republicans" were the Robert Taft types and not the Abraham Lincoln types? If we are to accept the latter as our measure of a "Real Republican" then I think the current batch of Republicans (save Ron Paul) are very much "Real Republicans." A few criteria modern Republicans should fit if they are to be "Lincoln Republicans": Pro-centralization of government, protectionist, nationalistic, racist, little regard for individual rights, militarist, interventionist/corporatist in economic policy, and, in general, fascist. Let's see how they fit. Centralization of Government: The Republicans have long claimed to be "federalist" when it came to state's rights, that is, they are in favor of them. But how true is that? Republicans currently support national bans on abortion, homosexual marriage, medical marijuana (and illicit drugs in general), flag burning, stem cell research, and other things (depending on your Republican-of-choice, Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban, for instance). Also, we can look to immigration, where the Republicans all agree this is an issue for the federal government - despite this not being prescribed for the federal government in the Constitution and thus in the realm of the states. And what Republican (save perhaps Ron Paul) believes in the right to secession? Protectionist: Despite their claims to the contrary, almost every single Republican is a protectionist to one degree or another. Only Ron Paul supports real free trade - which is the simple, unilateral elimination of all trade barriers and tariffs. Republicans support sanctions/embargoes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (after Gulf War 1), and various other nations, in spite of the fact that it impinges on the freedom of US citizens regarding trade. Republicans support fake free trade agreements like NAFTA (which is really just a tariff union), the WTO (which "manages" trade - sort of how socialism "manages" the economy), and all sorts of tariffs and barriers. Many Republicans are taking a "hard-line" on China - which means they want to put up all sorts of barriers to trade until the Chinese do what we want. Is all this really what free traders would do? The answer is no, and the Republicans who support this stuff are protectionists. Nationalistic: From their support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to their worship of all things patriotism to their support of the President no matter what, the Republicans are moving into hypernationalist territory frequently seen in countries like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not the Republican Party is infected with nationalism to the extreme. Racist: The whole immigration debate seems to make my point on this one. "They're taking our jobs!" is the call. As if the jobs belong to you. But what complaints are raised when jobs go to other Americans (and by this, I mean white Americans)? The fear of the Chinese and Japanese making our things is out of control as well, but what of companies in Europe? Are there protests against them? And all the hype about foreign oil? It is always the evil people in the Middle East. But what they don't tell you is the number one exporter of crude oil to the United States is Canada. And the number one exporter of petroleum to the United States is also Canada. But the issue here isn't that the oil is foreign. And the issues with China are not that their products are foreign and their labor is cheaper. The issue is that they look different and they are making things. And Republicans don't like it. Individual Rights: Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in the history of the United States of America. And so, in following with tradition, the Republicans suspended it once again in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The Republicans of the modern age also launched the War on Drugs - perhaps the most invasive and rights-destroying policy in the history of the USA. As stated earlier, the Republicans are also looking to ban various things that individuals have a right to do on a national scale. Republicans also support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which completely decimated property rights and freedom of association. Militarist: John McCain is a front-runner. Need I say more? The Republicans have gotten absolutely out of control with their "support the troops" and military spending. So-called "fiscal conservatives" also tend to be the ones to call for massive military expenditures. Republicans are war-hawks and try to compete in hawkish statements (leading to McCain saying things like it would be okay for us to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years). If you saw the last debate, there was a segment of probably ten minutes discussing if Romney is sufficiently dedicated to stay in Iraq, despite his constant rhetoric about staying "until the job is done." McCain got on him about not supporting the surge fervently enough. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are laughed at, mocked, and generally considered to be RINO. Socialist/Fascist Economics: George W. Bush massively increase federal spending and the size of government. Even the Republicans admit it. They all claim to be for smaller government and "changing Washington." They then will go on to brag about how much they plan to spend on the military, police, border security, and the Drug War. The Republicans have claimed since Reagan that they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and it doubled in size under Reagan, it was increased dramatically under both Bushes (especially the latest with NCLB). They subsidize farmers, oil companies, and other "vital industries." They build and repair "infrastructure." They "privatize" Social Security not by letting you keep your money, but by putting it somewhere different than the Democrats want to put it. They support "tax reform" - which means tinkering with where the tax burden falls and, overall, raising taxes. They bail out companies that are "too big to fail" and support anti-trust to crush their more efficient competitors. They have supported price controls. They inflate and artificially lower interest rates. They spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They regulate and keep big corporations untouchable. There are some, like John McCain, who hardly even try to hide their socialistic ideas. But do not be fooled by the others. They, too, are in support of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes. The Republicans are not in favor of the free market - they are in favor of Big Government with Big Business. They are corporatists and/or socialists. Fascism: Above, I have described the general outline of what a fascist is. And what the modern Republicans are. This fits very well with what the early, Lincoln Republicans were and I think we should consider them the real "Real Republicans." | 0 | Morty |
What do we mean when we say "Real Republicans"? If the argument is that they should be conservatives (economically), follow the Constitution, and be non-interventionist, then I think there is no question that the current GOP no longer fits this description. However, why is that the definition of a "Real Republican"? Yes, this was the definition of a Republican during World War One, the interwar period, World War Two, and perhaps for a bit after that. But the GOP has existed since the antebellum period. Why should we decide that the "Real Republicans" were the Robert Taft types and not the Abraham Lincoln types? If we are to accept the latter as our measure of a "Real Republican" then I think the current batch of Republicans (save Ron Paul) are very much "Real Republicans."
A few criteria modern Republicans should fit if they are to be "Lincoln Republicans": Pro-centralization of government, protectionist, nationalistic, racist, little regard for individual rights, militarist, interventionist/corporatist in economic policy, and, in general, fascist. Let's see how they fit.
Centralization of Government:
The Republicans have long claimed to be "federalist" when it came to state's rights, that is, they are in favor of them. But how true is that? Republicans currently support national bans on abortion, homosexual marriage, medical marijuana (and illicit drugs in general), flag burning, stem cell research, and other things (depending on your Republican-of-choice, Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban, for instance). Also, we can look to immigration, where the Republicans all agree this is an issue for the federal government - despite this not being prescribed for the federal government in the Constitution and thus in the realm of the states. And what Republican (save perhaps Ron Paul) believes in the right to secession?
Protectionist:
Despite their claims to the contrary, almost every single Republican is a protectionist to one degree or another. Only Ron Paul supports real free trade - which is the simple, unilateral elimination of all trade barriers and tariffs. Republicans support sanctions/embargoes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (after Gulf War 1), and various other nations, in spite of the fact that it impinges on the freedom of US citizens regarding trade. Republicans support fake free trade agreements like NAFTA (which is really just a tariff union), the WTO (which "manages" trade - sort of how socialism "manages" the economy), and all sorts of tariffs and barriers. Many Republicans are taking a "hard-line" on China - which means they want to put up all sorts of barriers to trade until the Chinese do what we want. Is all this really what free traders would do? The answer is no, and the Republicans who support this stuff are protectionists.
Nationalistic:
From their support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to their worship of all things patriotism to their support of the President no matter what, the Republicans are moving into hypernationalist territory frequently seen in countries like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not the Republican Party is infected with nationalism to the extreme.
Racist:
The whole immigration debate seems to make my point on this one. "They're taking our jobs!" is the call. As if the jobs belong to you. But what complaints are raised when jobs go to other Americans (and by this, I mean white Americans)? The fear of the Chinese and Japanese making our things is out of control as well, but what of companies in Europe? Are there protests against them? And all the hype about foreign oil? It is always the evil people in the Middle East. But what they don't tell you is the number one exporter of crude oil to the United States is Canada. And the number one exporter of petroleum to the United States is also Canada. But the issue here isn't that the oil is foreign. And the issues with China are not that their products are foreign and their labor is cheaper. The issue is that they look different and they are making things. And Republicans don't like it.
Individual Rights:
Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in the history of the United States of America. And so, in following with tradition, the Republicans suspended it once again in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The Republicans of the modern age also launched the War on Drugs - perhaps the most invasive and rights-destroying policy in the history of the USA. As stated earlier, the Republicans are also looking to ban various things that individuals have a right to do on a national scale. Republicans also support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which completely decimated property rights and freedom of association.
Militarist:
John McCain is a front-runner. Need I say more?
The Republicans have gotten absolutely out of control with their "support the troops" and military spending. So-called "fiscal conservatives" also tend to be the ones to call for massive military expenditures. Republicans are war-hawks and try to compete in hawkish statements (leading to McCain saying things like it would be okay for us to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years). If you saw the last debate, there was a segment of probably ten minutes discussing if Romney is sufficiently dedicated to stay in Iraq, despite his constant rhetoric about staying "until the job is done." McCain got on him about not supporting the surge fervently enough. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are laughed at, mocked, and generally considered to be RINO.
Socialist/Fascist Economics:
George W. Bush massively increase federal spending and the size of government. Even the Republicans admit it. They all claim to be for smaller government and "changing Washington." They then will go on to brag about how much they plan to spend on the military, police, border security, and the Drug War. The Republicans have claimed since Reagan that they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and it doubled in size under Reagan, it was increased dramatically under both Bushes (especially the latest with NCLB). They subsidize farmers, oil companies, and other "vital industries." They build and repair "infrastructure." They "privatize" Social Security not by letting you keep your money, but by putting it somewhere different than the Democrats want to put it. They support "tax reform" - which means tinkering with where the tax burden falls and, overall, raising taxes. They bail out companies that are "too big to fail" and support anti-trust to crush their more efficient competitors. They have supported price controls. They inflate and artificially lower interest rates. They spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They regulate and keep big corporations untouchable. There are some, like John McCain, who hardly even try to hide their socialistic ideas. But do not be fooled by the others. They, too, are in support of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes. The Republicans are not in favor of the free market - they are in favor of Big Government with Big Business. They are corporatists and/or socialists.
Fascism:
Above, I have described the general outline of what a fascist is. And what the modern Republicans are. This fits very well with what the early, Lincoln Republicans were and I think we should consider them the real "Real Republicans." | Politics | 0 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,112 |
The Republican Party was started by a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free Soilers. Lincoln's previous Whig affiliation fit very well with the early Republican Party. The Republicans were very Clayite in the beginning and looked to implement the "American System" laid out by Henry Clay. The Republicans were by and large NOT abolitionists, but rather just wanted to keep slavery where it was already. This was not out of some love for the slaves, but rather because they would "take away white men's jobs" if they were allowed to move west. Lincoln, in particular, opposed slavery because he believed it increased the birth rates of those with African heritage and he wanted to see them wiped from American land. That is why he also supported things like deportation of all African-Americans back to Africa. Lincoln, however, supported a Constitutional Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever barred any federal "interferences" on the institution of slavery in the South. He was not an abolitionist and did not care about the slaves. The Republican Party was and is no less racist than the Democrats. Immigration is not a federal issue because the federal government is not explicitly given the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution, and thus the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States and to the People. Just the existence of a federal bureaucracy like the INS does not mean it is a federal issue. The fact that it exists does not change the Constitution. Do you argue that education is a federal issue simply because the Department of Education exists? Should healthcare be a federal issue, considering that we have a Department of Health and Human Services? Things they don't truly stand for? According to who? You? Do you make the Republican Party platform? Do you control all the Republican politicians? Point to specifics. Tell me what the Republican Party apparently does not support that I said they did. Free trade is a different issue. If you want to debate on that, I suggest a new debate so as to not clog this one. All I was arguing was that despite what many Republicans claim, they - as a whole - support protectionism in trade. The debate on China and foreign policy in general also is a different issue. I am just stating what the Republican Party supports currently and how it is similar to the early Republican stances. As to what a "real Republican" would do in response to the "threats" we face, I agree with you. And I think that is what they are doing. Two nations have been invaded and we are gearing up for a third (Iran) while greasing the wheels for a fourth (Syria). The tough-guy rhetoric is common among modern day Republicans and that was my point about militarism. Lincoln and the early Republicans were militarists as well. Thus, the Republican Party has not "lost its way" but rather has followed the traditions of Lincoln and rejected the Robert Taft/Ron Paul types. | 0 | Morty |
The Republican Party was started by a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free Soilers. Lincoln's previous Whig affiliation fit very well with the early Republican Party. The Republicans were very Clayite in the beginning and looked to implement the "American System" laid out by Henry Clay. The Republicans were by and large NOT abolitionists, but rather just wanted to keep slavery where it was already. This was not out of some love for the slaves, but rather because they would "take away white men's jobs" if they were allowed to move west. Lincoln, in particular, opposed slavery because he believed it increased the birth rates of those with African heritage and he wanted to see them wiped from American land. That is why he also supported things like deportation of all African-Americans back to Africa. Lincoln, however, supported a Constitutional Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever barred any federal "interferences" on the institution of slavery in the South. He was not an abolitionist and did not care about the slaves. The Republican Party was and is no less racist than the Democrats.
Immigration is not a federal issue because the federal government is not explicitly given the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution, and thus the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States and to the People. Just the existence of a federal bureaucracy like the INS does not mean it is a federal issue. The fact that it exists does not change the Constitution. Do you argue that education is a federal issue simply because the Department of Education exists? Should healthcare be a federal issue, considering that we have a Department of Health and Human Services?
Things they don't truly stand for? According to who? You? Do you make the Republican Party platform? Do you control all the Republican politicians? Point to specifics. Tell me what the Republican Party apparently does not support that I said they did.
Free trade is a different issue. If you want to debate on that, I suggest a new debate so as to not clog this one. All I was arguing was that despite what many Republicans claim, they - as a whole - support protectionism in trade.
The debate on China and foreign policy in general also is a different issue. I am just stating what the Republican Party supports currently and how it is similar to the early Republican stances.
As to what a "real Republican" would do in response to the "threats" we face, I agree with you. And I think that is what they are doing. Two nations have been invaded and we are gearing up for a third (Iran) while greasing the wheels for a fourth (Syria). The tough-guy rhetoric is common among modern day Republicans and that was my point about militarism. Lincoln and the early Republicans were militarists as well. Thus, the Republican Party has not "lost its way" but rather has followed the traditions of Lincoln and rejected the Robert Taft/Ron Paul types. | Politics | 1 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,113 |
You continue to attempt to bait me into debates which are not within the spectrum of the question. If you want to debate immigration policy, education, healthcare, and the lack of democracy in the creation of Party platforms, I would be happy to - in different debates. The question at hand is whether the current Republicans are true to what Republicans should be, in reference to their history. That is the topic I will stay on. That said, I do not think you have looked deeply enough into the issues of racism I have pointed to. The issue with immigration has a serious racial undercurrent, whether you want to admit it or not. Again, the current legal paths to immigration are favorable to those living in a well-developed area (Europe) or those who are fairly well-off (mostly Europeans). It takes so long that those in a fairly good position are much more able to wait than those in areas like Africa, Asia, and Latin America where the issue is horrible poverty and they need opportunities sooner rather than later. Furthermore, when speaking on illegal immigration, they always talk tough on border security (where Mexicans are the vast majority of illegals), whereas overstays on visas (which make up about half of all illegal immigration [1]) is basically ignored. The Republicans also have a position on trade which often takes a sometimes-racist, always-nationalist tone. The Republicans worry most on the cheap labor in Mexico and Asia, but have no objections to jobs moving inside the country (generally to whites). Their feelings on foreign oil are very clearly racist - the Middle Easterners are not to be trusted, but mum's the word on the Canadian oil we receive. Not to mention the Republicans' support for the War on Drugs, which is obscenely racist. The difference between the punishment for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is case-in-point. The disparity is 100 to 1, as the punishment for five grams of crack is equal to that of five hundred grams of powder. Blacks are by and large those who use crack, and while recently Hispanics have become the largest users of powder cocaine, originally it was most prevalent among whites. Crack sentences are also on average 43.5% longer than those of powder (121.5 months and 84.7 months, respectively) [2]. As for the Republicans supporting self-reliance, that hasn't been true since the days of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. Modern Republicans, almost all of them, are supportive of the New Deal programs and even the Great Society programs. Look at Mitt Romney - he is actually left of Obama on the issue of healthcare (while Obama will provide insurance for any who can't afford it and wants it, he will not force anyone to buy insurance like Romney proposes to do to everyone). Besides Ron Paul, none of the Republicans are talking about actually ending welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare. They all just want to run them "more efficiently" - that is, their bureaucrats instead of the Democrats' bureaucrats. The Republicans may oppose increasing the minimum wage (sometimes), they certainly aren't talking about ending it. When McCain came to the town I live in, he actually proposed a guaranteed minimum income scheme and increasing unemployment insurance. The Republicans, as I stated earlier, have increased the size of the Department of Education significantly and none dare suggest that education should be privatized. The Republicans are for big government at home too - don't be fooled by rhetoric. And, again, this fits well with the Lincoln Republicans who were very much in favor of bigger government. 1 - <URL>... 2 - <URL>... | 0 | Morty |
You continue to attempt to bait me into debates which are not within the spectrum of the question. If you want to debate immigration policy, education, healthcare, and the lack of democracy in the creation of Party platforms, I would be happy to - in different debates. The question at hand is whether the current Republicans are true to what Republicans should be, in reference to their history. That is the topic I will stay on.
That said, I do not think you have looked deeply enough into the issues of racism I have pointed to. The issue with immigration has a serious racial undercurrent, whether you want to admit it or not. Again, the current legal paths to immigration are favorable to those living in a well-developed area (Europe) or those who are fairly well-off (mostly Europeans). It takes so long that those in a fairly good position are much more able to wait than those in areas like Africa, Asia, and Latin America where the issue is horrible poverty and they need opportunities sooner rather than later. Furthermore, when speaking on illegal immigration, they always talk tough on border security (where Mexicans are the vast majority of illegals), whereas overstays on visas (which make up about half of all illegal immigration [1]) is basically ignored.
The Republicans also have a position on trade which often takes a sometimes-racist, always-nationalist tone. The Republicans worry most on the cheap labor in Mexico and Asia, but have no objections to jobs moving inside the country (generally to whites). Their feelings on foreign oil are very clearly racist - the Middle Easterners are not to be trusted, but mum's the word on the Canadian oil we receive.
Not to mention the Republicans' support for the War on Drugs, which is obscenely racist. The difference between the punishment for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is case-in-point. The disparity is 100 to 1, as the punishment for five grams of crack is equal to that of five hundred grams of powder. Blacks are by and large those who use crack, and while recently Hispanics have become the largest users of powder cocaine, originally it was most prevalent among whites. Crack sentences are also on average 43.5% longer than those of powder (121.5 months and 84.7 months, respectively) [2].
As for the Republicans supporting self-reliance, that hasn't been true since the days of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. Modern Republicans, almost all of them, are supportive of the New Deal programs and even the Great Society programs. Look at Mitt Romney - he is actually left of Obama on the issue of healthcare (while Obama will provide insurance for any who can't afford it and wants it, he will not force anyone to buy insurance like Romney proposes to do to everyone). Besides Ron Paul, none of the Republicans are talking about actually ending welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare. They all just want to run them "more efficiently" - that is, their bureaucrats instead of the Democrats' bureaucrats. The Republicans may oppose increasing the minimum wage (sometimes), they certainly aren't talking about ending it. When McCain came to the town I live in, he actually proposed a guaranteed minimum income scheme and increasing unemployment insurance. The Republicans, as I stated earlier, have increased the size of the Department of Education significantly and none dare suggest that education should be privatized. The Republicans are for big government at home too - don't be fooled by rhetoric. And, again, this fits well with the Lincoln Republicans who were very much in favor of bigger government.
1 - http://www.csmonitor.com...
2 - http://www.usnews.com... | Politics | 2 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,114 |
As one sits back today and watches our so called Republican Party sell our nation down the river we as American citizens and Republicans just sit back and let this garbage continue. How is it possible to call john mccain a republican? he is a socialist are the American people so blind It seems as though the party has tucked there tail between there legs and ran. Do the Republicans have any guts? To me it seems as though they do not they would rather let communism to re-enter this country hell while you are at it you might as well just take the big leap and vote for the extreme communist CLINTON it is time for the party to stand up for what they truely belive in I dont give a damn about the whole war hero thing so what that does not give you a pass to the white house. Keep being stupid america where going to kill ourselves at this rate | 0 | watchman |
As one sits back today and watches our so called Republican Party sell our nation down the river we as American citizens and Republicans just sit back and let this garbage continue. How is it possible to call john mccain a republican? he is a socialist are the American people so blind It seems as though the party has tucked there tail between there legs and ran. Do the Republicans have any guts? To me it seems as though they do not they would rather let communism to re-enter this country hell while you are at it you might as well just take the big leap and vote for the extreme communist CLINTON it is time for the party to stand up for what they truely belive in I dont give a damn about the whole war hero thing so what that does not give you a pass to the white house. Keep being stupid america where going to kill ourselves at this rate | Politics | 0 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,115 |
You have made a few good points in your debate but you forget one thing my friend all of the people you have mention where not and are not republicans. Lincoln was a wig not until he realized he could not be elected did he switch parties You speak of racist the dem party is the most racist party I know who can say there for the man of another color and see him achieving something only to try to take it all away because he or she became more successful than they where. You say immigration is not a federal issue? Why then do we have a federal institution (ins) (ice) to try to manage this issue? All your statements of what the republican is at this time is not what they truly stand for. You speak of free trade in the term that it is a thing america should strive for! you speak of china as it is a good nation!they are one of our biggest enemies they are trying to kill us every day or can you not see it. When we put up trade barriers we usually get our way . And as for Ron Paul he does have some great points but the more you want to sit and have a dialoag with you enemy the longer they have to establish the weapons and the bolder they get. You speak of war so what thats just part of life deal with it. We might not have all this bull going on if we had turned afganistan into a desert just plain flat sand we could have call it sand box of the east or something. A real repulican would not tolerate the bs that goes on nowadays he would kick butt and take names. | 0 | watchman |
You have made a few good points in your debate but you forget one thing my friend all of the people you have mention where not and are not republicans. Lincoln was a wig not until he realized he could not be elected did he switch parties You speak of racist the dem party is the most racist party I know who can say there for the man of another color and see him achieving something only to try to take it all away because he or she became more successful than they where. You say immigration is not a federal issue? Why then do we have a federal institution (ins) (ice) to try to manage this issue? All your statements of what the republican is at this time is not what they truly stand for. You speak of free trade in the term that it is a thing america should strive for! you speak of china as it is a good nation!they are one of our biggest enemies they are trying to kill us every day or can you not see it. When we put up trade barriers we usually get our way . And as for Ron Paul he does have some great points but the more you want to sit and have a dialoag with you enemy the longer they have to establish the weapons and the bolder they get. You speak of war so what thats just part of life deal with it. We might not have all this bull going on if we had turned afganistan into a desert just plain flat sand we could have call it sand box of the east or something. A real repulican would not tolerate the bs that goes on nowadays he would kick butt and take names. | Politics | 1 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,116 |
To say the republican party is no more racist than the dems is unbelievable. the dems as i stated before are the primary ones always fighting for segregation and it pretty much still stands today among that party. Now you have made some understandable points that hold true to the republican party today but you understand and know that that is not what the republicans truly stand for. Who would dare try to say Pres George Bush is a republican! A true republican is a group of people who let the down trodden work out the problems with letting them think that government is there to help them out. They give a hand up not a hand out. They believe in getting up in the morning and busting but to accomplish a goal of success in life. Being economically smart not wating on the unemployment check. You cannot today tell the difference between dems and repubs because they both believe that government is the way out that is just dumb. How many times do you have to pass legislation to build a fence. You say basically we should have open boarders? may i remind you of how rome really fell? because they had let cheap and next to nothing labor come in and build and create everything while they sat on there rear and got fat. When it came time to defend what was theres they couldn't because they had basically forgotten how. I know that is not a great description but it holds basically true. You also say that immigration is not a federal issue! It I believe is and should be it involves this whole country no matter what boarder. I do argue that education is a federal issue and also that is what is wrong with it. Health care a federal issue? are you kidding? that is just ignorant You ask do I make the party platform? Do I control the republican politicians? I answer these questions with a big no but that in itself is the problem. We as the people should make the platform for what we believe in as republicans. Today one cannot do that because the party has run away drunk with power. And yes the tuff guy talk does run through the republican party. What has a dem done except willing to sell america to there enemies. | 0 | watchman |
To say the republican party is no more racist than the dems is unbelievable. the dems as i stated before are the primary ones always fighting for segregation and it pretty much still stands today among that party. Now you have made some understandable points that hold true to the republican party today but you understand and know that that is not what the republicans truly stand for. Who would dare try to say Pres George Bush is a republican! A true republican is a group of people who let the down trodden work out the problems with letting them think that government is there to help them out. They give a hand up not a hand out. They believe in getting up in the morning and busting but to accomplish a goal of success in life. Being economically smart not wating on the unemployment check. You cannot today tell the difference between dems and repubs because they both believe that government is the way out that is just dumb. How many times do you have to pass legislation to build a fence. You say basically we should have open boarders? may i remind you of how rome really fell? because they had let cheap and next to nothing labor come in and build and create everything while they sat on there rear and got fat. When it came time to defend what was theres they couldn't because they had basically forgotten how. I know that is not a great description but it holds basically true. You also say that immigration is not a federal issue! It I believe is and should be it involves this whole country no matter what boarder. I do argue that education is a federal issue and also that is what is wrong with it. Health care a federal issue? are you kidding? that is just ignorant You ask do I make the party platform? Do I control the republican politicians? I answer these questions with a big no but that in itself is the problem. We as the people should make the platform for what we believe in as republicans. Today one cannot do that because the party has run away drunk with power. And yes the tuff guy talk does run through the republican party. What has a dem done except willing to sell america to there enemies. | Politics | 2 | where-are-the-real-republicans/1/ | 55,117 |
"National Missile Defense (NMD) as a generic term is a military strategy and associated systems to shield an entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The missiles could be intercepted by other missiles, or possibly by lasers. They could be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase), or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase)." [Source: <URL>... ] Now that I have clarified what "missle defense" refers to, perhaps your perception of it and the ideology behind it and its supporters would be a little different. It is not about the race to build bigger and better bombs, or a competition regarding who has more weapons of mass destruction. Instead DMD refers to a system that would intercept missles that would cause catastrophically damaging effects to this country should an attack ever be launched on us. And given our current reputation in the world today, you never know when another nation might seize the opportunity to attack. Now, whether or not it could actually work is an entirely other issue (though I do believe that anything is possible). But from a personal standpoint, if we could perfect a way to develop such adequate protection in a time where entire countries could be abolished by the mere push of a button, then I'm all for it. If we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless war and throw tax money away to fund other frivolous programs, why not be willing to develop a program that ensures our safety and well-being? While my opponent mistakingly feels that NMD will promote war, I argue that instead it will deter it. It would 1) make our opponents think twice about attacking our nation and 2) Protect us should a threat ever become a reality | 0 | Danielle |
"National Missile Defense (NMD) as a generic term is a military strategy and associated systems to shield an entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The missiles could be intercepted by other missiles, or possibly by lasers. They could be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase), or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase)."
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ]
Now that I have clarified what "missle defense" refers to, perhaps your perception of it and the ideology behind it and its supporters would be a little different. It is not about the race to build bigger and better bombs, or a competition regarding who has more weapons of mass destruction. Instead DMD refers to a system that would intercept missles that would cause catastrophically damaging effects to this country should an attack ever be launched on us. And given our current reputation in the world today, you never know when another nation might seize the opportunity to attack. Now, whether or not it could actually work is an entirely other issue (though I do believe that anything is possible). But from a personal standpoint, if we could perfect a way to develop such adequate protection in a time where entire countries could be abolished by the mere push of a button, then I'm all for it. If we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless war and throw tax money away to fund other frivolous programs, why not be willing to develop a program that ensures our safety and well-being?
While my opponent mistakingly feels that NMD will promote war, I argue that instead it will deter it. It would 1) make our opponents think twice about attacking our nation and 2) Protect us should a threat ever become a reality | Politics | 0 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,217 |
"if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb" Are you suggesting that the United States would not take the threat of WMDs seriously? As a reminder, the U.S. already does have missles and other WMDs, however, that doesn't mean that we would take other countries having them lightly. For instance, we've already spent about $520 billion dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives by going to war with Iraq because of the POSSIBILITY that they even had them. Your argument holds no water. "if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!" 1. War is not always a bad thing or the wrong decision 2. Prove to me that ICBM causes global warming and cancer "but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!" No, if we didn't have missles and other countries did, we would just build our own or buy them from other nations. Plus, war is a result of many different circumstances, not just bombs and missles. | 0 | Danielle |
"if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb"
Are you suggesting that the United States would not take the threat of WMDs seriously? As a reminder, the U.S. already does have missles and other WMDs, however, that doesn't mean that we would take other countries having them lightly. For instance, we've already spent about $520 billion dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives by going to war with Iraq because of the POSSIBILITY that they even had them. Your argument holds no water.
"if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!"
1. War is not always a bad thing or the wrong decision
2. Prove to me that ICBM causes global warming and cancer
"but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!"
No, if we didn't have missles and other countries did, we would just build our own or buy them from other nations. Plus, war is a result of many different circumstances, not just bombs and missles. | Politics | 1 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,218 |
... Err, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent was trying to say in his last round. The only thing I have gathered was, "NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!!" -- So basically he is saying that NMDs would prevent war? Right. Well, that is exactly the foundation of my entire argument in this debate. Because I'm confused (so the readers must be too), let me just end this "debate" by reiterating some of my main points: Implementeing the NMD would save the lives of American citizens who would perish as a result of an incoming missles destruction. The government as an institution accepts responsibility for protecting citizens; proof is the "Safety At Home" platform that many politicians use to win elections. The NMD would also preserve the land that this nation was founded on, and that we have a right to protect. Furthermore, having a NMD can presumably act as a deterrant from war, meaning we'd never even have to put it to use. As my opponent said, NMD is like armor - when no one messes with each other, no war. Now as I've mentioned, given the current situation... the U.S. reputation; our unpopular involvement in at least 2 wars; the growing number of nations with access to WMDs, etc, I'd say that there is potential for an iminent threat and we should protect ourselves as efficiently and adequately as possible. | 0 | Danielle |
... Err, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent was trying to say in his last round. The only thing I have gathered was, "NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!!" -- So basically he is saying that NMDs would prevent war? Right. Well, that is exactly the foundation of my entire argument in this debate.
Because I'm confused (so the readers must be too), let me just end this "debate" by reiterating some of my main points:
Implementeing the NMD would save the lives of American citizens who would perish as a result of an incoming missles destruction. The government as an institution accepts responsibility for protecting citizens; proof is the "Safety At Home" platform that many politicians use to win elections. The NMD would also preserve the land that this nation was founded on, and that we have a right to protect. Furthermore, having a NMD can presumably act as a deterrant from war, meaning we'd never even have to put it to use. As my opponent said, NMD is like armor - when no one messes with each other, no war. Now as I've mentioned, given the current situation... the U.S. reputation; our unpopular involvement in at least 2 wars; the growing number of nations with access to WMDs, etc, I'd say that there is potential for an iminent threat and we should protect ourselves as efficiently and adequately as possible. | Politics | 2 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,219 |
why because every thing will end at war right? for example do you think if you make bomb your enemy will make dynamite then you make C4 so your opponent will make nuclear and you will make hydrogen bomb and it will end at war | 0 | run-ons_maker |
why because every thing will end at war right? for example do you think if you make bomb your enemy will make dynamite then you make C4 so your opponent will make nuclear and you will make hydrogen bomb and it will end at war | Politics | 0 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,220 |
DUH!!!!!! you forgot one thing if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb and if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!! but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!!!!!!!!! (well that you say i misuderstand about NMD that's right at first any way i still can argue you) | 0 | run-ons_maker |
DUH!!!!!! you forgot one thing if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb and if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!! but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!!!!!!!!!
(well that you say i misuderstand about NMD that's right at first any way i still can argue you) | Politics | 1 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,221 |
err....... the nuclear one i mean the something...reaction that kills people violently many people die because this and think you won't mess with someone who have gun or armor bigger than you right and the NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!! | 0 | run-ons_maker |
err....... the nuclear one i mean the something...reaction that kills people violently many people die because this and think you won't mess with someone who have gun or armor bigger than you right and the NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!! | Politics | 2 | why-missile-defence-system-is-bad/1/ | 55,222 |
because its safer and better | 0 | asue567 |
because its safer and better | Miscellaneous | 0 | why-ocean-life-should-be-kept-in-aquariums/1/ | 55,225 |
Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. "Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap." No, it's not a load of crap, your set of equations is a load of crap. We can't use infinity like a real number, that's it, case closed. The very fact that you can say nonsense like '1+infinity = infinity' means that infinity is not a number. ===== "Since infinity does not follow the rules laid down for numbers, it cannot be a number. Every time you use the symbol {infinity} in a formula where you would normally use a number, you have to interpret the formula differently." [1] ===== This is why you appear to have proven that (x-x) does not have to equal 1, because you have broken the rules of mathematics. For my opponent's future reference, (infinity - infinity) = indeterminate. [1] Thanks. [1] - <URL>... | 1 | leet4A1 |
Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.
"Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap."
No, it's not a load of crap, your set of equations is a load of crap.
We can't use infinity like a real number, that's it, case closed. The very fact that you can say nonsense like '1+infinity = infinity' means that infinity is not a number.
=====
"Since infinity does not follow the rules laid down for numbers, it cannot be a number. Every time you use the symbol {infinity} in a formula where you would normally use a number, you have to interpret the formula differently." [1]
=====
This is why you appear to have proven that (x-x) does not have to equal 1, because you have broken the rules of mathematics.
For my opponent's future reference, (infinity - infinity) = indeterminate. [1]
Thanks.
[1] - http://en.wikibooks.org... | Science | 0 | x-x-0/1/ | 55,278 |
My opponent forfeited his second round, presumably because there really is no argument to make. My opponent's equations only 'work' because they break the laws of mathematics. Vote CON. | 1 | leet4A1 |
My opponent forfeited his second round, presumably because there really is no argument to make. My opponent's equations only 'work' because they break the laws of mathematics. Vote CON. | Science | 1 | x-x-0/1/ | 55,279 |
"I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments." I made no irrelevant or illogical arguments. My opponent laid out a set of equations which apparently proved that (x - x) doesn't always have to equal zero. My opponent's equations used infinity as though it were a real number, which is a basic mathematics fail. I provided links to show that my opponent's equations broke the laws of mathematics and were therefore invalid, and he failed to rebut. Vote CON. | 1 | leet4A1 |
"I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments."
I made no irrelevant or illogical arguments. My opponent laid out a set of equations which apparently proved that (x - x) doesn't always have to equal zero. My opponent's equations used infinity as though it were a real number, which is a basic mathematics fail. I provided links to show that my opponent's equations broke the laws of mathematics and were therefore invalid, and he failed to rebut. Vote CON. | Science | 2 | x-x-0/1/ | 55,280 |
Ok, I'm going to set up a series of mathematical equations to prove that x-x does not equal 0 all the time. Some quick terminology: /= does not equal. 8 infinity. x variable. - minus. + plus. = equal to. x-x=0 a number minus itself equals zero x=8 x equals infinity 8-8=0 because a number minus itself is zero, 8-8 is 0 as well 8+5=8 because infinity cant get any bigger 8+3=8 because infinity cant get any bigger 8+5-8+3=8-8 because of the last two lines 8+5-8+3=8-8+5-3 either the commutative or the associative property of addition/subtraction last line=0+2 0 from 8-8, 2 from 5-3 therefore, 8-8=2 sometimes at least, infinity can equal 2. therefore x-x/=0 all the time Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap. Good luck to my opponent. | 0 | questionmark |
Ok, I'm going to set up a series of mathematical equations to prove that x-x does not equal 0 all the time. Some quick terminology: /= does not equal. 8 infinity. x variable. - minus. + plus. = equal to.
x-x=0 a number minus itself equals zero
x=8 x equals infinity
8-8=0 because a number minus itself is zero, 8-8 is 0 as well
8+5=8 because infinity cant get any bigger
8+3=8 because infinity cant get any bigger
8+5-8+3=8-8 because of the last two lines
8+5-8+3=8-8+5-3 either the commutative or the associative property of addition/subtraction
last line=0+2 0 from 8-8, 2 from 5-3
therefore, 8-8=2 sometimes at least, infinity can equal 2.
therefore x-x/=0 all the time
Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap.
Good luck to my opponent. | Science | 0 | x-x-0/1/ | 55,281 |
I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments. | 0 | questionmark |
I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments. | Science | 2 | x-x-0/1/ | 55,282 |
gmail is nothin' in front of yahoo...yahoo is d bst...!!! | 0 | harshita123 |
gmail is nothin' in front of yahoo...yahoo is d bst...!!! | Technology | 0 | yahoo-is-better-than-gmail.../1/ | 55,283 |
Subsets and Splits