text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with War memorials do more harm than good. because Throughout this debate, I have provided numerous instances and occasions that explain why constructing a war memorial in fact does more harm than good. In his rebuttal, my opponent has deemed my examples somewhat far-fetched. However in this final round, I will - as promised - cite numerous controversial war memorials and describe their effects on society and the globe. If I can demonstrate that their existance/celebration does more harm than good, then I have fulfilled my obligation to the resolution and therefore you should vote Pro. * In Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine has caused a great amount of political controversy. Chinese and Korean representatives have spoken out against the visit of Japanese politicians to the site which contains the bodies of several WWII war criminals. When Japan's Prime Minister visited the site, the result included severe diplomatic conflicts between the nations, as well as Japanese businesses being attacked in China. In this case, the result of one man's visitation to the memorial to "commemorate" the fallen soldiers (including criminals of war) led to diplomatic dispute which effected not just one man, but entire nations of people. The fighting amongst prominent Asian countries has an effect on the whole globe, politically and economically. I would like to also point out that this is a perfect example of "misusing" the intention of a war memorial. The PM of Japan was intentionally disregarding international opinion which led to extreme controversy that affected millions in a negative way. Not to mention that the blatant attacks on Chinese business in general are enough to make the shrine "not worth it." This successfully argues my point that regardless of what war memorials are intended to do, they can be exploited to fulfil a purpose that in the end causes more harm than good. * Another example of controversial war memorials include the Soviet structures that contain quotes from Stalin's texts. These memorials are specifically placed in city centers and therefore are often regarded as symbols for Soviet occupation. Because of this, these memorials are often removed which in turn leads to further conflict. It is easy to see why the destruction or removal of war memorials is so alarming and upsetting to the people who go there for reflection or to pay their respects. However it is also understandable as to why many people are in strong opposition of what the memorials reprsent. To them, the memorials are a symbol of tyrannical occupation and they do not want them displayed within city parameters. The location of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, for instance, caused riots for nights on end as well as the besieging of the Estonian embassy in Moscow for a week. Further, the events sparked international attention and caused a number of political reactions. * What about the war memorials regarding the Indigenous Australians who had died fighting against British invaders on their land? These tribes fought colinization and were consistently defeated. Yet they faced death without flinching to fight for their rights and their homes. War memorials dedicated to them have been frequently shot at and eventually blown up. My opponent writes, "The good of rememberance outweighs the offense of the few." How would that be applied in this particular situation? These war memorials DO serve as symbols of rememberance, however, the individuals they commnence and the people who celebrate them ARE "the few." Therefore his argument is void; it would only make sense if he said "The good of rememberance outweighs the offense of the MAJORITY." However, the offense of the majority would mean that the resolution is affirmed: that war memorials do more harm than good. Further, it would instigate a greater chance of opposition, such as the violent and damaging measures taken to destroy these memorials: gun shots and explosives. So what kind of message are we sending here? That war memorials are only intended/good if the majority of people support its presence? If not, it'll succumb to destruction which downplays the importance it has to the people who actually hold the memorial of significant importance. Either way, it is not only controversial but infringes upon people's rights and emotional well-being. * Finally I'd like to introduce the controversial matter regarding Christianity and Christian symbols in terms of war memorials being built around the country. Take the memorial in Lafayette, California for example. Some parents who lost children in the war (Iraq) have asked that their crosses be taken down off the memorial - even those who are Christian. This not only brings up the problems regarding secular memorials but also religious controversy as well. For instance, many Christians are against the war, and further, the Catholic Church itself has been in opposition with the Iraqi war since its inception (Pope John Paul II cited the Catechism's "Just War" theory which the war in Iraq does not fall under). This obviously creates an unnecessary political/religious tension. * In San Diego, a war memorial which proudly displays a Christian cross on top of the edifice (on PUBLIC LAND) has been under scrutiny for decades. An atheist Veteran has been fighting since the 80s to have the cross removed from the memorial site. This issue is not about his own personal religious beleifs, but rather the very important distinction between Church and State. The memorial is on public land and many feel that it promotes Christianity and/or associates Christianity with the veterans remembered via the memorial. The fact remains that there were a lot of non-Christians who fought and died in the war - why should they be subjected to a Cross mounted on top of their names? Isn't that sort of sacreligious? James McElroy, the lawyer for the veteran in opposition to the Cross states, "We're becoming more and more religiously diverse in this country. Our government should be saying to respect all religions, not, 'We care so much more about Christians that we'll put a 40-foot, 20-ton cross on the most beautiful land the city owns.' Government is sending a message to non-Christians that they're second-class citizens." And yes, this has in fact become a huge government issue. The fight over the memorial has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court as well as President Bush who signed a bill in its defense. However that type of blatant disregard for the separation of Church and State is what makes our values hypocritical. Consider the reaction from President Bush if it had been a 20 ton Islamic symbol on top of the site (afterall Islam is the second most popular religion in the world). Surely that would have not been okay... My point is that war memorials bring other issues into play. What is legal? What is fair? What is just? Often the lines are blurred in terms of right and wrong when it comes to such a sensitive subject such as war/death. However despite the controversy, veterans deserve to be remembered and commended for their efforts. War memorials are not the best way to go about celebrating their honor. The controversy they evoke does more harm than good; people cannot enjoy or show reverence to these memorials/soldiers in peace. There are always questions about the legal, political, religious and economic (who's paying for it?) implications of the edifice and often negative consequences as well. Thus, alternatives to these monuments should and do exist. For the reasons I have stated (and have gone unrefuted to the final round) memorial services are NOT included in the definition of war memorials; however, they are a great alternative. They can be secular AND patriotic, and effectively commemorate our veterans the way they rightfully deserve. For something more permanent, individuals can own private edifices that do not infringe upon the rights of those who wish to honor/remember in a different way. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with KirstinKate is a kiddo because KirstinKate is a kiddo. I affirm the resolution on the basis that she is young, she acts like a kiddo, and she debates like a kiddo. Definitions A kiddo is a person who is younger or less mature than an adult. KirstinKate refers to the user KirstinKate on Debate.org Contention 1) young By looking at her profile picture on can tell that she is not of the age of adulthood within the United States which is 18. A further investigation allows us to look at her profile and see that she was born In 1994, making her 14 which is considerably young. http://www.debate.org... Contention 2) immaturity http://www.debate.org... The topic of that debate is whether or not she hates a boy or a child named Luke. This is more or less like a middle school or highschool type of thing to talk about. It is much like gossip. Because she is 14 making her young, she is also immature. Contentiuon 3) debates like a kiddo http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... As, you can see, she either forfeits or says one or two sentence answers and avoids actually debating something. That is something that well a young, immature, kiddo would do. The resolution is affirmed <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Electoral College is Misrepresentative because I thank my opponent for this debate. Although I do not proclaim to be a political expert, I trust that it is plain to see where my opponent is incorrect. There is no misrepresentation in the electoral college system at all. In fact, I recall from watching several presidential elections in my time that a large map appears on television, detailing exactly how and where the electoral votes are allocated. The representation is quite clear and not misleading in the slightest. http://en.wikipedia.org... (United_States) New York, for example, has 31 electoral votes, and California has 55. There is no misrepresentation. I await my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you audience and thank you to my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Xbox 360 is better than PS3 because Thank you for your response. First of all, I must ask you not to copy-and-paste from other websites. (by the way, if you are also interested in making money on the web, you should also check this web page describing Google Ambush, the next generation of money making on the web). •The Ten Best Applications for the Apple MacIntosh •How to get TV content for the iPod Video •Creating your own iPod screen design •Microsoft Zune: the Good and Bad of the MP3 Player •How to become a computer programmer •GooglePack This is totally irrelevant to our debate, and shows that you have copied and pasted from another website. Also, you have stated all the information of PS3, which has nothing to do with supporting your argument, which is that PS3 is better than Xbox 360. I must ask you to stay on topic, and please be a good opponent. 1- Graphics- Xbox 360 beats PS3 on graphics. Also, Xbox 360 has far less loading times than the PS3. All the games in XBOX 360 llook better, run better, and less lag and jutter. 2- Xbox Live- Xbox Live is FAR better than PSN. It has netflix ... the PS3 does now too, but you need to put in a CD to play it. Xbox 360 just stream it even up to 1080p, Xbox 360 and xbox games for download, DLC comes first ( usually ) and sometimes its exlusive, now has Last FM radio, facebook, twitter. The PS3 is so complicated to develop ( for games ) that even games like Uncharted 2 were using over 90% of the systems power. Its a great game, and very good looking. BUT the 360 can do better, graphically speaking. The 360 also can process more information faster and more efficient, meaning games ( when used right which is 90% of the time ) will be "slower", have less of a framerate then the 360. I will be waiting for your rebuttal. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Early Term Abortions because "to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of" This is the definition of "kill." When dealing with such a serious word, one must consider their actions carefully. While some argue against it, abortion is the act of depriving of life. My opponent offers in his second contention the "mindset" claiming that in an early-term abortion the life taken is not actually a baby. The definition of a "baby" is not concrete, and both sides are argued constantly. My opponent and I cannot agree on the definition of a "baby." Because of this, I will focus on the fact that abortion of any kind is the deprivation of life. Now to address his second contention. He makes a rather rash statement here. While still slightly plausible, abortion remains the deprivation of a life. Whether or not the woman chose to be pregnant, she would be ACTIVELY KILLING were she to have an abortion. Therefore, abortions ought not be permitted. This resolution deals with the permissibility of early-term abortions. Here is the definition of permit: "To legally condone or permit." (Also from dictionary.com) So, we know that abortion is the active killing, or depriving of life. Is killing allowed by law? Obviously not. Taking this into account, abortions of any type ought not be permitted since they are against the law, and active killing. For these reasons I can only negate the resolution. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools because Well, sadly it seems my opponent has missed the voting deadline. I hope he takes part in the final round regardless, and I shall surrender my rebuttal round in this spirit. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids) because Extend. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan because My opponent's first statement has nothing to do with this debate. Neither does the entire second paragraph in which he describes the process of Bush getting authorization for a troop surge in Iraq. His next paragraph reads "Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction they are not a threat to The US. There is no terror threat.". My opponent seems to be forgetting a few facts here. Fact #1- Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. Though "munitions" have been found containing "degraded mustard and sarin" that could possibly be converted by terrorists, and metric tonnes of yellowcake were found- there were no useful weapons of mass destruction as we were told by the Bush Administration. Most Republicans have learned to accept that the cause for war in Iraq was phony... my opponent is still one of the disgruntled few who do not accept we were tricked into war with Iraq. Furthermore, there is no proof that Afghanistan does not have weapons of mass destruction, yet there is proof they are gaining access to them. Al Qaeda's stronghold is a region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is fragile, and Pakistan DOES possess weapons of mass destruction. With the gains seen recently for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, ignoring the war in Afghanistan could be much more disastrous to American security than my opponent would lead us all to believe. According to the 2007 National Security Estimate, Al Qaeda remains "the most serious terrorist threat" to the US. http://intelligence.house.gov... http://www.cfr.org... http://www.ptinews.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... Fact #2- Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, poses the most serious terror threat to the US. As referenced above in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, they are "the MOST serious terrorist threat" to the US. http://www.usnews.com... http://www.heritage.org... Fact #3- No Iraqi terrorists, terrorist organizations, or terrorist cells have ever attacked on US soil. My opponent implies the war in Iraq is justified, but if it is, it is only justified by the actions of Saudi Arabian, Yemenese, and other Arab terrorists belonging to Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, Al Qaeda, which is based in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban which was the government in Afghanistan in 2002 when the war in Afghanistan began, and who have free travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan- a nation with weapons of mass destruction and a weak government. There can be no war on terror, no hunting for bin Laden, and no resolution to the attacks on 9/11 without some type of progress in Afghanistan. My opponent then goes on to explain how the US concedes that "mostly civilians" were killed in an attack on Tuesday, February 17, 2009. Now, in his first round argument he was referring to an incident in January. But let's address the issue nonetheless. No one is arguing that loss of civilian life is repulsive and reprehensible. BUT to claim that Obama is "murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children" is a stretch. The attack killed 3 militants, and a stockpile of weapons were found. Though the loss of civilian life is tragic and should be avoided, it should not completely tie the hands of those carrying out a war against an ever adaptive military force like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The same article references a deal with Afghan forces on "planning and execution of counterterrorism missions" to minimize civilian casualties. This is progress, and if you attribute the deaths within the past two months to Obama's mismanagement, then you must also attribute any progress to him as well. The article also mentions the loss of life of US Soldiers, something my opponent fails to mention. My opponent makes the following statement: "Every single civilian loss of life under the bush Administration was blamed directly on Bush not the US military". If my opponent is so angry about this, turning the tables on the new President does not make him right, and it does not make an argument against those who made similar claims against Bush. I attribute a level of maturity to the readers that would preclude them from making similar judgments to somehow make them feel better, or as retribution against the judgments made against the previous President. My opponent claims that Obama's policy in Afghanistan "got those people killed". How is that so? This is not Obama's war, this is America's war and we were brought into it by a President who decided to wage wars on two fronts without finishing the initial task of capturing those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. That is why we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because of Obama's policies. Obama's policy is to complete the war in Iraq in accordance with the desires of the Iraqi government- something Bush put into motion during his last few months in office, and his policy in Afghanistan is to attempt to re-gain control of a war that was neglected by the Bush Administration for the past 7 years. If Bush was responsible for anything in Afghanistan it is allowing a resurgence in the Taliban, allowing a fragile, and at times rogue, government to operate in neighboring Pakistan, and to hand off a possible quagmire to a vastly more competent President in Barack Obama. Though I believe McCain would have been even more competent still, I don't believe a different President would have prevented these casualties as they are the result of operations on the ground, and not orders from the President. The President does not direct day to day operations on the ground, as I stated in my round one argument. My opponent also claims that "This is a unjust war, it does not have congressional approval or approval from the UN. Obama is a murderer". Again, he is ignoring a few facts. Fact #1- This war began under Bush's orders, not those of Barack Obama. Fact #2- Operation Enduring Freedom was authorized by Congress. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov... Fact #3- The US did not require UN approval for the war in Afghanistan. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for collective self defense. When the US invaded Afghanistan, only one government recognized the Taliban as an official government- Pakistan- and they later retracted that recognition (Iran retracted recognition almost immediately). On December 20, 2001, the UNSC did authorize the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with authority to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security. Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003. Fact #4- My opponent has no direct or indirect proof that Obama is a murderer, or a terrorist. He simply states so as rhetoric to somehow get back at Democrats for making the same false claims against George W. Bush. If his opposition to this war were moral as he now implies, he would have opposed it under Bush as well. He has made no such claims, and has only stated that Obama deserves the same disdain for continuing this war. I believe we all want these wars to be over, but we all know they cannot be ended without bloodshed- be that US troops, Arab militants, or civilians, but none of this makes Obama a murderer. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abortion because My second part of this was interrupted because of a little problem that's happening right now in my house. I was just writing ideas when it came up, my apologies. You are right, but I don't understand why it should be illegal. Hey, if she wants to put it up for adoption or not it's her choice. Maybe the only way to solve this is, having elective/voluntary abortions illegal, the woman puts the baby up for adoption, and then she gets health care money something for giving birth to another human being who might help the world. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Yo mama joke off because yu killin me man.... Just kidding '-' *laugh evilly* Yo mama so fat her pant size is um.... um..... umm..... B#!* LOSE SOME WEIGHT (i don't know if your allowed to cuss) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Albert Einstein was a phony because You are probably going through a sexual drought. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon because Okay, so the entire argument around the atom and the rock becomes this: if you believe that non-living things have to no longer exist to be defeated, you side with my opponent on this issue. If you are already convinced that non-living things are already defeated, you side with me. We have both presented numerous points on the issue. All I would be doing would be repeating all of my points. However, my opponent makes the generalization that living things are only used if they are alive. This is a generalization. It is possible to "use" a living character's dead body to exist. Therefore, my opponent is taking the entire concept of being "usable" out of context. "Second, I'd appreciate sources for the claims about Kirby's digestive ability and about objects becoming trapped in his body forever." Well, where do you think the objects went? They're obviously still inside of him, or they don't exist anymore, thus defeating your non-living things. "If objects become stuck inside Kirby forever, and there isn't a limit to what he can eat, then there isn't any limit to the amount of matter he can inhale; thus, Kirby is limitless and illegal." However, there is a limit to the amount of matter he can inhale. He can only inhale the matter that is within the limited range of his inhalation. If I am not allowed to use Kirby's "limitless" swallowing ability, I can do this differently. Kirby is capable of ejecting matter out of his mouth rather than swallowing [1]. Therefore, he could inhale and eject out of New York City pieces of Uluru one at a time, still accomplishing the same effect. "That seems to defy the laws of physics. Specifically, the laws of conservation of matter and (maybe) energy. Could this ability also be considered limitless? There's no limit on Kirby's bomb creating ability." You assume that the laws of physics actually apply to video games. The limit is that Kirby can only produce one bomb every few seconds. This would be comparable to asking how many punches Superman can throw over time. Because he requires no subsistence, he can throw an unlimited number of punches. However, he is still legal, as MTGandP, the creator of UTW, has used him multiple times. The idea of an unlimited ability doesn't seem to apply to all abilities, really. "What? That doesn't make any sense at all. The rule was not clarified. Thus, we cannot definitively say if a 'sumo-kill' is allowed or I'm arguing that it isn't using reason, but your argument that it is allowed is simply illogical." However, you have no evidence that sumo-kills are illegal. You only claim that that was the implication. Since the question was never answered, and everything is technically legal by default unless shown otherwise, sumo-kills are legal. Otherwise, there is no way to defeat your atom, and it therefore has the unlimited ability of being undefeatable. "In the TP games, Midna seems only to have her main powers while in the Twilight. In the normal (Light) world, she is simply a shadow. Does Midna even have her levitation abilities in the Light world? Even if she did, how can a shadow physically - key word, physically - levitate an object?" In the Light world, she can still become solid, as long as she is with Wolf Link, which I can have Link transform into. Also, Midna used her powers in the Light world to move the piece of bridge from the Gerudo Mesa to the Bridge of Eldin. Therefore, Midna could easily move Uluru. "It would seem that Midna's only way to actually move Uluru would revolve around telekinesis. Moving Uluru using telekinesis would be teleportation. Teleportation is illegal." Teleportation out of New York City is illegal. However, I can use Midna to send Uluru up into space, just above New York City, which is legal, because we have no established height limit. Midna would then release the rock, and it would either orbit away from New York City or burn up on reentry. Also, any bits and pieces that do make it back to the ground would be very tiny, especially since the rock would break apart upon impact, and I could easily have any character move tiny pieces physically. To clarify one thing, the rock would not hit any of my team members, as Yugi could use the Millennium Necklace to predict where the rock would land. "I guess that seems to work. Around 3:00 in the same video, though, he says that his story might have been a little bit embellished. Perhaps the Pharoah[sic] did not physically save him, and the grandfather was actually safe but simply had a vision? I also wonder if the Pharoah's[sic] projection of himself revolved around the circumstances–someone being there to "activate" his presence?" If the Pharaoh still has the power to create visions, then he is still "usable." Also, as long as there are circumstances under which the Pharaoh can project himself, then he can reside safely in the Millennium Puzzle to outlast Uluru. "First, that seems to raise some questions about limits. Second, that's completely unwarranted and ridiculous. Why can't video game protagonists age?" The fact that Link does not age normally is not an unlimited ability. Link is just completely immune to natural aging, and immunities are not illegal. Second, if I left my game on for years on end, with thousands of days going by in-game, Link would not age a bit. "In Ocarina of Time, Link ages seven years when he pulls the Master Sword out of his pedestal. [5] This shows two things: 1. That Link can age, and 2. that video game protagonists in general can age." Ah, but they still can't age "normally." They can only age by plot events like the Master Sword. In a battle, like this one, Link could stall for as long as he wants, provided that he stays in a place where he can't be reached, or is with an enemy that cannot damage him. Therefore, Link would outlast Uluru, as well. "You have to actually argue the point. You can't say 'wrong' and 'that isn't true' and expect it to hold." There is no indication in the rules of any commands. "The rule also says facilitate." For one thing, facilitate is a transitive verb [2], which means that it doesn't even fit in the sentence. "Facilitate" was probably supposed to affect the subject of "the debate." Assisting the progress of the debate would only need to involve explaining, not directing. "Take into account that the members' only prerogative is the team leader, and that the team leader is the only specific authority, and it sure looks like the leader is commanding the team as its head." Ah, but is there any indication of ordering anybody around? I only explain how my five guys would beat your five guys. That is my role. I don't actually direct anybody. I explain their skills. "This is completely nonsensical. First of all, it's not a hypothetical mongeese. It is mongeese." Then explain how I'm both the team leader and a team member. The only real solution is a cloning. "[I]f mongeese can't think, then he can't actually issue any kind of order, and Team PRO stops being a team and becomes a random bunch of five characters who don't really do anything." Okay, I can just have Yugi erase my mind using the power of the Millennium Ring (as done by Bakura in Episode 35), so that I forget that I am a team member, but I can still remember that I am a team leader. Therefore, I can command my team safely. Finally, one other thing. If I leave New York City, I am defeated. However, at that point, neither my opponent nor I would be in New York City. Therefore, it stands that I would no longer be a team member, but team leaders are allowed to be outside New York City, so leaving would free me from my opponent without death, which creates no paradox. I have no characters left to go through my strategies, but just remember that because my characters can outlast my opponent's, I can't lose. Thank you. 1. http://kirby.wikia.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gangster Rap should be banned because "Gangs, murders, and drug transactions happened before the gangster rap. Gangster rap may make this more popular but the problem is caused by outside influences. I play Halo and don't kill people like many A students in school have Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall" on their ipods. The drug revolution happened in the 70s making a sudden increase in drug use. Drugs affect poor people the most. Blacks were mostly poor." By popularizing it, children get in contact with it by their family members and/or older siblings. Getting in contact with it at a young age will of course corrupt the child's developing mind and would make the child incapable of sufficiently telling the good from the bad of things because he would have been hearing about shooting, stabbing, brawling, sex, and crime at such a young age. Yes they do need to know that these realities do very exist in the world, but there are certain ages that they need to hear about these when their minds are capable of comprehending. By banning this more aggressive genre of music, it would be much more easier for a child to not come in contact with it. On the side there will be 2 videos, from top to bottom it begins with Pink Floyd's "Another Brick In The Wall", then 50 Cent's "*%#! You". Unfortunately I was unable to post the lyrics due to 50 Cent's constant use of foul language, so I posted up the videos. Now, which one would a child most understand? I myself would be able to understand the words like "#%*! You" compared to "education" if I was a child, my younger brother would most likely agree..... He just did. But, I still did not understand 50 Cent's song through the lyrics nor through the music video. But I would say this..... I like the background images from 50 Cent's music video from 2:00 - 2:05, what a wonderful image of not promoting guns. As guns, drugs, and violence becomes more popularized by Gangsta Rap, more and more youths become involved in the world of gang violence and I just do not want the record companies and artists to constantly make money off of this. I would like to thank my opponent for putting up a very difficult debate, but I would like to apologize for not posting my argument up sooner for now I do not have enough time to reply to all of your arguments. I sincerely apologize for my very late timing. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against No one wins because I thank my opponent for his response and will now give my own. First, I would like to apologize to my opponent and to the audience, as I have misread the quote. I meant to say that the "probability" occurs not in the engagement of the act by another party, but that it occurs in how violently it will occur: "but he knows that if he doesn't do it someone else will do it, ***but probably*** more violently" The only way Kyle can be sure he does not become the greater evil, is to not do it at all. Perhaps if he decides to opt out, the next person will find a way to do the act and to make it even less violent. As for the second point, my opponent is incorrect. In my situation, it is still a horrible injustice and the act is still morally wrong, but it is outweighed on the opposite end by a massive amount of good. If he does it, it is a horrible injustice. If he doesn't do it, it is an even MORE horrible injustice. The point is that clear. I did not malign any part of my opponent's argument, I have abided by all of his restrictions. All the elements are there. ******** Let me attack the resolution from another angle. SCENARIO TWO: Kyle is a Hangoyun prince, the crown prince, from a tribe of people that is culturally used to raping and killing any non-Hangoyun female. Sarah is a foreigner, captured by the Hangoyun king. They are both imprisoned in the same room and as a rite of passage, the crown prince of Hangoyunia must rape and kill Sarah, or else be killed himself for disgracing his people. Furthermore, he knows that his brother would like to engage in the act himself in his stead, so that he can become the next crown prince. He is reluctant to do this because it is crude and heartless, much like slaughtering a cow for a festival, but it is also culturally common. Rape and murder are horrible moral injustices to Sarah, as well as to the rest of us, but my opponent never stated that Kyle had to have the same viewpoint. Even if it were a horribly immoral act, these people are unaware of it and thus, it makes no difference. If he does it, Kyle would not have the guilt, and no one would blame him. The entire country of Hangonyunia would celebrate his coming of age and he himself would be glad that he got his rite of passage over with. The only person who carries over those morals would be Sarah, and she would have been raped and killed. Thus, this situation also fulfills all of my opponent's restrictions while showing that Kyle is a complete and total winner, except for the minor amount of pity he had in raping and killing the poor creature, but not much. Thus, I have now produced TWO situations that completely abide by my opponent's restrictions and negate the resolution. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached because I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. Under US law, treason is defined as such: Treason-Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.(1) For this debate, I seek to sufficiently prove that 40th POTUS Ronal Reagan was indeed guilty of treason following the Iran-Contra affair. This is to assume that the decision reached by the courts over the matter, were wrong in not convicting Reagan himself for the scandal. The Con may not say "Because the court found him innocent, he is innocent!" but rather may say, "For these reasons the court found him innocent, so he is innocent!" if he so chooses. The Scandal From '85 to '87 "The Iran–Contra affair , also referred to as Irangate , Contragate or the Iran–Contra scandal , was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo. Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of several hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress. The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages" (2) Summary -Iran was subject of an arms embargo -Further funding of Nicaraguan contras was banned by Boland Amendment -The Reagan Administration violated the arms embargo by providing iranians with arms, and violated the Boland Amendment by funding the Contras Reagan's Involvement "I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together." - Ronald Reagan to National Security Advisor on Hostages " In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East."(3) The actions that spurred the scandal were indeed approved by Reagan, even though he acted mostly with the safety of those hostages in mind. Reagan's approval of this action makes him a co-conspirator to commit treason, as he did knowlingly approve operations that violated an arms embargo, us law, and even his own campaign promises ( to never negotiate with terrorists). " Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar."(3) WIth both the support and approval of Reagan, Iranian terrorists were being prompted to take more and more hostages to acquire thousands of missiles and other weaponry. The Coverup "When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal."(3) Not only did he knowingly commit these treasonous acts, he then went on to knowlingly lie about them. First, he denied the operations existance, then he denied the truth of the matter. This is similar to Nixon's involvement with the watergate scandal (except Nixon didn't order the covert actions, only covered them up). Nixon was in the process of impeachment and conviction when he resigned as president and was later pardoned. Reagan is in a very similar situation to this, except he took the extra step further and actually aided in the premeditation and execution of the actions.(4) The Treasonous Actions of Reagan The actions that Reagan took are treasonous because he, The President of the United States, knowingly approved and supported a foreign policy that A) Violated US law B) Violated an arms embargo against an enemy of America C) assissted terrorists that were taking US citizens as hostages. These are all acts that knowlingly gave aid to enemies of the United States, and therefore are acts of treason. Crime and Punishment Just because one who commits a crime is well known and loved does not mean that they are any less guilty of their crime. Just because one commits a crime with good intentions makes them no less guilty of that crime. For justice to be upheld, Reagan ought to have been convicted of treason and impeached, then, if his successor found his crimes forgivible due to his past actions and good intentions, he could be pardoned. Sources 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu... ; 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... ; 3. http://www.pbs.org... ; 4. http://www.history.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with White Nationalism is not inherently racist because The first round is just going to be for definitions and to accept the debate. White nationalism - "•White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people." [1] Many definitions claim that white nationalism wants a 100% white state, however this is inaccurate because many white nationalists support a white state which has heavy border controls that allow non-whites in, but limits immigration so that they remain minorities. Therefore, the 100% white state cannot accurately be used as a definition. Racism - "The treatment or view, that someone is infearior because of their race." This is oppose to simply viewing someone as "different" because of their race. Inherently - "built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic" [2] My main arguement in this debate is going to be that extreme wings of white nationalism (namely white supremacism) have corrupted the public view of white nationalism really is, and so people believe that something is racist when only the extremes are. Thank you, [1] http://www.google.com... = [2] http://www.google.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC) because My opponent is agreeing with me. Do I need to argue? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Public Nudity Should Be Legalized because I thank XStrikeX for accepting this debate and expressing interest in it. === ARGUMENT === Harm Done: I contend that the anti-nudist policies are unjustifiable due to them causing more harm than any it could have stopped. Indeed, I say, being naked does no harm. I ask you, what harm does nudity cause? None. Does it cause pain? No. Is it assault? No. Does it involve violence? No. Will people be traumatized--will our children be ripped of their purity? That's ridiculous. The policies on the other hand--are they violence? Yes, absolutely. This entirely innocent person is taken into custody be police, which could potentially involve being tackled, beaten, cornered, tazered and shackled. This person who did harm to no one is then deprived of their liberty through violence and often have property confiscated in the form of a fine. I could link to various sources dealing with the punishment that is given to "indecent exposure" but unfortunately they all contained pictures of people in the nude. It seems the very anti-nude rules applied to this website have harmed the fabric of this debate. I will expand this argument later if necessary. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! because Being able to call 911 or call someone you know for help is absolutely safer than being in a dangerous situation alone with no way of contacting the outside world. Even if you don't think phones make things safer, they don't make things any less safe. Therefor, having the phone on the wall didn't necessarily make things any better for anyone. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hulk Vs Spiderman (Hulk wins) because First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this momentous comic book debate. Being a Spider-Man who would formally read numerous Spider-Man comics (only to drop the title after that travesty titled "One More Day"), I consider myself quite a fan and am delighted to have the opportunity to demonstrate how the big green lummox would stand no chance against the web head in a current battle. ============================================================================ OBSERVATIONS ============================================================================ Observation #1: Note that my opponent has provided no arguments yet. Please do not confuse any of what he has stated with an argument and then accuse me of ignoring a most of my opponent's response. In addition, as he insinuates ,there is a lot of that information does not impact the result of a battle between Spider-Man and the Hulk. Observation #2. From what I am to understand, the winner of the battle is the one who is last left consciously standing. Hence, I need only argue that Spider-Man renders the Hulk unconscious in order to win the debate. ============================================================================ CONTENTION #1: Spider-Man's superior intellect and experience in fighting the Hulk as well as working alongside would easily give him the victory ============================================================================ When considering who would win this battle, we must consider that not only has Spider-Man battled the hulk in the past (hence has experience in fighting him), but has also worked alongside him as a member of the Avengers for quite some time. Thus, Spider-Man would merely have to do the following to win: #1. Calm the Hulk down As my opponent has noted, the Hulk is weakest while calm. However, the calmer he is, the more likely he is to revert back to Bruce Banner (hence make the Hulk unconscious, thus the loser of the battle). If Spider-Man simply reverts the Hulk to Bruce Banner by making him as calm as possible, he can prove to be the victor in a battle against the Hulk. Given that Spider-Man is in fact one of the most intelligent non cosmic characters in the Marvel Universe (even Ant man considered Peter to be far more intelligent that he is) and that he has worked with the Hulk on the Avengers long enough to understand how he thinks, Spider-Man would easily deduce a method which could be used to relax the Hulk enough to revert him to Bruce Banner. This would require that Spider-Man not fight the Hulk (as fighting him would make him angry), however . . . "not fighting" during the battle wouldn't be a problem considering that the Hulk is familiar with Spider-man and has worked alongside him, thus wouldn't see him as a threat unless Spider-Man began to attack him. Once he reverted to Bruce Banner, the Hulk would no longer be conscious and Spider-Man would be the victor automatically. Of course, if my opponent objects to the Hulk persona merely being unconscious as not being enough for victory, I could simply point out that Spider-man could use his super human agility to speed blitz Banner (in other words, knock him out) before he could even realize, hence preventing his Hulk persona from interfering and insuring Spidey a victory. ============================================================================ CONTENTION #2: Spider-Man knows how to kill the Hulk ============================================================================ The following conversation takes place in Amazing Spider-man Vol 2 #54. SPIDEY: Everybody in our odd little community would deny it, but we all watch each other when we cross paths, looking for weaknesses, in case that day ever comes. In case they ever have to stop me...or I ever have to stop them. But we never talk about it. Ever. MJ: So in that case... you must've thought about how to beat the Hulk. S: That's right. MJ: So does that mean you've figured out how to beat him? Could you really beat the Hulk? S: Yeah. Yeah, I could. But the only way to do it, to really stop him, would be to kill him. Ergo, we know Spider-Man knows how to take the Hulk down, we know he has had a great deal of time to further think this out (as this took place many many issues ago) and we know that this wouldn't involve outside help given that he refers to himself as being able to do it. Given that Spider-man has beaten cosmic level entities before (such as how he defeated FireLord ---a herald of Galactus---in Amazing Spider-Man #269), we know that he is perfectly capable of defeating characters who are in the Hulk's league. Thus, it is quite likely that this knowledge would make this insured victory during this battle. And that'll do it for now. I will likely provide additional arguments in the next round. Also, my above arguments may need elaboration depending on my opponent's rebuttal. Later. :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with smoking cigarettes is stupid because My position: smoking cigarettes is a stupid choice for the average person to make. CONs position: smoking cigarettes is a good choice for the average person. burden of proof: im sick of people talking about burden of proof. just make your best arguments. opening argument: 1. the average person wants to be healthy, attractive, not get frequently agitated, and not waste money. 2. smoking is known to cause people to waste money, be unhealthy, be less attractive, and be more frequently agitated. 3. smoking doesnt cause any major benefit. the benefits are a mild temporary high, and easing nerves. 4. there are better ways to be calm, or high. marijuana is a much better alternative. even things like breathing deeply, stretching, exercising, meditation, and eating right, are equally or more effective at helping oneself be calm. also, if you werent dependent on smoking, you wouldnt have as hard of a time being calm. 5. it would be stupid to go against your strong desires in order to fulfill weaker desires, especially if there are better alternative ways to allow you to fulfill both these sets of desires. conclusion: basically, smoking is stupid. the negative results far outweigh the benefits. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against cell phones should be allowed in school because He ignores my first and third point, only touching the 2nd (which I'll rebut in a sec.) and ignores both of my utility arguments; I'll get to the importance of this in a second, but basically because he hasn't addressed them you can assume he doesn't have an argument or that he agrees. These points stand as is, and this is going to be a major factor in the round. On the Pro: - First he gives us this analogy about calculators and decides this is adequate proof or something, but it really isn't. He doesn't tell us how the use of phones is a right, rather he tells us he can use his calculator in class. I'd assume he'd be using it in math class. Because it would assist his education. I maintain the use of cell phones is not a right, while ownership is. He gives no contrary evidence besides a flawed analogy. To strengthen the fact that it's not a right, I'll give you another analogy. The purpose of a theater is to present a play to an audience, at the point where using a camera with a flash would distract the actors and thus decrease their performance, the use of flash photography is prohibited. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bible, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants or whatever other document you use to determine where your rights are, does it say use of cell phones is a right. Next, he gives us a point about "emergencies" but there are several flaws with this argument: First: Since he doesn't attack point one or three, and he illogically attempts to rebut point two, we can conclude that point 3 still stands: "Since the USE of cell phones isn't a preordained right, their use can only be measured in whether it hinders the institutions ability to perform it's goal (to teach students.)" He agrees we measure things in their ability for institutions to perform, and since I just refuted his flimsy argument against why it's not a preordained right we can assume that the aforementioned bit holds true. Because of that, we go to: "schools are empowered to disallow cell phone use, THE DEBATE IS FOCUSED ON WHETHER THAT USE IS A HINDRANCE OR NOT." (can't bold, so I capitalized.) At that point it being an asset in an emergency is IRRELEVANT (same thing) to the round, and so there is no benefit coming from the Pro, just the flimsy argument about point two. Second: They aren't even an asset in an emergency. Schools have a telephone in every classroom and walkie-talkies between SRO and Administrative Disciplinary Staff not to mention that close to, if not every teacher has their own personal cell phone. So unless the emergency cut the phone lines, disabled radio frequencies and destroyed every teacher's phone then student's phones wouldn't even be USED, much less NEEDED. Now, look to what I noted at the beginning of this: He ignores my two points, and so you can carry them through. What we're seeing is this round is the following: 1) The Pro agrees to the Con's argumentative framework on the whole, and doesn't adequately refute what he disagrees with, so the framework stands. 2) The Pro never links in to that framework, rather provides another flimsy point which has no relevance, but also no sense behind it. 3) The Con provides two clear links to the framework on how cell phone use hinders school progress, neither points that are refuted. At this point in the debate, it is abundantly clear that the Con has one. I provide you with direct harms of affirming that are never addressed, whereas he only gives you a flimsy point that doesn't even present a benefit. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with If you are less instructed, you believe more in God because I have offered my points. Even if you do not agree with them, surely you agree who won this debate. My opponent has provided nothing to prove his point, whereas at least I tried. Vote Pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should illegal immigrants be given pathway to citizenship? because For the beginning here I would just like to clarify that my last round was Opening arguments only. This round I will go over my opponent's opening arguments and see if I can get through R3 rebuttals if limits permit. ===Opponent's arguments=== My opponent states that this is a "slap to the face" of legal immigrants, but never actually says why this is a problem nor why it is a bad thing that we should be considered with. There is no significance to this argument. He also brings up the argument of illegal immigrants not having to pay any fees. Again, he doesn't explain why this is a bad thing. They come here for free, and many can do as they please for whatever purpose. There are people being oppressed in other nations like how people were being oppressed in Cuba and refugees were coming here in the boatloads trying to escape. They came here for free, but worked hard and risked death to do so. Should we turn them back to Cuba or where-ever so they can be executed? The answer is no. My opponent's argument has no impact in the debate and should be discarded as such. Even if they do cost tax payers money for education or what not, keep in mind this debate isn't about how we should take care of them, this is about a pathway to citizenship. This means that my opponent's arguments on education and everything else should be discounted since they are to be considered untopical in this debate since they do not apply to the resolution. When they are granted citizenship, these issues won't matter as it would be the same as doing the same for regular citizens where my opponent's scopes will move to social programs and more. My opponent's argument is too broad and untopical, so we have to see these arguments should be thrown out of today's debate. Reforming certain immigration laws will result in a boom of revenue for the government and once we give these illegal immigrants citizenship, we will see our nation's revenue skyrocket, so my opponent's argument actuall flows in my favor. === Rebuttals === As I have previously stated, last round I have addressed only my opening arguments, this round is for rebuttals. I don't have much to refute this round. A lot of my opponent's arguments actually work for me as they only apply in the status quo unless there is reform. His argument is either we should keep the status quo and have total deportation. If we keep the status quo, we will see all of his harms still occur and probably fester or if we have total deportation, we will see our economy go down the tubes. My opponent is actually arguing against himself by showing that if his side wins, refurring to the immigration debate, we will see all these things happen. What he doesn't tell you is that all of these things occur only with his side of the debate and he never actually shows why amnesty is a bad thing. When they are given US citizenship then they will pay income taxes, be more accountable, and help our nation, while in the status quo and total deportation we will see more people avoid working and contributing so they don't risk being caught. My opponent's plan harms our country and unless amnesty is granted then we cannot see improvement, so my opponent is arguing against himself. It even solves for wages as they would then be able to work at minimum wage givng them more money and the influx of workers means there will be a greater range of consumers as they would have more and more money to spend and consumer income will rise leading to increased utility. Businesses will have to expand as they now have a new consumer base and this will create more and more jobs resulting in wages rising due to the market dettermining how much more they are worth and they are worth more than what the minimum wage is worth and will be paid accordingly. My opponent claims that this will result in them supporting Democrats and I inquire, why is that a bad thing? The US is a democracy and the people of the US have the right to vote for whoever they please. Are we going to start scaling back voting rights, because we don't want people to vote Democrat? This argument is rediculious. He doesn't explain why having first generation immigrants running for office being a bad thing. Article 2 of the Constitution states that you have to be at least 35 years old and you have to have lived in the US for 14 years to run for office. The status quo in the Constitution safe guards any issue that my opponent may have in regards for running for office. There is no actual issue that my opponent brings up in this argument and it is one that is irrelivant in this debate. All of my arguments from my last round stand as they attack total deportation and my opponent argues against the status quo leaving the resolution on the side of Pro completely unattacked and since new arguments can't be brought up in the last round, there is no arguments that can be brought up in regards to amnesty that are new. With that I urge a ballot in Affirmation. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sarah Palin would be a good president of the United States. because Thank you, Roy, for what has been an interesting debate. There is clearly a vast spectrum of how well presidents can perform. As far as the evidence is concerned, there is simply no reason to think that Palin would even be an average president, let alone a good president. As such, I will spend the rest of this round by continuing to defend my views that Palin lacks the necessary intelligence for the presidency. In addition, it seems clear that her religious beliefs are also quite troubling. On top of this, there are good reasons to think that my opponent's defense of Sarah Palin is nothing short of misguided. And for the record Roy, Obama gave that speech about religion on June 28, 2006. [1] C1: Sarah Palin's views are incongruous with the pursuits of a civil society. My opponent's attempt to compare FDR's religiosity with Palin's is simply fatuous, but let's leave that aside for now. There are significant and specific aspects of her religious beliefs that are worrisome. In one instance, while former Governor Palin was speaking to her church about her son's departure to Iraq, she urged her fellow religionists to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." [2] Basically, everything that has come forth about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is a devout and literal-minded religious dogmatist. As such, my opponent's attempt to argue that she is comparable to past presidents is incorrect. Fortunately, Palin has given the world a glimpse into her religious worldview. And the evidence that has come forth is quite scandalous. Like other Pentecostals, it seems likely that Palin believes that she and her fellow congregants can have a unique insight into future events through divine revelation. If this is not the case, what could she possibly have meant when she told her parishioners that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"? [2] Moreover, Palin's contempt for scientific rationality and the scientific process is not just evident in her apparent beliefs; it is also evident in the way she talks about matters concerning science. She ignorantly mocked research that was done on fruit flies. [3] However, that research on fruit flies has been essential in helping find treatments for autism. All of this evidence indicates quite clearly that Palin's religious beliefs would negatively impact her presidency. Gaze, as though through a glass, darkly, upon the world as Palin sees it. She is an avid member of a church where worshippers enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." [4] It's worth pointing out that this is the same brand of religious fervor adopted by Becky Fisher – the trashy little guttersnipe that ran Jesus Camp. [5] While I have never been to Alaska, I have had the unique experience of going to a Pentecostal church. And I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the people who go to places like that are all slightly deranged. Consequently, the thought that some religious fanatic like Palin would lead the United Sates is beyond hilarious. C2: Sarah Palin doesn't posses the intellectual prowess necessary for high office. Honestly, I doubt Palin would rank in the 120 – 130 range on an IQ test, but that is beyond the point. She is borderline retarded in terms of the relevant knowledge a person needs to be an effective leader of the free world. According to Carl Cameron of Fox News, McCain's staffers have stated that Palin didn't know basic things about the structure of the United States government. [6] This seems likely to be true, given that Palin didn't even appear to know what the role of the vice president is. [7] In particular, some sources within the McCain campaign have even claimed that she was unaware of the fact that Africa is a continent. Of course, I think it's unlikely that all of the specific claims about Palin are true in every detail. It seems incomprehensible that any governor wouldn't know that Africa was a continent, but the point still remains. Sarah Palin may be charming and a nice person, but she is a former beauty queen/sports reporter that happened to find her way into small town politics. Such qualifications may be relevant in some professions, but they hardly make anyone qualified to direct the utilization of our nuclear arsenal. A1: ‘Sarah Palin is honest and has sound principles.' Con has claimed that Palin is honest and transparent, but all the evidence indicates that this isn't true. It's true that most of the 19 ethics charges against her have been dismissed. [8] However, it is still likely she fired Walter Monegan over personal family matters. [9] Moreover, even her former allies have called her deceitful. As I've pointed out earlier, McCain's highest ranked advisor has come out to denounce Palin saying, "There were numerous instances that she [Palin] said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with […]". My opponent completely ignores the fact that the people who oversaw her thought that she was duplicitous. It's almost as though my antagonist is willing to forgive any transgression Palin may make short of cannibalism. In light of the evidence coming from her former allies, it is simply untenable to think that she is honest and transparent. A2: ‘Sarah Palin has good administrative skills and contextual intelligence.' In truth, Palin is a slick campaigner, despite what my opponent has suggested. Her ability to raise money and excitement within the Republican Party has demonstrated this. Unfortunately, this is all she is truly good at. She knows how to work a crowd and how to connect with certain groups of people. She does not, however, possess the insight necessary to give substantive and thoughtful responses to questions about policy issues. This is why she falls back to platitudes and talking points when being interviewed. It is inconceivable that Palin would manage to become a respectable and well-informed candidate for president in the next year as a result of her newly acquired free time. Therefore, it seems clear that she still lacks the ‘contextual intelligence' one needs to be president. ::Conclusion:: My antagonist has offered nothing apart from Palin's own campaign slogans to demonstrate that she is qualified to be president. Upon close examination, even these vague platitudes turn out to be untrue. Sarah Palin is dishonest, ignorant, and lacks good administrative skills. Additionally, she is quite evidently absorbed in a very backwards form of religion that ensures her commitment to rather pernicious dogmatisms. None of this, absolutely none of this, is any sort of evidence that she would be a good or even an average president. Let's all hope that Palin doubts whether or not she is qualified to lead the United States, while more thoughtful, intelligent, and qualified people determine the future of civilization. Sources: 1. http://usliberals.about.com... 2. http://www.newsweek.com... 3. "YouTube - Rachel Maddow on Palin & Fruit Flies." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 16 June 2010. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. "YouTube - Fox's O'Reilly: Sarah Palin Unaware Africa Was a Continent." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 16 June 2010. 7. http://www.thinkprogress.org... 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 9. http://www.cbsnews.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't. because Re: Clearly, burning a flag is intended to represent the burning of a country. This statement is supported just as much as my opponent's. I highly disagree with you, Pro. Flag burning isn't intended to represent the burning of a country; it's supposed to symbolize a form of protest - that's it - usually against the government. Some of the many connotation's of a flag's symbolism is freedom and liberty, for example. If people feel that the U.S. is prohibiting either of these things, say if Congress enacted anti-abortion laws, people may burn the flag to represent the idea that the U.S. is desecrating American freedom. Thus, it's not the country itself that people intend to protest, but rather the values being represented by government actions. -- Re: In China, they go so far as to restrict freedom of speech. It is much safer and more lenient to restrict freedom of combustion. I could argue that prohibiting flag burning IS violating free speech. It violates a freedom of expression which does not cause explicit physical harm to anyone. What my opponent is calling for is censorship, much like the censorship imposed upon more oppressed nations. -- Re: Flags are the symbols of nations. I've already addressed this. -- Re: Fire is dangerous. Simple as that. Again, then my opponent is offering the contention that fire should almost never be used. I've already explained how this is impractical and ridiculous. Moreover, he ignores my points noting that flag burning in almost every situation would be completely harmless. He failed to argue otherwise. Re (later on): Fire is dangerous. Its burning can lead to massive fires, given a good wind. Any fire can lead to an inferno. Uh... so my opponent opposes fire of all kind? Again, he hasn't defended this. -- Re: Then he can burn it on his own property. Burning anything releases smoke, which is bad, and if he should drop the flag on the ground, it can spark a park-fire. Car accidents are different in the fact that driving cars around provide the huge benefit of transportation, a necessity to society, while flag burning really only causes fire. The flag IS the person's own property. Additionally, if you want to eliminate anything that releases smoke, well... you've got a problem. Cars are beneficial, sure, but they're also harmful (and release smoke!). Additionally, you don't NEED cars so really they're just a luxury, and not a necessity. Additionally, flag burning is about more than causing fire. If it weren't, my opponent wouldn't be so adamantly against it. Flag burning is a symbol in and of itself; it represents various American ideals and is not simply meant to cause fire. To argue this is hypocritical against my opponent's very own argument (that flag burning is meaningful and a representation of the U.S.) -- This point is negated. -- Re: Combustion is just as complicated as petition. Thus, freedom of combustion mirrors freedom of petition. Combustion is the best noun I can think of to represent the act of burning anything. "Freedom of burning" would not properly mirror freedom of petition because it would compare a verb and a noun. Uh, mayhaps you could have worded things differently? I don't know. I'm not an English teacher. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. -- Re: When the self-expression requires chemical processes that pose the risk of causing everyone to die in a blazing inferno, I'd like to cite my freedom to life. This is the most ignorant argument ever. Again, my opponent is suggesting that anything that could pose a type of risk upon society should be outlawed. In that case, almost EVERYTHING should be illegal. Candles are known to cause fires. Electrical wires are known to cause fires. Etc. In order for this point to be valid, my opponent would have had to argue that eliminating everything potentially (and not probably) dangerous to society would be beneficial. Citing his "freedom to life" is both dramatic and irrelevant. -- Re: It is entirely relevant, because if one is not allowed to burn things in general on public property, there is no reason why flags should get special treatment. Never did my opponent suggest nor prove that burning anything on public property was illegal. Therefore, it can not be taken into account now. Plus, there are exceptions to everything. An example is that fireworks are illegal in the state of NY, but on the 4th of July, there is a special fireworks display (and fireworks can be dangerous... and yes, they do this on public property) completely within legal parameters. So. -- Re: However, flag burning directly leads to the potential harms of flag burning, which is a fairly good reason for it to be outlawed. I noticed that my opponent is against Gun Control. So am I. He probably realizes that similarly, just because some people MIGHT be harmed as a result of legal firearms, that is no reason to assume that they would be and thus infringe upon everyone's rights "just in case." Rather, we should take steps to ensure and exhibit safety. The same logic applies to flag burning. Although a fire MIGHT (but probably wouldn't) lead to a so-called blazing inferno, that doesn't mean that freedom of expression should be limited, affecting everyone individually and representing America (as tyrannical) as a whole. -- Re: Fire as a white collar crime. Come on now. What my opponent SHOULD have argued (maybe) was the possibility of flag burning as a victimless crime, buuut he didn't, so. Plus, I would have negated that anyway. -- CONCLUSION: There is currently nothing in the Constitution's definition of freedom of expression that declares or indicates that flag-burning should be illegal. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that burning the flag was a form of free speech. Bans on flag-burning are clear violations of the free exercise of speech, a fundamental right in our democracy. Using the Constitution to promote patriotic sentiments would be a cynical abuse of legislative power. Those who support amending the Constitution to protect flags would establish a dangerous precedent that would erode our liberties [1]. Thus, banning flag burning would actually do more harm than good. The outlandish claims about safety and "combustion" made by my opponent are mere distractions of the true issue: a violation of the first amendment, and America's right to both protest and exercise the liberties that we are supposed to protect. Source: [1] http://www.speakout.com... ) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Megan Fox is Ugly because Despite whether or not my opponent thinks she is ugly, this is a debate on pure opinion. As such, this debate should be forfeited, and everyone should vote Con. My opponent has challenged me, so I decided in humor to see how it will end. Despite this, I will try to show as objectively I can, why Megan fox is attractive. Fox has appeared in a five page spread for the November 2005 issue of the popular men's magazine FHM. She also posed, in decreasing amounts of lingerie, for the March 2007 issue of FHM, the June 2007 issue of GQ,[13] the July 2007 issue of Maxim,[14] and the September 2007 issue of Arena. She was voted the Sexiest Woman in the World by FHM magazine in 2008, beating out Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against racial discrimination sucks because " Well slang can be used on this debate site, how do you keep a debate about movies and God formal? Now this really SUCKS." I agree that slang CAN be used, but remember that the formal definition is always better. I misquoted here " http://www.merriam-webster.com... ... slang : to be objectionable or inadequate" The slang for the word sucks means to be objectionable or inadequate, but the real definition is to draw or pull into the mouth. Slang is only used by certain people as it is " typically restricted to a particular context or group of people.". Since the official definition of sucks to to draw into the mouth, I have thus proven that racial discrimnation does not suck into the mouth. It may be bad, but it doesn't suck into the mouth. To finish off with a famous Imabench quote from Poop has DNA :" I thank the Pro for the debate and would like to remind the Pro that this is what happens when you make stupid debates designed to give you an easy win, THEY GET HIJACKED BY ME AND I COMPLETELY DERAIL THEM >:D I thank all the voters for reading, Vote Con on all counts" Because suck means to draw into the mouth, I win the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against No one wins because I thank my opponent for this debate and hope we have a chance to continue it another time. Vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Megan Fox is Ugly because Debate (American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Her face is severe." Some people, such as I, find this attractive nonetheless. The view of whether or not Megan fox is ugly or not is plainly an opinion. It cannot be argued by facts or logical reasoning. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Chicken came before the Egg because If you want to be anal about definitions, OK. Then, since the topic states "The Chicken" and "The Egg" rather than "a chicken" and "a egg", we must define them. And since you have failed to define them I will... The Chicken - A chicken that lives in New York City and was born on April 24, 2001. The Egg - An Egg that was laid by "The Chicken" two years after it's birth in 2003. Therefor, "The Chicken" came before "The Egg" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today because I thank my opponent for his response. I believe the best way to analyze the resolution is numerically; typically, the best team is also the best team on paper. We look here [ http://www.nfl.com... ] and find that the Steelers are not exactly the best team. The Atlanta Falcons and New England Patriots both had better records; furthermore, the Baltimore Ravens (from the same division) had the same record as the Steelers. So, in terms of W/L ratio, the Steelers merely tied for third this year. Then, we zoom in on the Steelers [ http://www.nfl.com... ]. What we find is that their points, yards, pass yards and rush yards (all per game) are ranked 12th, 14th, 14th and 11th, respectively. Not a single statistic in the top ten. I'd argue that that removes them from contention for "best team". I believe that this is enough so far, as my opponent really has not given me anything substantial to refute. Aside from them having several super bowl wins (which means nothing; lucky draws in the playoffs do a lot and, this year in particular, they're facing a 6th seeded wild card in the superbowl), nothing has really been proven by the Pro side. I'll turn the debate back over to Con for now. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with finger nails are completely uneeded because fingernails are really annoying and are not very important at this day in age. they are a burden to continuously cut every week. I think it would be easier if we just pulled out our fingernails Bring the heat <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral because Pro still has not provided any justification for his view of positive rights other than a few remarks about democracy and the impracticality of absolute property rights. Most of his objections I already covered in the first round under 1B. I'll briefly address the issues with zoning, though I think this falls outside the scope of the debate. 1. Welfare can never be morally justified a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights Pro claims we are bound to adhere to societal mores, however, this argument clearly does not hold water. If Brian lives in a society that chooses a human sacrifice by lottery each month, would he be morally compelled to acquiesce? I think not. This argument really hurts Pro's case more than it helps. What if I live in a libertarian society? Wouldn't I be required to observe negative rights then? If Pro wishes to be consistent, he'll have to admit that libertarian economics are not inherently immoral. The examples Pro gives of "exceptions" to the homesteading rule are not really exceptions at all: if building a windmill makes it impossible to land airplanes at the local airport, I would be interfering with the land owners' ability to use his property for the purpose that he homesteaded it. I can't built a nuclear missile base in my backyard for the same reason I can't approach random strangers and force them to play Russian roulette, even if nobody ends up getting killed: both activities are essentially threats of aggression that are unnecessary to achieve any legitimate end or purpose. I can't convert my swimming pool into a sewage facility because the negative externalities would interfere with my neighbors' property rights. On the whole, think Pro's moral case demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of ethical theory. Ethics is a logical discipline: rights are not contrived out of thin air based on gut feeling, rather, truth can only be arrived at deductively from incontestable axioms. b) Indefensibility of positive rights There were two parts to this argument and Pro has only addressed the latter. The rest has gone unrefuted. I think Pro has largely missed the thrust of Thomson's violinist analogy. Whether or not "the people" democratically vote to implement such a policy is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it would be ethical. If 51% of Americans voted to round up all the redheads and kill them, would this be morally permissible? Moreover, Pro hasn't shown why democracy should even be accepted as a value criterion. Finally, as I pointed out in 1A, a democratic majority could hypothetically implement libertarian economic policies, thus undermining Pro's entire case. 2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state Pro's "Ruthless Ronnie Power Company" example is a huge oversimplification of the way labor markets work. If it's true that employers would have their employees working 18 hour shifts for 50 cents a week, why is it that the vast majority of Americans make well over the minimum wage? What exactly is a "just" wage and how is it determined? If minimum wage laws really help the lower class, why not just raise it to $500 dollars an hour? Then we'd all be rich, right? Wrong. In a free market, compensation is a function of the worker's marginal productivity, competition among workers, and competition among employers. Minimum wage laws, by contrast are arbitrary. If the mandated minimum wage is higher than the worker's marginal productivity, businesses simply won't hire them. It becomes more profitable to downsize or automate certain tasks. In a competitive labor market, an employer who underpays his workers will merely harm his own business. If a worker's marginal productivity is $500 a week and Ruthless Ronnie only pays him $200 a week, he's created an opportunity for his competitors, who can profitably employ the same worker for $300 a week or more. Even if some entrepreneurs do "exploit" some of their workers, this won't necessarily benefit them. Market competition would merely force them to pass their cost savings on to consumers in the form of lower prices, helping other wage earners. Pro's assertions about India are simply factually incorrect. India was a socialist country from 1947 until the early 90's, during which time quality of life was poor and social and economic mobility were virtually nonexistent.[1] Since the massive reforms that took place in 1991, conditions have drastically improved. The economy shifted away from central planning and toward private ownership. Import licenses were eliminated and import duties reduced. Trade was liberalized in service and technology industries.[2] Poverty rates have dropped. India now has a thriving middle class.[3] In 2004 and 2005 alone, exports and imports grew by 19% and 30% respectively.[4] Foreign investment grew from a paltry $132 million in 1991 to $23.6 billion in 2005.[5] 3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle Pro offers a common and rather vacuous argument put forth by statists. Basically it goes like this: Lisa the Libertarian: Government programs are highly inefficient and tend to foster poverty rather than alleviate it. Steve the Statist: Yeah, but why not just fix bad stuff? That way we only have good government! This rejoinder ignores both the theoretical underpinnings of the libertarian argument and empirical reality. I have argued on an a priori basis that government welfare tends to inefficient because it enjoys unconditional and essentially limitless funding, creates a positive supply function, and allows politicians to benefit from the establishment of a dependent class. This is born out by statistical evidence as well. In 1934, US federal welfare expenditures totaled $13.7 billion. In 1976, totals stood at $234 billion, despite the fact that the previous four decades, particularly following the WWII boom, were years of unparalleled economic growth. Unemployment steadily fell and the middle class grew, yet welfare spending increased by 5164%. Even adjusted for inflation and population growth, that's over 40% per year! [6] Today, despite the reforms that took place in the 90's, we spend nearly a trillion dollars annually.[7] 4. Private charities are superior to government programs In a libertarian society, there would be far less poverty, for the reasons explicated in contentions 2 and 3. Additionally, my argument that government spending crowds out private charity has gone unrefuted. Charitable giving appears to be stable despite the recession, falling by only 2% from 2007 to 2008.[8] Moreover, contrary to Con's assertion, a tax based system would do nothing to solve this (nonexistent) problem: a weaker economy means less tax revenue. Even if Pro is right and state run charity could provide superior relief during economic downturns, this is not necessarily a good thing. Markets tend to go through business cycles (largely the creation of central banking, but I digress) where productivity temporarily declines and unemployment rises. If the displaced workers are already receiving welfare benefits, they have less of an incentive to find a job and be productive after the recovery; the number of welfare recipients would tend to "stick." References: 1. Ahuja, Sandeep, et al. "Economic Reform in India: Task Force Report." Diss. University of Chicago, 2006, p. 3. 2. Ibid, p. 14. 3. Ibid, p. 3. 4. Ibid, p. 9. 5. http://www.adbi.org... 6. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pp. 143-144 7. http://www.heritage.org... 8. http://hamptonroads.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The consumption of meat is ethically wrong because Suffering is bad "Yes, but he is still going to suffer... it is the best solution?" The solution to his problem of dealing with suffering later is through temporary suffering. It is a trade off that has a net benefit overall. Animal suffering is bad " It's not just that the animals... feeling creature." Your 6th point in your line of argument is " the consumption of meat is ethically wrong unless the suffering can be justified ." Since the suffering can be justified through a net amount of happiness and benefits overall, my point that slaughtering can be done with little pain is very important. If this suffering is justified, your 6th point in your argument makes the consumption of meat ethical, regardless if the animal dies or not. Humans are animals "A difference, but... welfare that makes it unethical." The test for moral judgment is not a test to be administered to humans one by one, but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general. If no other species should have the inherent right to life, then there must be a justification in order for you to say it is unethical to kill another animal. You have yet to give one reason why animals should have the right to life. Only that they should not have to deal with suffering. "I find it strange that... suffers if it is for the benefit of human existence?" My whole argument is based on the idea of getting net happiness and net benefits out of the suffering caused. Keeping suffering at a minimum is the best way to ensure that a net happiness is made. It is unethical to murder another human "The supposed rational reason... justification for the survival of humans..." This isn't the only reason someone would kill someone else. Many people fought and died for the betterment of society as a whole. Many are willing to risk their lives so that others may be free and happy. The world itself isn't unethical. Only actions done by people are. Some actions are ethical, some aren't. I think that any rational person would agree that protecting innocent people at the expense of one who intends to do harmful things is an ethically justifiable thing to do. I saw on your profile that you support the death penalty. How could you think this is ethical, if taking away the life of a sentient being is unethical in any circumstance? If you agree with me up until now.. "Your whole... life is inherently bad and isn’t worth playing." I didn't think this argument would end up turning in to a "is-life-worth-living" debate. I thought that was a given when talking about the formation of a code to make a better world. Is the world really better when we "stop playing the game of life"? “ "But this is relative... why do we have to play it?" We play the game of life because we hope to have more happiness in life than suffering. We want to make life worth living for us and for others. The game of life is only awful if you look at the suffering alone. Yes, there are plenty of awful things in the world. The Holocaust, the North Korean government, limited resources, and world-wide starvation are some of the worst things that humans have done or failed to solve. But, this does not mean we stop trying. There is a solution to all of these things. Future genocides could be solved through greater education on different cultures and teaching anti-discrimination . The North Korean government will be changed in the future through the failure of the government to keep itself alive. The way we begin to solve the limited resources issue we have on Earth is by looking to the stars. Everything that we've ever desired on Earth, we could have in endless amounts through the use of resources in space. I am optimistic that we will have a world where no man, woman, or child will suffer from the lack of resources to keep them healthy and happy. "Who derives happiness simply by eating meat... things that will make us happy." I don't know about you, but I love eating meat products. Alleviating hunger is a good feeling any time. Also, the hunger that we would feel from not eating would cause a lot of suffering. The prevention of this suffering and the happiness gained from eating the meat is enough to counteract the very small amount of suffering done to the animals in the FDA approved methods of slaughtering. "Besides, not... impose negatively on another’s welfare state." People who are not suicidal/depressed would, at the least, agree that the happiness in life is worth all the suffering that occurs in their personal lives. But you also point out that there is suffering imposed on another's welfare state. This is true, but you ignore the happiness that is imposed on others from the person's existence, and whether the animals had a net amount of happiness in their lives. This is all a balancing game. Life can have a net amount of happiness depending on how things are done. "Is happiness really worth all the pain and suffering... the depravation is not fulfilled. " I think my life has had more happiness than suffering. I also think I've given a lot of happiness to others. Although there is no clear method of adding up the happiness and suffering that my life has created, I think that I've done more good than harm to other sentient beings. Yet, one could never be certain. Of course, you have the burden of proof in explaining how there isn't more happiness than suffering overall. “ "Yeah, the... the best choice we have." It'd be hard to determine how much happiness and suffering an animal has throughout its life, but having them in captivity doesn't necessarily mean they would have been better off not existing. Animals may very well be happy a lot of the time, and suffering less of the time. "The happiness fades... or ‘one more time'." The fact that happiness can fade doesn't mean there isn't a net amount of happiness in their lives. Sure, animals will always want more. But the suffering it gets from this doesn't necessarily make the life not worth living. "While this is a nice ... in one way or another." Life is not inherently bad because it is a deprivation state. Life is full of good moments and bad. There are times of great happiness, and others of great suffering. If we want to make the world a better place through ethics, then we must always try harder to make life worth living. To say it is inherently bad is to give up on all that we have and have done. It is giving up on the hopes of a better tomorrow, and the hopes of maximizing the happiness for all life. "As you can see.. this psychological game." I really hope you don't believe in what you say. Asserting that we shouldn't play the game of life is counterproductive to everything that people have done to make life better. All of human progress, all the scientific advances, philosophy, government, and ethics would be for nothing. I assert that happiness can overcome suffering in the long run. People will become smarter, wiser, and more ethical. The major problems humanity has today will be solved in time, and all mankind will, in the end, be happy. Although suffering will never be completely erased, life can be worth living. This option of working and fighting for a better world is the one I believe we should take. The other option we have is the only way we could solve suffering once and for all. To do that, we'll need weapons of mass destruction. Whether it be hydrogen bombs, antimatter bombs, or even asteroid wrangling, it should be something strong enough to effectively destroy our atmosphere, destroy all habitable regions on land, and forever damage the oceans. Only when we end all sentient life will suffering finally be cured. I hope I have made it clear that, although there is suffering in the world, there is also it's opposite. Happiness. In the philosophy of ethics, I hope we can agree that we are capable of creating enough happiness to trump the suffering that sentient beings must deal with in life. If we can, then we could also agree it is possible that human consumption of meat is ethically sound. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Exteel sucks because When discousing games they are no other factors or variables to consider beyond enjoyment. that is all they are for. thats why we catorgorize it under entertainment in the discousion forums. In murder more comes into play than a persons enjoyment. They are a great many topics to be discoused and debated that are not related to entertainment. Murder is one of those. By the way, your grammar in the first sentance is confusing; '...all debates are wrong right since every...' Vote Con! cause at bear minimum pro did not prove for certain his position. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gun Control because To start, it seems that your entire conclusion is based upon comments, am I wrong? This is the real debate, please respond accordingly by giving me a slap in the face with a reply to an earlier round. I feel a great need to correct your statement of "in the comments you stated that I had no proof that there were accidental shootings, and you were correct". What I stated in the comments was that you couldn't possibly be able to find proof of shootings, AFTER guns had been banned. They have not been banned, so the attempt would result in hypothesis. I never had any doubt that you would be unable to find proof of accidental shootings -- of course they occur, as I have already stated. But this argument is not specifically confined to accidental shootings, even though you seem to keep leaning futilely towards that. Next, I'd like to know where my "thinking applies to other things." This debate is over gun control, and that is where I kept my posts. When you say that I said "any one could get a gun even if you banned them [guns]," you are making a mistake. Misinterpreting or misreading, what have you. At that point I had narrowed the subject temporarily down to gangs and guns, and said that gang members almost always steal guns if any are needed. If they are not in trouble with the law to where the person is not allowed to own a gun then, yes, they could possibly pass the requirements for owning a gun. And yes, it's plausible, although very unlikely, for one to steal an innocent citizens' gun. But for that the said one would have to know if the citizen even owned a gun, and would also have to make sure that they were not home or risk getting shot/caught. If the citizen was wise then they would report the missing gun immediately, and therefore they could not get blame lain upon them without solid proof. Lastly, with no disrespect you do not seem to know much about the restrictions already placed upon guns. It's not so simple as going out and buying one, then going to work the next day bragging "HO-HOH!! I got myself a gun, laddies! What've you gotten yourselves?" Also, my forfeited rounds were because you provided no argument in the first place. I'd appreciate you not implying again that I have no interest in the debate, because that is most certainly not true. Thank you for debating with me, even though it was obvious we both had things popping up in real life to stop us from posting. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should Light Yagami have killed criminals differently than the way he did in the manga/anime? because Alright, the basic problem with my opponent's argument is that he doesn't seem to be aware of the motivations behind Light's move. There was no real act of stupidity 1) For you see, Light's focus was to get close to L so that he may learn his name and write it in the death note. Sure, Light could have simply focused his entire strategy on"hiding" from L in the manner my opponent suggest, but then he'd never be able to eliminate L in the first place. And not eliminating L is a HUGE "no-no" as L was described as being on par with Light in terms of intelligence, hence being a massive threat. As we can see in the series, it was because Light put L in a position to get got close him (having him join the Kira investigation team) that he was ultimately in a position to trigger his death. 2) Precisely concerning the move PRO is talking about, please take a gander at the following manga page: http://www.onemanga.com... L states that Kira's motivation was to tell the police force that he can kill whenever he wants and that he has a means of gathering information from the police force. This was done for the purpose of instigating anxiety and confusion amongst the individuals involved in the Kira investigation. Ultimate, these psychological tactics were rather effective given that nearly all of those involved in the Kira investigation abandoned it and ended up distrusting L in the process. in other words, a brilliant move. Hence, I believe I've answered my opponent's objection. Light was correct in his manner of killing criminals as it helped him best the investigative forces who were attempting to capture him and it aided him in ultimately killing L. I know stand ready for PRO's round 2. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The "Flick" attack should be continued as a valid touch because I accept. As a former foilist and sabruer it is my duty to uphold the flick within fencing for all weapons, but especially within foil fencing. v <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution occurs because There are two distinct theories of Evolution; (1) Micro Evolution: that species adapt according to surroundings/climate change etc. (2) Macro Evolution: that species may change from one species to another species. Micro evolution (although the 'evolution' is somewhat misleading but we'll allow it for the purposes of this debate) is a verifiable, substantiated scientific fact. Animals, plants and even humans change to adapt to their environments. Macro evolution is completely unsubstantiated by ANY fossil records whatSOever. The 'evidence' such as it is, largely consists of micro evolutionary fossils OR 'projected' skeletons etc from one bone or even a partial fragment of bone. MANY such 'finds' have been proved false or even fraudulent. To the question of mutations, they of course do occur BUT are ALWAYS detrimental to the organism or species. ALSO in order for Macro evolution to occur genetic complexity would have to increase.. this has never been observed. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove Evolution occurs.. I would advise him to begin! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God is a sinner and thus is flawed. because Thank you for such a timely response. Strawman: the 10 commandments are not the only commandments. In fact, there are 613 commandments that G-d gave to Moses. Strawman: We are created in G-d's image; therefore, he is flawed. Remember: this was BEFORE the fall. What does it mean to be created in G-d's image? The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially. Mentally, man was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, man can reason and man can choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom. Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image. Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image. Socially, man was created for fellowship. This reflects God's triune nature and His love. In Eden, man’s primary relationship was with God (Genesis 3:8 implies fellowship with God), and God made the first woman because “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Every time someone marries, makes a friend, hugs a child, or attends church, he is demonstrating the fact that we are made in the likeness of God. Part of being made in God’s image is that Adam had the capacity to make free choices. Although he was given a righteous nature, Adam made an evil choice to rebel against his Creator. In so doing, Adam marred the image of God within himself, and he passed that damaged likeness on to all his descendants (Romans 5:12). Today, we still bear the image of God (James 3:9), but we also bear the scars of sin. Mentally, morally, socially, and physically, we show the effects of sin. Source: http://www.gotquestions.org... We see that it was a spiritual sense. He had the capacity to make a free choice. He was given a righteous nature; but chose to rebell against it. I love how you continue to ignore the fact that G-d is perfect, by definition, and thus cannot sin. War =/= murder? And you are right on that one because war doesn't necessarily equal murder. However, that is only because murder implies intent/motive and premeditation, where as God's armies followed blindly and killed for no other reason than because they were told to. So God's followers were killers and God is the murderer. And who created war? Who created sin? Who created evil? GOD DID. God IS all knowing, he knew how the events of the world would unfold yet created it anyways. God cannot be just if he created evil. God cannot be good if he created evil. Thus, God contradicts himself and must, by every definition, be flawed. My opponent admits that war=/=murder. What is murder? In order to be considered murder, the killing must be both premeditated and intentional. Since embryonic stem cell research results in the premeditated, intentional killing of a human being, Christian theology would consider it to be murder. This is scriptural. http://www.godandscience.org... "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. ( Genesis 9:6 ) The verse that I gave you clearly says that there is a time to kill. Who created evil? Good question! . Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole, but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all He created was good. One of the good things God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a “thing” that required God to create it. Perhaps a further illustration will help. If a person is asked, “Does cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes.” However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good. God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming.” God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could gen http://www.gotquestions.org... Thank you for this debate. Please vote con. I have shown: 1) God did not create evil 2) Killing can be justified 3) War=/=Murder 4) What it means to be in G-d's image Reasons for voting Conduct: My opponent used several straw men tactics and failed to answer my question from round 1. Grammar: Tied Arguments: I sucessfuly shown how my opponent's arguments were flawed Sources: I only used sources Overall: 5-0 Con. Thank you for reading. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con) because OK the defender makes the first move and I assume you will be defending. You should also state your forces in the first round. Since you were respectful in the last debate we had, I won't cheap shot you. Ukraine Total Population: 44,291,413 available manpower: 22,244,394 fit for service: 15,686,055 Reaching military age annually: 418,313 active front line personnel: 160,000 active reserve personnel: 1,000,000 Tanks: 2,809 AFVs: 8,217 SPGs: 1,302 Towed artillery:1,669 MLRS: 625 Total aircraft: 222 Fighters/interceptors: 35 Fixed wing aircraft: 61 Transport aircraft: 82 Trainer aircraft: 41 Helicopters: 90 attack helicopters: 34 Total Naval strength: 25 Frigates: 1 Corvettes: 3 mine warfare: 1 coastal defense craft: 1 Oil Production: 100,000 bbl/day consumption: 625,000 bbl/day proven reserves: 395,000,000 bbl labor force: 22,170,000 merchant marine strength: 134 major ports and terminals: 6 roadway converge: 169,495 railway: 21,658 serviceable airports: 187 Defense budget: $4,880,000,000 external debt: $138,300,000,000 reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $21,950,000,000 purchasing power parity: $337,400,000,000 Square land area: 603,550 km coastline: 2,782 km shared border: 5,581 km waterways: 2,150 km Let the WAR BEGIN!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com... I will state the cause of the war. May 11 The epic diplomat known as Mr. Almighty (I'll make this a crossover from my Serbia vs Croatia) has taken the job of being a diplomat for Ukraine for now. He will decide with Ukrainian government officials are about to turn this day into a national holiday since America has successfully eradicated the pro Russian rebels. This caused around a decline of 100,000 to the population with people going to Russia or being killed, but finally order is being restored. Things seemed to be looking up for Ukraine. Or so they THOUGHT! May 14 Mr. Almighty went on a plane heading for Kazakhstan to negotiate a treaty. Not trusting Russia they sign a few simple agreements with Georgia and Azerbaijan to let them bring a squadron of planes to accompany them for security. Those countries get 2.5 million each for the trip to Kazakhstan. They give word to Kazakhstan about this for their ships not to fire at theirs. While flying over the Caspian Sea they decide to go more towards the south of Kazakhstan to avoid Russia from attacking them. All is going well until the ships begin to fire at the planes. They begin to take evasive maneuvers while radioing Kazakhstan making sure none of their ships are attacking. They confirm whoever is firing on them is not them. They quickly land at the nearest airport in Kazakhstan shaken up. They were planning on doing something different, but instead they sign an agreement for almost 1 million giving those on the Ukrainian planes protection and whatever they need until the country responsible was found. May 18 Soon people demand who tried to attack the Ukrainian planes. At first many blame Russia, but satellite footage at that time showed that all Russian ships in the Caspian sea were at port at that time. Azerbaijan is ruled off along with Iran since they would be notified by Azerbaijan would have known if they were there. Leaving the prime suspect as Turkmenistan. May 20 Turkmenistan begins mobilization. May 23 Seeing this Ukraine begins their own mobilization. May 24 An ultimatum is sent to Turkmenistan to stop its mobilization and an apology or face war. May 25 Turkmenistan ignoring this ultimatum leads Ukraine to declare war. May 26 Turkmenistan declares war back and thus began the Ukrainian-Turkmenistan war. May 30 Ukraine won't have access to it's fleet since this will be in the Caspian Sea, so they begin mass producing Oplot-M tanks. Also Ukrainian the more modern aircraft are also mass produced. To be ready to attack Turkmenistan they sign an agreement with Azerbaijan worth nearly 100 million to have there soldiers there. Once the Turkmenistan fleet is dealt with they will attack from somewhere else. Your turn for defensive preparations. I will not attack until round 3. -Mr. Almighty <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution is a valid cosmology for Christians because -I will now present my arguments against theistic evolution being compatible with the Christian doctrine. -Thank you to my opponent for providing me the opportunity to do so. -Before examining the day-age theory, I would like to point out a couple of discrepancies in the order of creation. 1) The sun and the plants Genesis 1:11 11 And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so. -This was the third day. Genesis 1:14 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, -This was the fourth day. -The order, according to this passage, is false due to the fact that evolutionary theory states the sun existed for billions of years before life existed; also, photosynthesis could not take place with light from solar radiation. 2) Birds and terrestrial animals Genesis 1:20 20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." -This was the fifth day. Genesis 1: 24 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds"livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. -This was the sixth day. -Again, this order contradicts evolutionary theory. Birds evolved from animals that dwelled on the ground, more specifically dinosaurs. A prime example would be Archaeopteryx. 3) Whales -This references the next verse, whales (tanniyn in the original Hebrew) are presumably grouped under the marine category of animals; thus they would be created on the fifth day. This is a contradiction because whales evolved from land animals, an example would be an early precursor to whales, Ambulocetus. -Now I will move on to larger contradictions between genesis and theistic evolution. 1) Hebrew origin of the word "day" One cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity because genesis explicitly states god created the world in six, twenty-four days. While the day-age theory may be popular among old-earth creationists, if one is to delve into the etymology of the worlds then one will find this to not be the case. The Hebrew word "yom" refers to a twenty-four day, unlike the English word day which can have alternate connotations, but "yom" always refers to a literal day when preceded by a number, as in the first day, second day, or third day. It is obvious Moses was referring to specific days, also evidenced by his use of the words "evening" and "morning", "light and "dark", and "night" and "day". 2) Keeping the Sabbath holy -Theistic evolution allows no room for a Sabbath, thus dissolving the fourth commandment of all worth and merit. The Abrahamic tradition of honoring the Sabbath is based off of the notion that the world was created on a weekly cycle. Without this seven-day recurrence, as would be the case if evolution is true, the Sabbath would possess no amount of importance or sacredness. 3) Original sin and death -If life did develop through the gradual process of evolution, then it is impossible to comprehend the notion of an original sin and death. According to genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 25, and 31, everything was created as "good" or "very good". The fossil record has excavated a plethora of examples that show a past, eons before the existence of humans, where disease, death, cruelty, and predation was rampant. If this were the case than god would have had to include death in his original plan for humanity, as opposed to it manifesting in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. 4) Allegorical nature of genesis allows for a liberal interpretation of other aspects of the bible -If we are to consider the creation narrative in genesis to be an allegory, than we are free to deem other nonsensical aspects of the bible as such. The transcendence of Elijah into heaven, the story of Jonah, and the numerous miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ all are fair game for revaluation if one aspect of the bible is regarded as "figurative". This may be pure speculation, but the viability of this perception is allowable when one interprets creation to be through evolution, as opposed to through divine creation. http://www.bibleinfo.com... http://www.reasons.org... -This was a simplified version of the latter article mentioned above, although I strongly recommend you read latter source due to detailed analysis of the creation story contrasted with the theory of evolution. -I will end my arguments here, I thank my opponent for taking the time to read what I have presented to you. I look forward to hearing your response in the near future. -Best of luck -AndrewB686 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kids Should School Start Earlier in the Morning and not Later because but if they go to school later then they will think that its ok to go to bed really late so they should go to school earlier so they cant stay up late that they have to go to bed early...... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Affirmative Action because "This is why we should implement a "flip a coin" policy, rather than affirmative action." Like stated before, this policy would be ideal if 1) all employers were completely unbiased and willing to engage in the "flip a coin" honestly. 2) all or most African-Americans were on the same level of whites in terms of economic and social equality and had the same opportunities: that's the big one. Maybe one day we can use the "flip a coin" policy; affirmative action is the temporary solution. "Eliminate the affirmative action, and you eliminate such resentment." But as I said before, affirmative action and letting a minority (who has a higher chance of having suffered a tough history than you) get or keep a job is part of the social burden that the majority has to accept in the interest of the society; therefore, there is no reason to feel this resentment and furthermore, most whites (as shown by public opinion polls) are willing to accept this burden (1). "However, if a black man and a white man both land on an equal application, then the white man obviously didn't live up to his 'social superiority,' so why should he suffer for it?" You keep making these absolute statements in conjunction with the adverb "obviously" as if it were some factual truth. Just because he is as qualified as the black man doesn't mean that he had a bad history. And even if he did, the black man could also have had a bad history. That's why you use affirmative action to prefer the black man, seeing as it's more probable that the latter statement is true. "What difference does it make whether the senior employees are white or black? As time goes on, if color-blind policies are used, blacks will have as many senior positions as they deserve by their qualifications, so there'd be no need to force employers to fire their senior white employees, which directly lowers their profits and hurts the economy." I've already refuted this statement. Because white senior employees are already in position, they will not get laid off in times of downsizing, and it will only perpetuate the cycle of inequality. And also, like I said before, colorblind policies don't work due to the lack of educational and economic equality of minorities in respect to the white majority; therefore, the black man would probably have grown up without the same educational opportunity as the white man, which would have a negative impact on things like GPA and job qualifications. Like you have said, two people can be qualified, while one is more qualified than the other. In this case, if the less qualified belongs to a minority, then affirmative action must be used to take into the economic and educational opportunities that this man was probably deprived of. This does not mean that white people are ever deprived, it's just taking into the account the statistically greater chance that the minority was deprived. "If they both have the same qualifications, life has been treating them equally well." Again, not necessarily. For someone who always exploits exaggerated or hyperbolic situations in your arguments (such as the struggling Irish potato famine farmer), it's contradictory and strange that you would make such absolute and generalized claims. They don't necessarily have to have the same lives, and if they are equally qualified the black man still could have come from a struggling family, just as you claim the white man could have. But there is a higher chance, even with equal or comparable qualifications, that the black man came from such a background; that's why we use affirmative action. Also, you are ignoring the other evidence for the benefits of affirmative action which you claim have an "equal and opposite negative effect." First of all, I assume you agree that diversity in the workplace is good, but you claim that the diversity would occur naturally without affirmative action. Although some of your conclusions make logical sense to yourself, professional and independent studies point otherwise. "According to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce"(2). Secondly, there's no equal negative effect at all. White applicants would not "lose" their job; most unemployment within the white population is attributed to inconvenient business relocation, downsizing, and lay-offs (3). Affirmative action, according to Census reports and official figures, would only cause about 1% of white workers to be affected(4). "If the average of one set of numbers is 5, and the average of another set of numbers is 10, for two numbers of different sets to be equal, one or both of them must be unnaturally high or low. It's a statistical fact." But I'm saying that that statement doesn't apply absolutely because there are a number of different factors. You defined average as "average income." So because the black man has a lower income, he's obviously less qualified? To use one of your "what if" arguments against you, what if the black man had a difficult family history, his family made a relatively low income, but his qualifications were equal or comparable to the white man's (i.e. he had good test scores due to an innate ability)? See, you're grouping both education and economics in the same group. Although you're correct in assuming they often are directly proportional, the aforementioned example provides an exception to that. We're dealing with people, not just numbers, and some people have certain traits (like intellect or personal ability) that aren't affected by statistics. "Then why do you assume that the white guy had a pampered life? Perhaps his family worked hard on a farm all their life." Right, but there's a higher chance that the black man did NOT have that pampered life, even with his certain above average qualifications. "Diversity can happen without affirmative action. Blacks would still be hired. It's just that a white man wouldn't go, "No, not again..." whenever he realizes that he's matched against a black man." Again, the studies I've cited show the lack of diversity with colorblind policies, and the abundance of it with affirmative action. Affirmative action is necessary; you're not taking into account all the possible situations and the naturally hindrance in financial and economic growth that minorities have faced. A lot of our dispute has been focused on our different interpretations of "qualification," "average," and "upper" or "socially superior." You need to consider that there are exceptions within the minority community too (like an exceptionally qualified black from a destitute family), not just the Southern drought-suffering farmer or the Irish immigrant. Affirmative action is a necessary policy to even out the present inequities in our society and increase diversity in universities and the workplace, and it's effectiveness is proven. Good man, mongeese. I had a fun time debating with you. Thank you to mongeese and to all those taking interest in this debate. VOTE PRO. Sources: 1)Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995a). Question ID: USYANKP.95007, Q21 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com... 2)Reverse discrimination of whites is rare, labor study reports. (1995, March 31). New York Times, p. A23. 3)Ivins, M. (1995, February 23). Affirmative action is more than black-and-white issue. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 28. 4) http://www.understandingprejudice.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War II because To properly see the graphics used in this debate, please visit this thread: http://www.debate.org... [b] Opening [/b] Team Member 1: Zero http://codegeass.wikia.com... Lelouch shall be wearing his "Zero" outfit. Team Member 2: Dr. Strange http://en.wikipedia.org... 616 universe incarnation just to make sure. Team Member 3: Super Vegetto http://dragonball.wikia.com... Team Member 4: Reed Richards http://marvel.wikia.com... (Earth-616) Team Member 5: Yusuke Urameshi http://yuyuhakusho.wikia.com... I see no reason to explain any of my characters since explanations can be found on all pages, although it would probably be wise to scroll through the respective mangas of Yusuke and Vegetto just to have a better understanding of them. www.onemanga.com <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with All policemen should use tazers as a last resort. because "Last January officers in Llandudno, North Wales, fired the weapon [tazer] at an 89-year-old war veteran who had gone missing from his care home and threatened to cut his throat with a piece of glass. Police said they took the decision to stun him for his own safety, which suggests that none of the officers present was man enough to remove the piece of glass from the feeble grip of a very old man." As preliminary definitions for this debate round, I would like define a few terms that will be referred to within the debate. 1) tazers - weapons with charges that can prove to be lethal 2) last resort - when all options have run out I would like to begin this debate by additionally providing some key observations. My opponent will lead you to believe that a tazer can be a useful tool for police. I concede to the fact that it may be useful, but that it should only be used when all else fails. It is uncalled for when a police officer uses a tazer as a first resort. It is inhumane and clearly shows that the man wielding it is irresponsible. It is claimed that tazers have killed 334 people between 2001 and August 2008 in the US. I will provide a couple hypothetical examples of how bad of an idea it is to allow policemen the tazer to use willy-nilly. =Example One= A routine traffic stop on Highway 99. The police officer pulls over a woman and her 13-year-old daughter for driving 5 miles over the speed limit. The police officer then takes out his 50,000-volt tazer and repeatedly tazes the mother. When simply, the officer could have politely asked for her drivers license and given her a ticket. =Example Two= Two kids decide to play a joke on their grandfather, aged 87. Two kids call 9-1-1 and report that a very elderly man has broken into their house. The police then drive to the caller's house and find the old man sleeping on a sofa. The kids tell the officers that the old man makes weird noises and continues to sleep even though Saturday Night Live is broadcasting. The officers then get furious and leap at the old man with their tazers, shocking him multiple times. =REAL Example 3= The quote comes from Daniel Sylvester, the 46-year-old owner of a security firm, who was walking down the street when a police van screeched to a halt. "He didn't know what they wanted, but obeyed when they told him to approach slowly. 'I then had this incredible jolt of pain on the back of my head,' he explains. The electricity made him spasm; as he fell to the ground, he felt his teeth scatter on the tarmac and his bowels open. Then they shot me again in the head. I can't describe the pain.' (Another victim says it is like someone reached into my body to rip my muscles apart with a fork.') The police then saw he was not the person they were looking for, said he was free to go, and drove off." =REAL Example 4= Eric Hammock of Texas died in April 2005 after receiving more than 20 Taser shocks by Fort Worth police officers. Maurice Cunningham of South Carolina, while an inmate at the Lancaster County Detention Center, was subjected to continuous shock for 2 minutes 49 seconds, which a medical examiner said caused cardiac arrhythmia and his subsequent death. He was 29 years old and had no alcohol or drugs in his system. After provided with these examples and observations it is safe to assume that tazers should only be used by policemen as a last resort. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. =References= http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God exists. because Ave. [No Initial State Argument] Pro drops the entirety of this argument. I have an argument on my side that shows god cannot exist that has gone unanswered. This tips the preponderance of evidence towards my side. [Bare Assertions] Pro does not give any reason to accept her factual assertions. She asserts that god created the world, when nebular theory is a better explanation of the fact that planets exist. She asserts that everything came from something, without any evidence. She asserts that the Bible has told us things that would happen in the future, and they have actually come true. No evidence or sources have been offered to accept any of these claims as true. By the dictum 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence', I dismiss these claims. [Contradiction] Pro states that everything came from something. Presumably, god is contained within this 'everything'. Yet, Pro also states that god came from nothing. If god came from nothing, then we have an example of something that did not come from another something, which contradicts the premise that everything came from something. [Dreams and Visions] Pro does nothing to show that, because something happens in a dream, it correlates to reality. I've had dreams about the Lord of the Rings. I've had dreams where I've talked to people I know in real life, but in situations that obviously didn't occcur. Why does dreaming about something mean it exists or happened? Vale. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Creation vs. Evolution because http://www.answersingenesis.org... Above I have posted a link to AIG and the article I spoke of. It is somewhat lengthy, but it is very well informed, also note that it was meant for Christians to read so you will have to read it from that standpoint. As I have left my opponent with very little to discus I will add more topics: Noah's flood. If you look throughout the world almost all cultures have a "Flood Story". The strangest thing about this is that some of these cultures have either very little or no similarities besides that. Here is one of the stories taken from Babylon: Once, the gods were angry with men, and they decided to destroy them in a great flood. They warned one good man, Ut-napishtim, to build a boat. The flood came and everything was destroyed except Ut-napishtim's boat, which came to rest on a mountain. He sent birds out, but they could find nowhere to settle. Finally a raven was sent out and it did not return. The earth was beginning to dry out. Ut-napishtim and his family gave thanks for having been saved. This story is almost identical to the Bible's version, aside from the names and specifics if you replace gods with God and Ut-napishtim with Noah it is a shortened out version of the Bible's. The other evidence is that shells have been found as high as Mt. Everest and Mt. St Helen which means that a worldwide flood to even skeptical scientists seems very probable, yet another thing that supports the flood is the Millions of fossils buried in random places, all over the world. Now in order to make a fossil you need a few very specific things: First you need mud, and very quickly you need it to be submerged in an area were the flesh will decay but the bones will be "mummified" so to speak. A massive flood is perfect for this so it is a good explanation for the fossils all over the world. Also a big question is "How did humanity or anything survive?" well in the bible it clearly states that God told Noah to build an ark and that the ark would have to of each type of animal in it [there were exceptions for various types of animals such as the sheep], but when I "each type" I specifically mean "each type" as in their would only be one type of dog, one type of cat, one type of big cat, one type of elephant and so on. I would like to state my exact beliefs in this debate. I am a Christian, Creationist, I believe in a young-earth and I believe dinosaurs walked with humans. For a final note I also would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Vote Pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My opponent will try to win this debate because ^Spam. Looks like I really didn't have to try in order to win this debate. ;) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method because REBUTTAL "You used the example of Zach Wahls and he seems to be a very nice young man indeed. But if you misunderstood, I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better. But in the case of sucessful child rearing, they fall short because of the natural evolution of the family." I already gave evidence that shows homosexual parents can successfully raise a child. "Men and women were made to raise children. When was the last time you've seen a pregnant gay couple? Men cannot impregnate men and neither can women impregnate each other. It's just the way the world works." It's funny you mention that men and women are made for raising children but what about sterile couples huh? Heterosexuals who can't have children or women and men who have medical conditions that prohibit them from having children. they are no diffrent from homosexuals in my opinion. Who cares if a man can't get a man pregnant or if a women can't get a women pregnant. Sexual intercourse is not the only way of having a child. For lesbians you have artificial insemination and adoption and for gay men you have surrogacy and adoption. "In a society where gay parenting is a readily accepted thing, I personally believe everyone has the right to children. But we have to realize that when we throw away traditions and morals, we throw away a part of our common sense. Heterosexual parenting may be a thing of tradition, but sometimes tradition are not a bad thing at all." No its not a bad thing, However its 2013 and not everyone believes in traditions and morals like you do. It's a personal decision. "And yes, men can play both roles, but in order to truly parent, you cannot just "play" the role, you have to BE the role. Huge difference." That's not always the case. I've in countered men who play the roll better than most women and vice versa. Just because your born to be that role doesn't mean you're automatically going to be good at it. When going into this debate you need to provide evidence supporting your opinion otherwise it makes it untrue but my opponent failed to do so. Gender and sexual orientation does not determine whether a child will grow up to be just fine. Love and the commitment of two parents determine that. You don't automatically become a great parent because you are in a heterosexual relationship with traditions and morals because from personal experiences I've seen those type of familes fail aswell. I thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate. I hope to win. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Morality is not intersubective because First, good luck whoever accepts this debate. Now this debate topic is simple. I (con) will argue that morality is intersubjective and the pro will argue that there is a moral belief that is universally accepted. My opponent can bring up any moral stance. Morality is defined as a standard that seperates right or wrong. Intersubjective is defined as differing between people. If my opponent wishes to debate these definitions he or she can. However, if he or she does not dispute them in the first round, he/she can not dispute them later. Since I am con, my opponent will have the burden to prove a universal moral stance. Therefore, I will post no arguments this round and wait for my opponent to start. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates because Since I am on the Con side of this debate I will let my opponent start. The definition: D.A.R.E. is: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, better known as D.A.R.E. or DARE, is an international education program that seeks to prevent use of illegal drugs, membership in gangs, and violent behavior Good luck to whomever accepts this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today. because I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. 1. The Nonexistence of the Universe, and therefore Santa My opponent constantly assumes that science could be wrong because religion has been wrong before. The non sequitor is visible. First, that the planets all revolved around earth was neither a law of logic or a law of science, as a law of science originates from the scientific method, while this assumption originated from the Catholic Church[1][2], and a law of logic is logically undeniable, like modus ponens [3]. My opponent still has not negated my syllogism, and it stands. My opponent has provided no counterexample to my minor premise (he actually conceded it in round 3) and my major premise was never challenged. My syllogism stands; the universe is not real, and so neither is Santa. 2. Santa's Death by Physics My opponent asserts the existence of some hidden variable that would allow the breaking of the laws of physics. a) Santa would have to have discovered such a variable. b) There is no reason to believe such a variable exists. c) No matter on Earth defies the laws of physics. All of the speculation of the nonapplication of universal laws is in dark matter [4] and antimatter [5], which is non abundant on this planet [6] [7] and cannot be sustained on Earth [7]. My opponent believes the resolution is negated because he has closed his eyes and not seen that there is no conceivable way Santa can exist. The resolution does not require me to convince him, but that I validly prove that Santa cannot be real, which was done with both logic and science. The universe either exists or it doesn't. If the universe doesn't exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contention 1) If the universe does exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contentions 2 and 3) Therefore, Santa doesn't exist. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. [1] http://wiki.answers.com... 't_the_center_of_the_universe (broken link) [2] http://www.edwardtbabinski.us... [3] http://www.allwords.com... [4] http://www.newscientist.com... [5] http://www2.corepower.com... [6] http://www.universetoday.com... [7] http://science.nasa.gov... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals because Well, I thank my opponent for his response, and I'm sorry this took so long. Some unexpected business came up. == Rebuttals== PRO says "My partner first addresses life and he/she is saying that there are public institutions and public hospitals and even the fact that the government cannot take all these away from the people. Lets look at some government institutions/orders/rules. For example, affirmative action gives priority to certain races over others when applying to colleges. Sure this is promoting the democratic ideal of diversity, but now we are taking away democracy. Other institutions require some type of qualification." 1) Student loans... Without the government, there would be no such thing as student loans, since students often have no collateral or credit history. This poses too much of a risk for banks, but our government has somewhat "co-signed" with the students to get the loans. This process happens by the government guaranteeing that the student will pay off the debt, as he/she cannot file bankruptcy. 2)Affirmative actions doesn't neccessarly mean prioritizing one group, but rather policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. I don't see how we are taking away democracy, as everyone promotes diversity and against discrimination. 3) "Some type of qualification." Every student belongs at a certain school...Elite schools would be too hard and useless for those in need of more basic education, and genius students will have nothing to do at normal schools. Qualifications are used to make sure that the student is right for that school. Pro says, "If everyone was entitled to money from the government then there would not be so many people on the streets as we see today. Even then government support does barely nothing to ensure equality among the citizens." 1) There are local organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter, food, counseling, and jobs skills programs. 2) Food banks exist to feed those in need. 3) Since the 1950s, the US government has passed many laws to ensure equality between whites and blacks. http://www.scholastic.com... 4) Our government and we as a society ensure that criminals do not go unpunished. 5) The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, banned slavery. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, including women and former slaves. The 15th Amendment (1870) provided that voting rights of citizens “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Pro says, "My opponents states that the government cannot takes rights away from people, he is right, however, the fact is, in reality, the effect or leeway of these rights are more noticeable and correlate with the amount of money one has. Even hospitals, they are only legally obligated to treat you if emergency, after that if you don't have good any insurance then they can send you home. You could be dying of a cancer that they can sure, but if you don`t have proper insurance than they just send you home with "what to do with the rest of your life" pamphlet. And thus that point would reside with me, because of income disparity different people are given different healthcare and then possibly have unequal chances of living." 1) Several rights have nothing to do with the amount of money you make, such as the right to vote or the right to a trial. 2) A public/government hospital is a hospital which is owned by a government and receives government funding. This type of hospital provides medical care free of charge, and this is covered by the funding the hospital receives. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. 3) Life-sustaining treatment and organizations that specifically research cures for cancer exist to help those with cancer. Whether or not they are rich, those with terminal diseases cannot be saved with current technology. I fail to see how money can cure diseases that have no cures. PRO says, "Moving on to liberty, they say that the government cant deprive you of freedom and everyone is given the exact same rights. This is true, however, again, because of this income disparity, certain people have a harder time executing these rights in a from to their pleasing. For example the article released form Princeton University specifically states how the rich are given more of a say. This shows how the rich can properly voice their opinion in the government as opposed to those with lower income." 1) First off, I'd like to mention that "voicing your opinion" has nothing to do with "freedom". Everyone has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. 2) Now, there are some possibilities on how the rich can have a bigger voice. a) The Rich have better capabilities and more political power. b) The government benefits and prefers the rich over the poor/middle classes. Addressing point "A"... 1) Cantidates have "spending limits" on states. Here a the list of the spending limits for each state: http://www.fec.gov... 2) Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. Addressing point "B".... 1) The top contributors for each presidential cantidate is made public and for everyone to see. If there is corruption going on, then it would already be pointed out. 2) Everyone has limits on how much they can donate. This prevents people from trying to gain favors from cantidates. http://www.fec.gov... ; 3) Secret ballots currently help prevent cantidates from bribing people to vote for them, as the cantidate cannot know for sure whether or not they are voting for him/her. PRO says "My opponent then talks about the pursuit of happiness. Sure no everyone is guaranteeing it, but because of income disparity most people cannot. This pursuit of happiness should be encouraged by the government but is hindered but the lack of income. They then say we have an education system and a health system that help people succeed. Well that may be the case, but then again not all schools are equal and a lot of schools have are in bad neighborhoods and are not properly funded. In terms of health care, government paid health care does not cover most things, just items such as immediate care and medication. that's it. As i said before." 1) I only need to provide an example of people reaching "happiness", even though they are poor. One example is Bill Clinton and Lincoln. Happiness is defined as the state of being delighted, pleased, or glad. Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean that you cannot express human emotions, or that you cannot make friends. Pro says "They then talk about political rights and equality. Well, yes everyone is given the same rights, but again the ability to perform these rights is hindered by income. Th effectiveness of these rights in government is hindered as said before. New York time columnist and economist stated that people are given unequal shares in the government, and these "shares" are based on income." 1) How, in any way, can exercising rights be stopped because of income levels? You can choose whether or not to exercise them, but they are not being prevented from you. 2. PRO talks about "Unequal shares", but I've already stated before about how you cannot gain the benefit of the government. 3) Representives are elected through majority vote. The rich are not the majority of America, but rather the poor and the middle classes. Pro says that people don't necessarly receive enough food. However he is conceding that they are receiving food from food banks... PRO also talks about how temples require money. These cultures are often supported by NPOs. And I've run out of space! D: <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Paramedics disposal of deceased patients because No need for Rebuttals nor extensions.. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate. because Usually I thank my opponent when challenging or accepting a debate, but I'll begin this round by thanking the READERS for taking the time to even entertain the notion that I was somehow intentionally "dishonest" in my last debate with MouthWash. Obviously this is a very immature debate that I feel almost embarrassed to participate in, but my opponent absolutely refuses to debate me again (not surprised) on a new resolution of his choice. Instead he wants to re-hash this old debate. Fine. For those of you who don't know, we debated the resolution "Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples." I won that debate, and my opponent accuses me of "lying" by using semantics to exploit the word can in the resolution. Of course that isn't remotely true as I will demonstrate. Considering the fact that I gave my opponent the opportunity to change the resolution BEFORE the debate, as well as clarified that I would not be relying on the word can (and pointed out throughout the debate that his obsession over the word can was irrelevant), it's clear that Pro cannot rely on this single desperate objection to make his case. As such, he apparently wants to argue that I won not only because of the faulty resolution but by using "dishonest" tacctics (fallacies, repetition, etc.). I think most people on DDO understand that I won the debate on gay parenting because 1) I'm a better debater than Pro and made good arguments; 2) My position was simply the correct one - gay parents can raise children just as as well as heterosexual parents. Again, I explained throughout the debate that by "can" I don't mean that they are simply able to, but that they generally do. The main point of my case was that there is no attribute inherent to heterosexuality that makes straight people better parents. Pro couldn't provide evidence to the contrary, and that's why he lost. I didn't need to rely on any type of fallacious reasoning or dishonesty to win such a simple debate. For those of you who have the stomach to withstand this sore loserness, stay tuned. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The philosophy of the existence of God. because My opponent has presented a vast multitude of arguments. However, he has not affirmed the resolution. My opponent is arguing "for God's very existence 100%". Hence, he has the burden of absolute proof. He has not presented this, simply because absolute proof of any statement cannot exist. "God is out side time, since time needs matter and a space to exist...Beyond my intelligence of understanding." God's very nature, as proposed by my opponent, is beyond human comprehension. Therefore, God is outside the field of empirics and logic, and his existence cannot be proved. The resolution is negated, as my opponent cannot, and has not proved "100%", that God exists. Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading, and vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children to believe that one particular religion is superior. because 1A. RE: Lack of Evidence --> Religions DO consider instruments such as The Bible a piece of evidence. --> Again, religion is not based on evidence! You ask if that's the case, wouldn't that make all religions equal. The answer is no - not to a believer. The inherent belief itself causes you to denounce all other faiths. It's not based on which group provides more evidence but rather comes from the notion that mine is right so all others automatically have to be wrong, regardless of whatever 'evidence' they provide. Beliefs > evidence. Remember that if someone believes in something 100% then it doesn't matter if it's real or not. What matters is the fact that they THINK it's real. 1B. RE: Since faith is not based on evidence and logic then the faith must be derived from their parents reinforcement and not any inherent truth. --> See above. Also, regarding your point that beliefs are quite arbitrary, this logic actually backs up a previous point of mine where I said that people do not have to believe what their parents tell them to. They can take their parents advice; however, they have the right and the ability to change their minds or live/believe how they please... at least after aged 18. 2. RE: I will stand by what I said regarding the requirement of a comparative religion class. --> Parents have a right to raise their children however they please (within legal parameters). Today, if a parent does not want their child being taught about such natural things such as puberty and sex, then a parent has the right to deny permission for their child to be exposed to such subjects in school. The thinking behind that is that a parent will teach or deal with these issues however they see fit without leaving it up to the school. Similarly, if a class like this were required, apprehensive parents may deny their child the opportunity of taking such a class. This would defeat the entire purpose of your proposal. It would also prove nothing other than the fact that a parent wishes to monitor their children and what lessons they are taught. They may not want their children being exposed to conflicting ideals, which doesn't reflect ignorance, but rather indicates a parent's concern about what their children are being taught and by whom. Remember: everyone has an agenda. Further, if a parent DIDN'T object to a child taking such a class, this would dismantle your whole point about parents indoctrinating their children. Why? Because this demonstrates that even if parents indoctrinate their children to believe one thing, they are still open to their children learning about other cultures. 3. RE: Raising a child to think that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so... infringes on the rights of others. --> A parent does not need a Bible to teach their child that homosexuality is wrong. Children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs in general with or without the presence of religion. If a parent feels that abortion is wrong, even if they are atheist, then presumably this parent will pass that notion onto their child as well... and why shouldn't they? Like I said, a parent's JOB is to teach morality to their children. If religion is a corner stone of morality for them, then they are undoubtedly going to include/consider that when raising their children. Additionally, a major discrepancy here is that you're making assumptions and greatly generalizing religion in a way that is incredibly misleading. For instance, I know many Catholics who support the legalization of gay marriage even if their Holy Book claims that homosexuality is a sin. You cannot prove that one will feel a certain way about all moral issues based on the religion they practice alone. Another example is the Death Penalty. Catholics are generally split 50/50 on this moral dilemma. 4. RE: The result of this parent/child relationship can harm society. --> The key word here is CAN. Further, this cannot be the basis of any real argumentation. For instance, divorce is another aspect of home-life that can have an affect on a parent/child relationship. A child from a broken home may have skewed ideals about love and marriage which can also harm society. However, are you suggesting that divorce not be allowed either? Of course not. Thus this idea is not a good foundation for your argument. 5. RE: Circumcision --> 60 - 65% of American males are circumcised at birth (it used to be 90%). This indicates that it is not for religious purposes, as the Jews do not circumcise their young at birth (in the hospital). People choose to circumcise their children because it is believed to be more sanitary. It was also a cultural thing for awhile, i.e. the majority DID circumcise their children, so most people followed suit. --> The main point here is, "I do not believe that children should be having surgery to remove anything if it is not going to benefit the child by making them more healthy." That's great. And if/when you become a parent, you can apply this concept to your choices. HOWEVER, you cannot speak for every other parent in the world. Your downfall in this debate is relying too much on your personal opinion. 6. RE: Children being exposed to things that scare them. --> Ok, if a parent believes that it is imperative that their child succeed academically, and every single day they essentially force their child to study (over other social hobbies), they are actively sending their child down a path that he or she may not want or agree with. Perhaps by nature the child is a more artistic person rather than into their studies. It doesn't matter - the parent believes that they are greatly benefiting their child by introducing such a strenuous work ethic, and so nobody can say that they SHOULDN'T be encouraging such good study habits, because overall people believe that the child will benefit from such urgency. And maybe they will. This same logic applies to religion. Again, parents feel that by including religion in their children's lives, they are not only fulfilling their parental role and giving their children the gift of faith, but to believers this is also a moral obligation - one that cannot be reasoned with. Again, God's word > yours. 7. RE: Parents should not teach their child anything that could infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. homosexuality or abortion. --> IS THIS FOR REAL? Parents have a right to teach their children about right and wrong! Just because you may disagree with their opinions does not mean that they do not have the right to pass on their moral inclinations. If you were pro-choice but 90% of the country was pro-life, and you had children, would you rather them just be culturally brainwashed by the majority OR pass on your own beliefs in addition about what you think is morally permissible, in order to give them a better platform of ideas? Hmm? 8. RE: Teach your child to be just not because they'll go to hell if they aren't, but instead because it is a good thing. How about you not tell me how to raise my kids and I won't tell you how to raise yours. Plus, not every religion relies on Hell as a scare-tactic. 9. RE: Religion does not save lives. --> Just because Catholicism may not support stem cell research or the use of condoms does not mean that people won't use condoms anyway. Further, this particular religion denounces abortion, and you have no way of knowing how many lives were saved because of this. 10. RE: Subject to change. First you said that religion was arbitrary, and now you're arguing that children don't have a choice... well make up your mind. I know that my personal religious beliefs have done a complete 180 since the time I was 15 (I'm 21 now). Further, for you to suggest that home-schooling was unheard of until the 1980s is absurdly ignorant. Even today only 2.4% of children are home-schooled. * Unfortunately I'm out of characters... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest." because I would like to thank for opponent for a good debate. Unfortunately he has once again neglected to state why the plan proposed by the Obama administration is in the US' best interest, instead simply stating the goals of the plan. C1: One error my opponent made was that he said "we are going over there to restablize the government..." As I stated before, prior to 2001 the government was only unstable from a western perspective. In reality it was quite stable, but that stability resulted in an environment that was unfavorable. The invasion in 2001 was what made Afghanistan caused the instability you are referring to in the first place. What my opponent perhaps means to say is the current strategy as of 2009 is one to promote stability. C2: Again, I do not believe that the Obama strategy is going to result in a stable Afghan government that will be useful for fighting terrorism and I have given reasons why. I have repeated this ad nauseum, just because you say the plan has goals that are favorable does not mean it's a good idea if you can't prove the plan will work. Is may be an argument ad adsurdum, but If I propose to feed the human race by harvesting cheese from the moon, it is not a good idea just because my goal is favorable. The idea must be practical and possible. My opponent has failed to prove that the idea he supports is practical and possible while I have provided ample evidence that it is not. C3: I have no idea what general my opponent is quoting, but it is not necessary to discuss whether or not the quote is true. The fact that an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to America does not automatically make any plan to stabilize Afghanistan a good idea. Conclusion: While he has restated the purposes of the Obama plan numerous times, my opponent has done nothing to defend the argument that it is in the US' best interests. I would also like to note that while he criticized my use of sources, my opponent did not cite any of his own except for one which I proved not to be relevant to the debate. I have provided many reasons why this strategy is a bad idea. However, I do not even feel that this was necessary considering the fact that in the case of an act of war, the burden of proof should be on those supporting the attacker. In this case, no claims were made to explain why the Obama strategy would result in the mentioned goals being successful achieved. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christians should take the whole bible literally because I accept the debate. Like you, I am an atheist, but I disagree with you on this subject. My opening arguments follow: 1. Versions Which version of the bible should Christians be taking literally? On this list, 48 different versions are listed, and at the top there is a disclaimer saying "There are Bible versions not included on this chart" (1). How is it possible for a Christian to take the Bible literally, when there are so many different versions to choose from? 2. Contradictions The Bible also has many contradictions within it. I have included a list of some of these. If one is to say they take the Bible literally, this is impossible even if they pick a specific version. For example, when discussing Noah's Ark, the Bible says that "one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones" (2) were taken on board. This can't be taken literally because it physically is impossible. There can never be one of something and seven of something. It has to be one of the two. Thus, the reader must choose between passages, and thus the Bible cannot be taken literally. Sources: http://www.allbibles.com... http://www.infidels.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should Kids Get Tattoos because Rather than posting my side of tattoos, I will just trash my opponents argument. My opponents first contention is rendered completely moot. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, tattoos fall on the third tier -- belonging. To quote my opponent, "...only rebels and biker gangs had tattoos." Being in a gang allows you to belong to something/someone. The second contention, which was pitiful, says that tattoo artists do not clean their needles. I know for a fact that needles are bathed in a sulphur-based concoction and pumped with electricity. This contention, too, is useless. The third contention is based on the opinion of what "ugly" is, so this contention, like all of the others, is useless and pathetic. Take an english class. Your grammar is bad. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Star Trek technology is achievable because The Star Trek Transporter is used to move matter between two locations. The transporter technology scans the entire atomic structure of the subjective object and stores the exact “blue-print” on a computer database. The subjective mass is then dematerialized and sent to its desired location on a carrier wave. The point of transport collects the matter stream and rematerializes the atomic structure according the blue-print snap-shot stored on the computer. Naturally, some obvious problems become immediately apparent which the television show fails to address. The process would require the receive location to contain a device to rematerialize the matter. Simply “beaming” a stream of matter to a location would be no more effective than launching applesauce at the floor, hoping it would materialize into an apple. The burden at hand, however, requires a reasonable scientific mechanism that would allow for matter transportation to be a reality, and furthermore, practical. The Science – According to a 2007 article by the UK newspaper “The Independent”, a team of scientists successfully transported a data packet over 89 miles of free space, using a quantum entanglement field, which dematerialized a photon packet and re-materialized the object at its distant end. [1] The “photon packets” where transported through free space, entirely independent from normal transmission methods, which usually require heterodyning circuits to modulate an RF carrier wave. (Radio theory) While the phenomenon is nowhere near able to transport humans or objects, it’s the first step in developing such a technology. It is not a question of “if we can teleport a structure”, but “how complicated can the teleported structure be?” As quoted by the source: "We really wanted to show that this can be done in the real world and our dream is to go into space and try it there.” The Chinese are developing a similar technology, hoping to use it as a secure communications array. The research team was able to replicate a photon particle 16 kilometers away. The intertwined photon-packet was dematerialized and re-established across 16 kilometers of free space at 89% fidelity. [2] Indeed the technology is progressing rapidly. In September of this year, the University of Vienna broke the record by transporting a photon packet over 143 kilometers of free-space. [3] In 2010 , a Japanese physicist proposed his theory on transporting energy, opening up the possibility of wireless energy distribution through Quantum entanglement. Imagine getting your energy from a satellite transmitter. [5] The University of Heidelberg in Germany released its 2012 study of Quantum teleportation, being the first laboratory to successfully transport solid matter . The study was prompted due to the erratic nature of the photon transport. " The problem with the photon is that it always keeps traveling. You have to keep it to do useful quantum information processing tasks (in which case we call it a 'keeper'). Compared to the trapped ion experiment, an advantage of the atomic ensembles is that they have a much higher success rate .” [4] The German lab was able to successfully transport 100 million rubidium atoms across the modest distance of .5 meters. Rubidium is a soft, metallic element, making it the first solid state particle cluster to be transported through free-space. Conclusion: Teleportation is a scientific reality. While we are years shy of transporting even a bacterium, the implication of quantum entanglement research opens the door to practical experimentation. The mere fact that a photon packet can be transported across 143 kilometers of free-space immediately satisfies the burden, making secure communication or free-space energy distribution a practical application of quantum entanglement transportation. Additionally, the ability to transport solid state elements like rubidium opens up new avenues for moving raw supplies to otherwise inaccessible locations. Such a technology, if refined and advanced, could realistically be used for mining resources from stellar objects, such as asteroids. http://www.independent.co.uk... [1] http://nerdbastards.com... [2] http://phys.org... ; [3] http://phys.org... ; [4] http://phys.org... ; [5] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency because Thanks to Pro for an interesting debate. We discussed issues that are not the usual subjects of debate on this site. Cost Pro argues that a new car ought to cost about a thousand dollars. He references the lowest cost new car at $9985 and says they ought to be an order of magnitude, i.e., a factor of ten, cheaper. Pro gives no evidence to support his conjecture of how much a car "ought" to cost. He cites no expert opinion and no examples of cars from anywhere in the world -- cars manufactured free of American regulations-- that come close to meeting his claim. He offers "an argument from incredulity" http://rationalwiki.org... saying his claim follows from "what our technology is apparently capable of." The raw materials to build a car cost more than $1000, and there is a lot of work to making an engine, transmission, a frame, wheels, seats, and the rest of a vehicle. Lacking expert opinion or examples, Pro might have suggested how his claim could be met, but he did not. Pro argues that it shouldn't cost much to put a box on wheels. True, but that would not be a car. We expect US cars to be able to travel on modern highways, keep up with traffic, and carry at least a couple of people and some goods. There are mass produced scooters that are motorized and come close to the thousand dollar mark, although most are not that cheap. A Vespa scooter than gets 70-75 mpg and has a top speed of 59 mph is priced at $4499. http://www.vespausa.com... They are not cars. It's remarkable that a fully functional car meeting US safety standards is available for $9985. Many people cannot afford a new car, but many also cannot afford a new house or any of many other expensive things. That's not an an argument that there must be some magical way to make any particular thing cheaper. It was not until my third used car that I could finally afford one that cost more than $200. It never occurred to me that new cars were supposed to be dirt cheap. Pro claims, "R&d at this point is just to keep the looks sleeker and the on board electronics fancier." There are more than twenty independent car manufacturers spread around the globe competing in international markets, To compete, manufacturers are doing everything they can to reduce costs. There is an emerging market for very low end vehicles that have no electronics or air conditioning, and are not suitable for US roads or winter driving conditions. " Car manufacturers, of course, have always sought to cut costs and pack more value into each new-model generation to stay competitive. But now, emerging markets like India offer cheap engineering, inexpensive parts-sourcing, and low-cost manufacturing. For its new car, for example, Tata should be able to slash the cost of the engine to about $700, or 50% lower than a Western-developed equivalent, says one consultant close to the company." http://www.businessweek.com... What is best? Pro argues that we have been arguing objective criteria, and cites price as objective criteria. No, that's just one attribute that a buyer weighs along with utility, performance, reliability, safety, appearance, and whatever else the buyer values. Most of the capabilities have objective measures like cargo capacity, horse power, and crash test results. If price were even the dominant factor, then the cheapest cars would be the best selling, and they are not. Pro bemoans the large numbers of SUVs that are sold. That admits that price is not the most important factor for those buyers, who could have chosen anything cheaper and did not. I am sympathetic to the argument that people ought to be allowed to buy very cheap vehicles, even if they are not safe or comfortable. However, it's clear from the sales figures that few people in the US have that preference. Modern cars are doing an excellent job of meeting buyer demands, and that's shown by the lack of demand for cheap Spartan vehicles. Emerging markets in Asia are likely to be closer to matching what Pro thinks everyone ought to want. Safety Pro claims, "The biggest reason for needing a big car for safety is to protect against other big cars." I have proved that to be false, and Pro has offered no evidence to support the claim. If two vehicles collide head-on, then the small car will be better off if the other car is also small. However, head-on collision are rare, only about 2% of the total. http://en.wikipedia.org... Most collisions are from people hitting fixed objects (trees and utility poles), hitting animals, colliding at angles, or hitting road debris or the like, In all those cases, a larger vehicle is safer. Moreover, larger vehicles are better able to cope with snow, flooding, and other poor road conditions. In the cases of hitting other vehicles, trucks will sill be on the road, and there would have to be more of them. The statistics I cited show that SUVs are about twice as safe as regular cars. So independent of all arguments, the bottom line is that SUVs are in fact safer. Pro made the new argument, without support, that trucks are easier to avoid than passenger vehicles. Actually, fatal collisions with trucks are nearly twice as common as fatal collisions with other cars. The National Highway Safety Administration says, "... the car driver's behavior was more than three times as likely to contribute to the fatal crash than was the truck driver's behavior. In addition, the car driver was solely responsible for 70 percent of the fatal crashes, compared to 16 percent for the truck driver." http://www.fhwa.dot.gov... Pro argues that if everyone rode bicycles there would be no safety problem. Sure and if everyone walked there would be no safety problem. If bicycles could carry the passengers and cargo of a car, went 65 miles per hour on highways, and operated under all road conditions, there would be serious safety problems. They would skid off roads and hit trees just as cars do. Hitting a tree on a bicycle at 65 would not be a safe encounter. Summary Markets in India and China are likely to lead to the sale of vehicles that are essentially a scooter with four wheels and an enclosure to keep the rain off. They'll be cheaper than presently available cars. If so, does that mean that "Modern autos lack efficacy and efficiency"? No, efficiency is measured relative to accomplishing a specified task. Modern cars in the US do what buyers want, and they do it efficiently. Pro offered no evidence that the cars that US buyers want could be provided better or more cheaply. Pro's argument is that people should not want what they want. I think people overall correctly value safety, comfort, and utility. The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Marriage should be legal in the United States. because Thank you, Mongeese, for the debate. I'm going to try to keep this round short. Neither of my opponent's attempts to discredit the constitutionality of legal marriage nor his attempt to show that legal marriage is discriminatory can withhold scrutiny. Reiterating my old arguments would simply be belaboring the point. However, Mongeese has conveniently packaged some new assertions in one neat bundle, so I will try my best to unpack them. ::Case Pro- Rebuttals:: In conclusion, when it comes to marriage: 1. If government does not discriminate at all when it comes to who can be married, as my opponent proposes, then people will marry fifty other people just to take advantage of multiple tax breaks or other discriminatory benefits. At no point in this debate have I argued for polygamy or that the government should recognize all marriage arrangements. Your assertion misrepresents my position. [1] Moreover, the conclusion you draw (from information unknown to me) is nothing more than a non sequitur. [2] There is nothing about legally sanctioned marriages that necessarily implies that we allow polygamy. If anything, financially motivated polygamy would be an inevitable component of the quick and easy internet marriages Mongeese has beckoned us to. 2. Having to marry to receive benefits not necessarily connected to marriage is illogical. Why would it be illogical? Marriage carries many responsibilities (that I have already outlined) that are not associated with being single. 3. It does not make sense to force business partners to have the social connotation of marriage over their head if they do not want it, or a brother and sister to have to marry to handle each other's end-of-life issues. I fail to see the logic that connects either of these assertions to what we have been arguing about. If I want my brother to handle my end of life issues then I can legally have that arranged without having to marry him. 4. All rights currently given by marriage should either not exist (should it be unwarranted benefits like tax cuts, that harm most of the people in having to pay extra taxes) or be allowed to everybody (should it be something to get by a zero-sum regulation placed by government in the first place, such as hospital visits or end-of-life issues). It would appear as if Mongeese can't see the contradictory nature of his own arguments. My opponent may think his proposal would lead to an egalitarian society. But his arguments are inegalitarian in the extreme. They essentially mandate that people should all be treated equally even if they clearly deserve more than other people. Married couples need to look out for each other and their kids, if they have any. This alone is reason enough to give them certain benefits that single people don't receive. 5. Government contract is not required for social pressure, as evidenced by my opponent's own analogy. "If two people go about saying that they are, for all practical purposes, married, then society would view them as such, and therefore, the social pressure would exist. Why do we need government to tell us what do do with our social pressure?" Social pressure is an aspect of society and it exists to different degrees in different areas. Of course, people can pinkie-swear to get "married," but such arrangements (including those done over the internet) are inherently unstable. Legal contracts tighten social contracts (e.g. marriage) in a way that non legal contracts often do not. Moreover, the system for marriage you have outlined would most certainly lead to heavy abuse. Your proposal is, in fact, nothing more than a giant loophole for greedy people who don't want to pay taxes. Sure, people can get married just to receive benefits, but the legal implications of getting married makes the process just difficult enough to discourage hordes of unscrupulous people from abusing the system. ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout this debate we have seen no good reasons that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution. If anything, the problems inherent to my opponents own position far outweigh the perceived difficulties he sees with legal marriages. Marriage is a bonding agent for society. It helps people provide a safe environment to raise a family, among other things. Encouraging marriage is therefore a key component of any functional society. Consequently, the government should encourage marriage by making it legal and subsidizing it with benefits. This approach, it would seem, is more apt than my opponent's to produce a maximally healthy and functional society. For these reasons I strongly encourage everyone to stand with me in affirming this motion. (Vote Pro) ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. because Line-by-line: "Our economy would not be where it is today"--> 1. There is no evidence for this. Or analysis for that matter. But if you think about this logically, you will see that the advertisements that ‘increased the economy' would have been used in other places. 2. This would only show that in THIS case, it was used properly. So the hammer built the house (if you will), but you're forgetting about the people who have been cyber-bullied or even pushed to the point of suicide. This just shows how it can be used good and bad and therefore it can't be determined if it is a positive impact or a negative impact. "Communication opportunities would be smaller"--> 1. All tools have their benefits. Even a gun. EVEN A NUCLEAR WEAPON. But that does not mean that there is an automatic positive effect. 2. I'm not advocating elimination of Social Networking Sites. 3. You can still call someone! This debate just goes to show that with great power comes great responsibility. But you can not just up and vote PRO because some people use that responsibility properly. 4. Communication increase in a computer to computer basis increases blatant bullying. This is because it is easier to type what you think rather than to say it. Look to the girl that was pushed to suicide because of social networking sites. And this was all made possible by an ‘increase in communication.' AGAIN, it is how you use it. "businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently" -Businesses can always assemble over the internet OR in real life (sorry if I come off as old fashioned.) -TV advertisements still exist. -The efficiency is as good as it can be bad. All it takes is a click of the send message before I just told someone how much I hate them. AGAIN, it is how you use it. No direct effect (impact) happens from something that doesn't have a brain. The people with the brains have the actual effect. Whether they call someone, or use a social networking site, or whether they make fun of someone on facebook, or in real life. It is the PEOPLE with the impact. Therefore, vote CON! Thanks for this debate! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Unknown examination dates because I want to first thank my opponent for his desire to find reasoned answers to important questions. I particularly commend him on this issue, as most students I know would never even imagine that un-knwon test dates are a good thing. They'd be considered "unfair." In the first round, I will not attempt to rebut my opponent's arguments, but rather set up the positive case for setting known test dates. 1. Students should know their expectations. I remember my first big surprise in my undergrad classes, when my professor highlighted all the information we needed to know throughout the semester for our exam. I asked him about this, because it didn't seem as though this was really challenging the class or getting us to learn. As an education professor, surely he knew better. He responded by explaining that the point of a test is to test what one knows, and the point of the teacher is to teach the relevant material. Now he didn't give us the exact questions or anything like that, but expectations were clear from the start. Failing to know what an assessment will cover and failing to know the time frame expectation for learning are not conducive to effective teaching or learning. 2. Exam structure makes the exam, not knowledge of the expectations. This point plays very well from my previous one. My opponent is under the impression that what constitutes true learning is absent in exams where the day is known. If the exam is pure multiple choice, based on a study guide of exact questions handed out to students, requiring solely rote memorization - I agree. But teachers don't have to make that low-level type of exam. I would argue that the type of exam that can be memorized so easily is actually void of significant meaning whether you know the test date or not. On Bloom's Taxonomy of learning [1], this has to rank pretty low. If, however, a teacher would give an essay exam that requires students to expound on themes discussed throughout the year, using terminology in the appropriate context, students could not simply "Christmas tree" their answers or rely on rote memorization. Regardless of how much you cram terms, a good exam will measure your understanding of them, not your memorization. If understanding is measured, knowing expectations (including the time of the exam) is a good thing. 3. Repetition and review are keys to learning [2]. I took Chemistry once in high school, and once in college. Both times I struggled with the concepts. This year, my school needed me to teach it. Surprisingly, it was pretty easy to pick up in a very short time. This is not only due to my growth, but due to the key of exposure. It is very well known in cognitive psychology that the amount of exposure to something increases one's ability to remember and grasp a concept. That is why students who study more frequently for shorter periods of time, as opposed to cramming, will actually have a more firm grasp and recollection of their work [3]. 4. Test anxiety is real [4]. While no exam method will completely annihilate test anxiety, an unknown exam date certainly exacerbates the problem. When goals and expectations are straightforward, students are able to feel more prepared and train better over time. Reducing worry is vital to ensuring that what is being measured is student understanding, not emotional variance. Summary: In summary, knowing specific goals is vital to appropriately teaching students. This does not preclude significant, higher level learning, as the learning does not come from being surprised, but rather from appropriate assessment. During the year and the final review session, teachers and students will have the opportunity to be exposed more frequently to information, as this is what will effect learning. Cramming would have no part in such a system, since it would prove to be a highly ineffective strategy. And as an added benefit to having a known test date, teachers will be supporting students who would otherwise show false performance results due to test anxiety. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals. This should prove to be a very interesting discussion. [1] http://www.learningandteaching.info... [2] http://psycnet.apa.org... [3] http://www.soundfeelings.com... [4] http://academicanxiety.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Aliens will come in peace not war. because I thank my opponent for a timely response. -The Ship My opponent suggests that, "Con has left out a more plausible option for the ship. A small vessel that only holds a few beings in it, the sleeper idea would be plausible for this type of ship. This small vessel would be likely because it would not take the huge amount of resources that would be required for a generation ship. A small vessel would also, most likely, not be a warship designed for invasion." The aliens are unlikely to utilise a single small sleeper vessel, they would naturally have sought to send a sufficient population for both genetic variability and to ensure the survival of a new colony. In any event it is likely that vessels sleeper technology would still require energy and/or sustenance. In any event a small sleeper vessel unsuited for war would not after a journey that may have lasted millions of years approach an inhabited and potentially hostile world. -Resources My opponent states that, "The alien beings are coming directly at earth, not stopping by all the other planets and moons on the way. Why would they not be interested in the resources on these also? If resources were on their mind, they would harvest everything they possible could in their mission. Humans have already discovered usable resources all over the known cosmos, so a more intelligent being must surely have also. Thus I conclude resources are not on their mind." However my opponent has not challenged the proposition that this is a colony vessel, thus by heading towards earth we can see that the aliens desire the specific life sustaining resources of earth. The other worlds and planetoids not being sutiable to them. As Earth is heavily populated we must infer that the aliens are prepared to address that issue, the most logical way is through violence. -Colonisation My opponent states that, "A small vessel ship would not be likely if its purpose was to colonize a planet." However it is simply speculation that the vessel is small, the size of the vessel was not mentioned in the premise of the scenario. " Besides, if they have space faring technology, surely they could terraform any rock planet they came across. Even humans have ideas of how we can terraform mars. Going through the trouble to find a planet with life on it, just to steal it, is not plausible. It would be more likely to terraform planets and moons close to home" It is equally possible that the aliens were unable to dedicate suficient time or resources to 'terraforming' due to the loss of a war or the sudden deteriotation/super nova of their home star. It is possible that the aliens are refugees, or exiles. My opponent has already accepted the possibility that it is a sleeper ship. The use of a sleeper vessel would be consistent with a species on the brink of extinction desperately trying to save itself. Inhabitants of a safe system would be unlikely to embark on such a vessel, such a vessel would be used for trade or exploration for obvious reasons. Under these circimstances the most likely motive is colonisation, attempting to colonise a populated area suggests an acceptance of violence. -Peace My opponent states that, "The beings are on a small vessel, coming straight toward earth. Because of the apparent lack of life throughout the cosmos, it would be likely that we would be the aliens' first contact. They would come here to learn about the same things we hope to learn once we actually discover other life. They will be interested the age of life on earth, the age of our sun, and the age of earth, that we are carbon-based life forms, that all life here requires a form of water, and many, many other things. They will have likely send an ambassador of some kind, a language expert in hopes of communicating with us, a biologist, and maybe a historian to teach us their past. The possibilities are endless but it is most likely bound to be a peaceful greeting." This is not consistent with a sleeper vessel. Many of the facts suggested here could be ascertained by the aliens without leaving their homeworld. The ambassodor would be representing a power millions of years extinct. A sleeper vessel may have taken many millions of years to reach us, they would not come for simple curiosity. I do not consider my opponent has made a case that the alines would likely be peaceful, not that he is has refuted my points. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with school's should not make you wear uniforms because Actually, kids might be too upset because they have to wear uniforms to even focus. If you go to the link I posted above, it shows that uniforms have a negative effect on kids' school work and attendance. And like I said before, if someone wants to shoot someone bad enough, they will shoot them at another time and place if they can't do it at school. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with George W. Bush is a bad president. because For all intensive purposes, I will define bad as: of poor quality; deficient; inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory; liable to cause harm; disreputable or dishonorable; displaying a lack of skill, talent, proficiency or judgment; causing distress; unfavorable; not suitable; disagreeable; not profitable or worth the price paid; disappointing -- These words and definitions were taken from Dictionary.com, and please, I don't want this debate to be about semantics. So I would prefer if someone who accepted this debate did so based on conetent and not on the definition of 'bad' that I have provided if they disagree with it. With that said, my position in this debate is that George W. Bush was and still is a bad president throughout his tenure in office. My reasoning is based on these factors: - His broken promises regarding healthcare, the enviornment, higher education, free trade, and welfare; - Lies he told to the American public (probably to promote his own agenda); - His extremely low approval rating; - Facts about negative occurences during GWB's presidency, that are directly attributed to and/or are a result of his actions such as: the record for biggest annual deficit in history, he presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed, he is he dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history, etc... Because I am the instigator (Pro), the burden of proof is on me to prove that George W. Bush was/is a bad President. I believe that the facts and statistics speak volumes, so I will give my opponent the first opportunity to make his or her case against the topic of debate. Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women in the Kitchen because LOL WHAT?.... "there is really no difference to "women in the kitchen" and "women not being allowed out of the kitchen" except the way it was said/written" HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM! To begin with... You want to ban women from being in the kitchen. I am simply proposing "Women in the kitchen." And you are opposing this. Can you not see that you are invalid in your urge to go against any and all women in the kitchen? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because COUNTER-ARGUMENTS Re: 1: Waterboarding is used to collect life-saving information The opponent states that there is a potential for saving innocent lives, and "the worst case for the detainee is that he is terrorized temporarily, but not permanently harmed." a. This, however, represents an unrealistically hypothetical situation. Here are the things that the scenario implies knowledge of: 1. Lives at stake: Are there lives at risk? Without knowing the type of bomb and location of the bomb (among other details), it is not possible to know. Without knowing with certainty that lives are at risk, is it right to submit someone to torture. 2. Terrorist's knowledge: There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that the terrorist who is being tortured actually knows the critical details about the bomb that investigators are looking for. Hence, the terrorist could be tortured to find information that he, in fact, does not know. Without certainty that the terrorist actually knows information about the bomb's details, one cannot justify the use of waterboarding. 3. Type of bomb: The scenario implies that investigators know, with certainty, what kind of bomb is being used. However, the knowledge of the type of bomb is typically not known with certainty. Hence, this unproven knowledge cannot be used to justify the use of torture (e.g., waterboarding) to find further information. 4: Location: The scenario implies that investigators know, with certainty, where the bomb is planted. And based off of that, the torture would be justified. In real life, the knowledge of the location is not known with certainty, in all cases. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the knowledge of the location can justify the use of torture (e.g., waterboarding.) The "ticking time bomb" scenario implicitly includes an invalid presumption that the decision-maker can know, in advance, the outcome of torture. However, this is never the case. Due to a substantial number of omitted uncertainties, the hypothetical ticking time bomb argument fails to justify the legalization of waterboarding. b. The opponent provides an example of a success story resulting from the use of waterboarding. Indeed, waterboarding CAN lead to positive results, but this does not prove its effectiveness. Perhaps an investigator can force a terrorist to release valid information by playing Justin Bieber songs to him; nonetheless, the Bieber approach still cannot be deemed effective based on the aforementioned example. c. The opponent states that the detainee would be "not permanently harmed." This will be disputed in my later argument. Re: 2: Safeguards prevent indiscriminate use b. a physician determine the mental trauma that is sustained by the victim after the incident and whether or not the trauma would be permanent. c. But it is impossible to know that the terrorist knows the information, that lives will be saved, or if there is even any information to be sought. The objective is founded on hypotheticals. d. There is a chance that known information that justifies the use of torture and suggests that there is "probable cause" will later be proven invalid. There is much uncertainty and "probable cause" is arbitrary, especially due to this lack of definite knowledge of the matter at hand. The quoted statement by Alan Dershowitz does not pose an argument; it is an appeal to authority. Re: 3: Waterboarding is effective This argument is founded on specific instances in which waterboarding was used and success came out of it. In addition, cherry-picked figures are quoted in support of waterboarding. However, the statements form no factual indication that waterboarding is, all in all, effective. For example, Jose Rodriquez's statement is solely based on how he felt about the situation, that information could not have been acquired if waterboarding were not used; this, however, is not a proveable statement. As I will later show, waterboarding is not effective, overall . Re: 4: This basis for this argument is that waterboarding is not harmful. This will be contradicted later on. ARGUMENTS: 1: Waterboarding has a long-term negative psychological impact The effects of waterboarding include significant long-term post traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Submission to asphyxiation torture, such as waterboarding, can have many serious effects on one's life. Some subjected people fear showering and exercising. [1] A number of waterboarding survivors have a long-lasting inability to develop close and intimate relationships, and this profoundly affects marriage, families, and the ability to raise kids, but also long-lasting relationships are a key part in the success of working, so this form of withdrawal and non-trust seen in torture survivors is extremely disabling. [2] Waterboarding, as evaluated by those who underwent it, is described as painful; most of those who disagree have not experienced, and therefore, a so-called "empathy gap" exists. [3] The implementation of waterboarding in governmental affairs was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists who had no interrogation experience and the CIA later announced that their "expertise" was probably "misrepresented." [4] It is supported by a very large number of health professionals and mental health clinicians/researchers that waterboarding leads to seriously adverse psychological effects. 2. Waterboarding is ineffective "And all too often, [torture] does not work. After John McCain was bound, kicked and exposed to the elements, beaten every few hours by a different guard, he signed a document confessing to war crimes. Because when you're tortured, you'll say anything. Anything. Anything. Anything." [5] Indeed, false information is often acquired from the use of waterboarding. People are willing to say anything to avoid the torture. Bad information fuels improper decisions and would, in a society that upholds waterboarding, lead to further waterboarding without justifiable cause. According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, released information that the CIA was looking for. As a direct result of this information, the Bush administration formed the conclusion that biochemical weapons were present in Iraq, and this (faulty) concept was used as the initial justification for waging war with Al Qaida in Iraq. [6] This came about because Libbi wanted to avoid the torment of waterboarding and was willing to appease the investigators with whatever they were looking for, true or not. 3. Consequences By torturing enemies, the enemy is more likely to react more harshly, escalating violence. By using torture in order to avoid violence, further violence is enabled, because opponents begin to feel as though, in vengeance, US soldiers may also be brutally tortured. This forms an international justification for torture, and in this way, it is counterintuitive, promoting violence through an attempt to prevent violence. "The interrogations, torture and socialization of prison turned most of the men rounded up by Mubarak into hardened militants, thirsty for revenge: they would become the foot soldiers of terrorism." [7] "Not only will torture create a dedicated core of anti-American jihadists, their stories will lose us the "hearts and minds" campaign with the larger Muslim population." [8] The resolution is deemed null. [1] http://www.time.com... [2] http://news.nurse.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://voices.yahoo.com... [6] http://abcnews.go.com... [7] Book: http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [8] http://www.au.af.mil... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should College be free? because Under the argument that "College should be free", it is safe to assume that means all colleges would be public. However, this is obviously not the correct course of action. As we look at statistics and the outcomes of private vs. public schools, the private schools are obviously providing a more quality education. This is apparent to even the most inexperienced person in such a subject simply by looking at a list of private universities alongside a list of public ones. PRIVATE COLLEGES (Not a complete list) Harvard Yale Cornell Duke Dartmouth Princeton Columbia Stanford Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Notre Dame Vanderbilt Rice Brown Caltech As opposed to- PUBLIC COLLEGES University of Michigan University of North Carolina University of Florida University of Wisconsin (And most state schools) A list of these colleges can show you already which one is the obvious superior to the other. Now, if you make all Colleges free, and no profit is gained, all competition is eliminated. Think about it like this- If Walmart and Target were suddenly effected by a new law from Congress that says they must give all of their products away for free, and in return for giving them away they will receive a salary from the government. Now, Walmart and Target have no reason to try to be better than each other by offering better products, deals, environment, ect. because whatever they do they are going to be held up by the government. Now, another point about having all colleges be funded governmentally is that we simply cannot afford it. It costs money to run a university. Now, the government is already losing money supplying education at schools with minimal tuition. To eliminate tuition altogether would be heavily detrimental to the US budget. Not only would the taxpayers have to foot the bill for all the tuition's of public schools that previously brought in money, they would also have to pay for the massive new cost of funding all previously private schools. While this is not only infeasible, it would undermine the good educations provided by colleges we know for being so effective; Harvard, Yale, MIT, ect. and therefore are undermining our entire economy. Back to you Pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with People can be proven wrong. because I. Hypothetical Scenario. Con refuses to refute this argument based on the grounds that he already did so in the PM. The whole point of this debate was because Con kept claiming he refuted them, when in reality he didn't. Instead, he went on some rant about how everything nowadays is photoshopped. Furthermore, regardless of whether Con refuted it or not, he needs to do so in this debate or else it will be considered a dropped argument on his part. Con is absolutely right though, it is indeed the prosecutors who have the BOP. In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court. So, I don't really understand why Con is re-hashing this point when it's already been handled. II. Hypothetical Scenario Two. How does the pig-flying scenario not make sense? It's pretty clear and easy to comprehend. If someone claims that all pigs can fly, and are then shown pigs that can't fly, the person was proven wrong. Also, I never said that wings are the only things which are necessary to fly. I said, "the pigs don't have wings nor the capacity to fly." Con is ignoring the entire second half of my explanation in the scenario. My opponent then suggests I should check out articles on levitation, physical mediums, etc., but these have nothing to do with the second scenario I provided - as pigs cannot levitate either, nor act as mediums. Unless Con presents evidence showing otherwise, this line of argumentation remains standing. III. Four other, real-world examples. Con only responds to one of the four examples I provided. Thus, I immediately extend the other three as they currently remain standing unchallenged. As for his response to the smoking example - If only 1 out of 1,000 doesn't get lung cancer, while the other 999 do, it's safe to say that smoking "plays a role in the production of lung cancer". I never said it was the absolute "cause" but only that it "plays a role". Please see my previous round to verify that. IV. Irrelevant arguments I pointed out that these arguments presented by you, in specific, were irrelevant because they were. I even provided reasoning to show their irrelevancy. I was not "repeating" them, but merely copying them into my round so the audience/judges knew what I was responding to. Con has yet to provide any reasoning as to why they are, in fact, relevant. Thus, I extend this argument as well because it currently remains standing unchallenged. V. L. Ron Hubbard My opponent provided no response to this line of argumentation whatsoever, thus I extend this. He did state this: I believe that your claim that wrongness isn't a negative is wrong. I'm not sure if that was actually a response to this line of argumentation or not, so I'll reply to it here by saying: Prove it. VI. Purity Again, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this. VII. Absence of Evidence Con states this in response to my rebuttal: You had plenty of time to present your evidence before but you admit that you didn't. My claim of absence of evidence therefore WAS correct. The first round of the debate is for presenting rules, conditions, and general information about the debate. What you SHOULD have done was just use your first round for acceptance instead of beginning immediately. This is because you are Con and I am Pro. So, I need to build my affirmative case before you'd present the Neg case. You totally went past this general debating rule and began immediately. Furthermore, that claim would only be valid if there was still no evidence presented - now there is. So, while it might have been reasonable to make that claim if I hadn't presented any by the end of the debate, this isn't the case. Evidence is here now, thus your claim is moot. Additionally, you didn't even spell "absence" correctly the first time, so technically you didn't even make the claim since it wasn't the correct terminology. XI. Additional comments made by Con. In your Messages to me you called me a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll, & now you tell me that trolling is against the rules? First off, I called you an idiot because you claimed that "you won" in the PM and you had done nothing of the sort. Let's not forget that by this point you had already called me "stupid", "dumb", made an argument about how you aren't a duck which came from nowhere, "crazy", AND you threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people. Secondly, I didn't call you an autistic child, I asked if you were autistic because your behavior was leading me to believe that you are. Thirdly, I didn't call you a cowardly troll, I said that if you don't accept my debate challenge then you'd be nothing more than a cowardly troll. Since you accepted the debate, obviously I can't consider you a cowardly troll. Lastly and most important, none of this is relevant to the resolution we are debating. If I'm a troll, what else can I do but troll? Why don't you use your mind instead of writing Dumb things? If you are a troll, and continue trolling, it's an automatic loss for this debate as stated by the rules I posted in R1. You've yet to prove how what I write is "dumb". I'll ask nicely that you stop with the unsubstantiated claims and focus on negating the resolution since it's your job to do so as Con. In closing, I've provided rebuttals to each challenge raised by Con. I've also extended any and all challenges that Con failed to rebut. I now return the floor to Con. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. because The value is Justice. (See PRO's value) The criterion is achieving Foreign Policy Objectives: 1. This is dictated in the resolution as the purpose of sanctions. 2. Foreign Policy Objectives must be assumed to outweigh the harms achieved in obtaining them. Suppose a government realized that the means used in achieving their desired foreign policy would incur more harm than the benefits of achieving the policy; the government would not set that as an objective. Thus achieving FPO's can always be assumed to be a superior alternative to not achieving them and therefore is always the more just alternative. Contention 1: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they are capable of killing thousands. (See PRO's contention 1) Contention 2: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they greatly deplete resources. (See PRO's contention 2) <><><><><> <> Rebuttal <> <><><><><> No objection to the value of justice. My opponent gives a criterion of 'Quality of Life' and defines it, but that's it. There is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Any arguments trying to justify it in his next speech would be new in the rebuttal and, since we seem to be following LD format, not allowed. Further, he even contradicts his own argument saying: Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations? "No" There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, then, to use his criterion so you defer to mine. Contention 1 & 2: This just proves that sanctions are effective in achieving foreign policy objectives which links to my criterion as a vote for me. <><><><><><><><><> <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against (If it was medically available) Should it be legal to choose the sex of your child? because Okay, so PRO ignores a whole chunk of refutation and chooses only to respond to those that she can. Many families would much prefer to have their own genetic children than adopt, although that is not deal, it is the truth, why would a couple choose not to have children if they really wanted them? If a disorder is gender specific this would be a medical breakthrough for families with those fears. Don't you think, that if the families knew they had a genetic disease, they would much rather adopt? Yes I know what you are talking about, you're talking about how families would rather have children related to them. You can't compare these two families. The family you are talkign about has no genetic disorder. The family I am talking about has the gender genetic disorder. This family, would be much more likely to adopt because they would not want to put their child at risk. If they really wanted a child, they could adopt one. Furthermore, the genetic disorder cannot be guaranteed not to be to entirely absent from their child, even if it is not the gender specific for the disorder. As such, even with gender selection, the couple is taking a risk. As a couple who wants to have a healthy child, adoption would be a better solution. Is this necessarily a bad thing? We are living in an extremely over populated world, although it hasn't quite hit America yet as its such a vast landmass, countries such as Britain, France, Germany, India, China and Japan are vastly over populated, the human race has doubled in population since the 1800's and we have four times as many people as their were in the first century. Slowing down the worlds reproductive rate would in no way be a bad thing. In countries with no gender bias such as the USA the ratio of male:female babies would very likely stay the same. Yes, that is a bad thing. You're thinking only in the short term. Think about the long, long term. At first, yes, population levels will slowly decrease because of gender selection, there would not be enough couples to go around and reproduce. Now flash forward a few hundred years. The human population has now dimished to maybe a billion people, because there are not enough people to reproduce. Now, it poses a severe problem. Even if we wanted to reproduce and increase the population again, we can't, because of gender selection. IF we continuously cannot reproduce, the human population will eventually be endangered. This is not what we want to accomplish. Eventually, gender selection must be illegalized to save the human race and we would have accomplished nothing. It is better to illegalize it now. You are oblivious to the fact that this probelm will increase exponentially over time, as couples become more and more gender specific. This poses a huge problem to the human population. In developing countries contraception/birth control isn't readily available and as for families that are trying for children, why would they try to prevent conception? Sure, then they could go and have babies. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you are trying for conception and do not care about the gender of your baby, you should not use birth control methods. If you truly want to have a child, you would not care about the gender, and would not use birth control. Thus, there would be no feeling of abandonment. Is abortion really a more moral than choosing the sex of the baby off the bat? Creating a life just to then destroy it, I am in no way 'anti-abortion' when it is necessary, but I think trying to have a baby and terminating it once you find out the sex is wrong. Also, ultrasounds often tell the sex of the baby around 20 weeks and in many countries the cut off date for an abortion is 12 weeks. So aborting it after determining the sex would be both morally and legally wrong. Thus gender selection eliminates both the need for an abortion as well as the moral and legal issues. You talk as if gender selection is moral. The main issue with abortion is that it causes harm to the baby. But how do you know that gender selection will not cause harm as well? Maybe it would cause a baby to be too masculine or feminine and you end up with homosexual babies. This could also create a feeling of dissappointment from parents and abandonment, that you claim to be so bad. Furthermore, in the future when gender selection is possible, maybe we'll have better methods of abortion. You never know. I hate to bring personal matters and experience into this debate but I know many women who have had miscarriages and tried for a baby a year or two later, my grandmother being one of them, so I know from personal experience that having the baby you once lost can help a lot of emotional pain. Cool, and I have a grandmother who had a miscarriage that did not not try for another baby ever. You also talked about filling the void. Why does the gender have to be the same? Again, if you truly wanted a child, you would not care about the gender of the child. This device only promotes the exploitation of children to achieve selfish means, such as the chinese mentality to carry on the family name with males. Therefore, this should not be legalized. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV. because Before I make a few points as to why the commercial (seen here: http://youtube.com... ) is definitely the most annoying one that is currently played on TV, I must first specify that I am referring to American television number one, and number two, I am generally speaking about commercials on 'basic TV' i.e. on broadcast stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Point 1: Although the jingle is quite catchy (who doesn't find themselves singing along to 877-393-4448?), a large part of why we know the telephone number so well is because this commercial is literally played every 5-10 minutes on quite a number of TV stations. The fact that this advertisement is played constantly only means that we'll all become annoyed with it sooner than we would if this commercial was played more sparsely. Point 2A: The advertisement contains music from beginning to end, and the genre of choice (reggaeton) is not exceptionally popular in the United States. In fact, if you look up the most popular genres of music in the U.S., reggaeton consistently never appears in the top ten. Point 2B: Due to its Hispanic roots and typically the use of the Spanish language, it is fair to say that many fans of reggaeton are of Hispanic descent. It is obvious that the marketing agenda of this commercial was aimed at certain minority groups, including Hispanics and other people of color. However, according to websites like racialicious.com (forums that discuss racism in today's pop culture), this commercial succeeds not only at targeting certain groups, but actually condescending and marginalizing certain demographics. Point 3: This commercial is flat out cheesey from beginning to end. If the flashy (trashy) costumes and choreographed dancing mermaids weren't enough, the ugly pirate and random sea-monster in the bad costume just completely sends this disaster over the edge. And finally, let us not ignore the girls' coochie pop; it's definitely the icing on the cake. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. because Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood because I will be arguing for the position that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. As opposed to an innate or inborn personality trait. This is not an argument about whether there are people who are tempted sexually by those of their own gender. Please do not accept this debate if you intend to argue that people are tempted therefore they are gay. The argument I am making is that there is no such "person" as a homosexual separate from a person who chooses to engage in a particular act or set of acts. For example: "John is American because John was born in America" or "Danny is black because he was born with dark skin" or "Jack is a man because he was born with male body parts." As opposed to: "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness," or "Sam is a baseball player because he chooses to play baseball," or "Junior is a homosexual because he chooses to have a boyfriend." Logic only. No arguments from emotion. I feel this way therefore... Be respectful. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gum Chewing in school because ----Counterargument---- My opponent says "Gum chewing prevents bad breath." Bad breath is extremely easy to fix. Nowadays, most kids brush their teeth before going to school, so there isn't that problem. Also, kids can chew gum BEFORE school or on their way to school to get rid of bad breath. There is no way kids need to chew gum in school to get rid of bad breath. Besides, within 5 minutes of the school day if the kids were allowed to chew gum, the bad breath would already be gone. "Gum chewing has been proven to help kids focus." This is NOT true, though many people wrongly think so. First of all, not enough research has been done to fully prove this is true. Secondly, it does not help you get higher test scores, actually it will distract you from taking the test because you'll be so worried on if it'll help you or not. Knowing the information will get you higher test scores. If gum does anything at all, it is solely based on the placebo effect. Also, when kids chew gum, it distracts the kids next to them that may not be chewing gum. "People pick up trash after themselves." So, some people may be respectful to pick up trash. But let me tell you, in school, kids do not pick up their trash. I have plenty of proof since I am in school. Schools that allow gum chewing have gum in the carpet, under desks and chairs, and all over the walls. It is gross. Kids are getting sick because of all the germs from chewed gum all around them. Janitors don't want to clean up all the gum more then anyone else does, yet they are the ones who have to do it. "People are respectful and can be told to stop if "smacking"" First of all, teachers don't always notice that a student is smacking because they are at the front of the room and less likely to hear it. But the other students next to the smacking student are sure to hear it and it is very annoying. Also, if the teacher does notice, the student may stop smacking but then start again a few minutes later. Sadly, students love to play games like this with the teacher. Thirdly, an older student may entirely stop smacking in that class, but since older students switch classes, they will just start again in their next class. This will distract even more kids next to them until the teacher, at the front of the room, hears them. All these distractions and annoyances lower the grades of students that are next to smacking students. ----Conclusion---- I thank my opponent for taking this debate and wait for my opponent's rebuttal. References 1. http://www.teach-nology.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because On that note, not every egg removed is used to make a baby which leads to the disposal of eggs which could cause a lot of anger from pro-lifers. According to eurekalert.org, the risk of ectopic pregnancy due to both IVF and ICSI is about 2.23 times as likely. While IVF has a lot of pros, I feel as though the cons need to be recognized to make a safer and more efficient procedure. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Megan Fox is Ugly because Haha, that's up to the votes. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective. because To my opponent: You are PRO; therefore, you are trying to prove that "The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective." My opponent has made three points endorsing my case: -Conservatism was not what caused the recession -Liberal policies can be blamed for the housing crisis -Even though George W. Bush was a Republican, his policy was not conservative This leads us to vote CON. Any argument my opponent can make in later rounds would only contradict what he's already said. For these reasons, I concede my opponent's argument, and he concedes the debate. 1. Conservatism was not what caused the recession. Recessions are natural and beneficial if not caused by the government or attacked in a Keynesian manner. This recession would destroy a few failing companies and open the market to new companies and small businesses that will perhaps be more successful. In this manner, by opening up the markets for expansion, the markets grow and improve. Conservative policies were not followed. Republican leadership failed to reverse key liberal policies: -Fannie Mae (created by FDR) -Freddie Mac (created by Carter) -the Clean Air Act, off-shore drilling bans, etc (other) -the loans the government forced the banks to make to 'help the poor' (Carter) As we can see, when liberal policy is not reversed, the economy can be stinted from natural recovery. The third element on the list created high gas prices as OPEC was free to monopolize and control gasoline prices. This lead to the fail of many American auto companies, which were at the time focusing on safety rather than economy. This international monopoly was aloud by a country destroying its own competition. 2. The other elements lead to what is now some sort of 'mortgatge crisis'. Again, liberal polices were to blame, and we can not link these outcomes to conservatism. 3. Even though Bush was Republican, he was not economically conservative. This is evident through the bailouts, the regulations, and his failure to undo the liberal policy that would corrupt our economy. I thank my opponent for defending my case and effectively forfeiting the debate. I hope next time he will read the topic for which he is defending before defending it in future debates. Now what to do with the remaining rounds? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Puns are toadally awesome. because Urban Dictionary's 9th definition of pun states explicitly, " Pun- To rip off or steal from someone who has done you favors in the past. (Mike gave Joe money for an ounce of weed, but Joey punned Mike hardcore and used that cash at a strip club)" Horrible... Horrible... I would kick Joey in the throat, not call him "toadally awesome". :-D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Homosexual Acts are Immoral because I am grateful to Con for his reply. Unfortunately, it contains multiple problems. The Open Question Argument Fails In my initial argument, I showed how both Hume's fork and Moore's naturalistic fallacy fail. As William Frankena has pointed out, both beg the question against their opponents. [1] Value is not so much derived from fact as it is built into fact from the beginning. Con, in response, marshalls another one of Moore's arguments: the open question argument. This argument too fails. As I pointed out in my initial post, the term "good" is an attributive adjective. It varies depending on what it is predicated of. There are good cars, good professors, and good computers. All of these are good in the sense that they are fulfilling of their respective functions. Moore's "elementary mistake," as Ralph McInerny puts it, was to treat "good" as a predicative adjective -- that is, as a univocal term whose meaning does not vary. [2] But, as Peter Geach showed, "good" is attributive (equivocal). [3] Accordingly, the good for humans is defined in terms of how we ought to be by nature. This is not circular, as Con argues, since I am grounding moral normativity in biological normativity (which are two different types of normativity). The open question argument simply does not apply to natural law. Evolution and Teleology? No Problem! First , Con does not respond to one of my two arguments for teleology. Teleology is indispensible if we want to (1) make sense of medicine, for medicine is concerned with restoring our bodily processes to the way they should be. This is impossible if there are no such things as functions. His response to my second argument misses the point. Natural selection only selects for beliefs that are pragmatic toward survival, not true beliefs. [4] And even if I grant that natural selection did select for a majority of true beliefs, we would not be rationally justified in holding them. Why? For a belief to be justified it must be produced by a reliable cognitive process. But "reliable" smacks of teleology, which Con does not want to commit to. Hence either way, teleology must be invoked to make sense of rationality. Second -- and even if all of the above fails -- Con's response is simply a false dilemma. Teleology is not incompatible with evolution, assuming it is true. [5] Indeed, if we think of teleology as built in to the fabric of nature, then we can have teleology with evolution. Simply invoking evolution does not disprove teleology. [6] Evolution doesn't have to have an "end in mind" in the sense of looking ahead and planning; all that's required is that there be ends in nature to begin with. Con simply begs the question when he asserts that nature is not inherently teleological. Specifically, he assumes a post-enlightenment mechanistic view of the world as opposed to a Aristotelean teleological view of the world. Indeed, he begs the question against just about every neo-Aristotelean, who thinks that evolution and teleology are compatible! If we think of teleology as inherent to nature rather than legislated by God, then this does not requires us to commit to theism -- indeed, many neo-Aristoteleans are atheists! To disprove teleology, he must offer an actual argument against it. Does Natural Law Require God or Divine Command Theory? No. A natural law theorist need not be commited to theism. Indeed, Larry Arnhart and a slew of other natural law theorists have argued that we can have natural law without theism, so Con's points here are simply unfounded. [7] There are natural law theorists who view it in light of certain tenets of theism, but that says nothing about natural law itself. Moreover, given the points advanced in the last section, teleology does not in itself commit one to theism. Hence I will not respond to his arguments against theism, since natural law does not in itself commit one to belief in God. Additionally, Con's has incorrectly cited Moreland. Moreland is referring not to teleology as I have construed it, but as it refers to complexity in the context of the teleological argument, which I am not defending. [8] Multiple Functions? Sure, why not! Con's reasoning here is simply invalid. It does not follow that simply because some bodily faculties (such as hands) have multiple functions that therefore one cannot ground morality in biological function. That a bodily faculty may have multiple functions only shows that there are multiple ways to realize its good. Nothing in natural law theory says that we must be committed to the presence of only one function [9]. Indeed, our sexual organs have another purpose other than procreation: expelling waste. But that in itself proves nothing. Pleasure is not to be sought as an end in itself , but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything wrong with properly using a faculty with the intention of seeking pleasure. One may intend pleasure as long as he respects the proper function of a given bodily faculty. As I stated before, not all sex must be had with the intention of procreation in mind, only that actions involving our sexual faculties must be consistent with this purpose by being a procreative-type act. One may have sex for pleasure as long as he does it properly (that is, by respecting the proper function of our sexual organs). Similarly, one may eat for the sake of pleasure as long as he eats food that is nutritious. Pleasure is not a Purpose of Sex 6A is unfounded. There is no strict connection between orgasm and procreation does not in itself prove that pleasure is a purpose of sex. Strictly speaking, there is no connection between good taste and nutrition: we can eat nutritious food without it being good tasting, but nothing of significance follows from this. As I stated before, pleasure exists as a motivation for us to engage in certain activities. This doesn't mean that pleasure is a means through which an end is accomplished, as Con falsely assumes. Eating is pleasurable because it motivates us to ingest nutritive substances. Sex is pleasurable because it gets us to procreate. Pleasure can be had independent of nutrition, but that does not prove that the purpose of eating is pleasure. 6B simply doesn't follow. Sex ought to be pleasurable because pleasure serves as a motivation toward getting us to procreate. When this motivation is lacking, it is acceptable to restore it, but it does not follow that therefore pleasure itself is a purpose of sex. Con is confusing parts with wholes. A whole may not be able to function as efficiently when lacking a part, but restoring that part does not mean that both part and whole share the same function. Indeed, parts themselves are subservient to the whole and derive their function by virtue of the role they play in the whole. The purpose of eating is nutrition, but eating is also pleasurable because it gets us to consume food. If our taste buds stop working and eating is no longer pleasurable, it is acceptable to restore the pleasure-giving aspect of the taste buds. However, it doesn't follow from this that pleasure is a purpose of eating. Pleasure is always subordinated a more basic end. If we restore pleasure-giving, we do so only insofar as it is subordinated to a more primary end. [10] I'm not even sure how the reasoning in 6C makes any sense. I can (and do) oppose female genital mutiliation while simultaneously holding that procreation is the function of sex. Mutilation of any sort is inherently damaging and should be opposed, regardless of whether or not that mutiliation affects the proper function of a faculty or one of its related parts. So this is just a non-sequitur. What's more, even granting 6A, B, and C, it does not follow that pleasure is a function of sex. All that it shows is that there is no strict connection between pleasure and procreation, but that does not in itself yield Con's desired conclusion. The resolution is affirmed. Homosexual acts are immoral. Sources : http://tinyurl.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. because I would like to deeply express my thanks to lovelife for excepting this debate. I hope this is both a fun and educational experience for both of us. Full resolution: Assuming war is murder, then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. ==================== Definitions: WAR: A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. (1) MURDER: According to this debate, the act of killing another human being and any scenario. (2) LEGAL: Permitted by the law. (3) ==================== My opponent lovelife has said in another thread that war is Murder. I replied that if war is in fact murder, than murder is necessary. She responded with: "Then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone, not just because they live in a certain place or dressed a certain way." (4) Lovelife also agreed that she would be willing to debate this topic for me. Obviously this debate is more focused on the question "is war a necessity." We are simply using the example lovelife brought up 'anyone to murder anyone.' I ask that my opponent simply says 'I accepts this debate' for round one. I will start the actual debate in round two. Again, I would like to thank my opponent lovelife for accepting, and would also like to thank the audience for reading. I look forward to the rounds to come. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). Lovelife's philosophy. (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Zoo's are bad for animals. because Greg, I apologize as I will not be able to put an argument up this round. My computer crashed and I have only a short time on this library computer. I should have one up next round. Thanks for your understanding! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. because This is really not a debate, and I must admit that my somber icon is not as well suited to the subject as Pro's moe one. Nonetheless, if it involves photography, I'm all for it! I like the Muscovy duck photo because it gets up close to show detail that is not usually seen. Technically, the highlights are slightly blocked so it's hard to see the detail in the feathers. I tend to prefer the whole creature in the environment, but that's just a matter of taste. My photo http://www.quickshotartist.com... for this round was taken in Kawaihae ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) on the Big Island in Hawaii. Kawaihae is an industrial port with few tourists. The movie "Waterworld" was shot in the harbor. The photo is a high dynamic range image from three exposures, combined in Photomatix. The objective is to preserve highlights and shadows in a high contrast scene. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman because I must say I'm not sure how to respond to an argument who's main point is to accuse me of feeling cognitive dissonance in reference to the subject matter due to Con's response and an assertion that my entire rebuttal is not an accurate reflection of my position but that I'm lying, being dishonest, and/or "flip-flopping" to avoid hypocritical self-justification. I thank my opponent for his response: I shall do my best to respond but given the varying ways my opponent has further misconstrued or attempted to misdirect the debate, 8,000 characters will not be enough. An Old Problem Remains... “ this debate is not about the people who hold a pro-life position but about the position itself being either an inhuman or ignorant position to hold” “ My basic contention is that a person holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) is either inhuman – given the logical, philosophical, and real life consequences of holding and/or implementing said position – OR they are simply ignorant of the consequences of holding and/or implementing their position.” In the section Con titled "Cognitive Dissonance" he claims, "The two statements are diametrically opposed." I did in fact address the perceived contradiction my opponent has attempted to point out in section in Round 2 titled “Addressing the issue:” "Given the facts and arguments that I presented in my case, (which Con has dismissed off hand as virtually irrelevant given the limited scope in which he has interpreted my position) holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) did seem to suggest a desire to cause demonstrable harm to a society (i.e. inhuman intent) unless that individual were simply ignorant of the consequences (logical, philosophical, and real life) of his or her position." I may be mistaken, but in order to suggest that the two statements compared in my opponent's response in Round 2 are "diametrically opposed," my opponent would need to cherry pick the quotation (take the quote out of context) from Round 2 to support/make his case. Indeed, even the text that was bolded by Con, when quoting me in my opening argument, seems to be an attempt to lend credibility to the cherry picking. If you read the quote in its entirety and in the context of the preface, it takes on a different meaning from the bolded text alone. Taken in the context of the opening arguments this entire debate was meant to be a challenge to show that the pro-life position was not an inhuman or ignorant position to hold. ...A New One Emerges “ In this debate it is to be understood that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not simply statements of personal preference. They are statements of political (and therefore ethical) ideology. A person who is pro-life does not simply say that they would not get an abortion but they say that abortion should be illegal. A position in which a person would not get or approve of an abortion but would NOT persecute or prosecute a person who would get one is pro-choice.” Prior to going into this debate, Con agreed to this premise (1). Unless I'm mistaken, so far my opponent has concentrated on almost nothing but the personal aspect of the abortion issue in pointing out the emotionally charged aspect of the subject and the ability of a person to hold a rational position while implementing it in an irrational way while avoiding the position altogether. This would appear to make Con's response in Round 1off topic: He is not addressing the pro-life position set forward in the preface, which is one of policy that one would enforce upon other people. The “(Ir)rational” Way "I claimed that pro-lifers weren't emotionally attached to the unborn (or at least not as much as born people), because they were irrational and prejudiced. Despite holding a rational position they are likely to implement it in an irrational way during a life and death situation due to their own prejudice.” Being that abortion is a life or death situation no matter what the circumstances that have culminated in the choice to kill an undeveloped human, the claim made here by Con cuts both ways does it not? I have claimed that there is a third option to the position (as defined in the preface) being ignorant or inhuman which is that it is irrational because of an emotional attachment to their position. Aside: This was not an assessment of opponent's argument from Round 1 but rather a byproduct of it coming into contact with the subject of the debate. The preface makes it very clear that (in the context of this debate) a pro-life position is about implementing a policy in which abortion would be illegal. The two situations in the opening argument were pointed out to show the inconsistency of not recognizing an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person in those situations while holding a position that would force the recognition of an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person which (if actually implemented) would force another person to make different choices from the ones they would make or face prosecution. Would my opponent have the reader believe that making abortion illegal to spite their own decision to save the 9-year-old girl in both situations could not be due to their prejudice, bias or emotional attachment to their position and is in fact a purely rational? The Topic Has Been Found: " Indeed it all comes down to one's definition of person. If one considers the unborn people then all of the practical harmful consequences become moot, as none of them justify the slaughter of millions of people. One could argue that since defining the unborn as people would cause these enormous negative consequences ( very debatable but for the purposes of this debate we'll assume the pro-choice boogie stories are true) then we shouldn't define the unborn as people and doing so is inhuman. Of course this is nonsensical and ridicules.” It is nonsensical. In fact this entire paragraph becomes nonsensical after the first two sentences. Defining the “unborn” as fully fledged people (thereby providing them the same rights as any other person from the moment of conception) would have enormous consequences. A pregnant woman who trips and falls down a stairs could be legitimately be prosecuted for manslaughter or even negligent homicide should she miscarry do to the event. A couple practicing safe sex and had a condom break would be unable to get the Plan-B pill being that it would technically be a murder weapon. These are not “boogie” stories, should a developing human in the womb be considered a fully fledged person with rights, under the law, a pregnant woman falling down a stairs and miscarrying would be no different than falling down a stairs, causing another person to fall and break their neck. A woman even attempting to acquire a Plan-B pill could be charged with attempted homicide. No one would argue that considering a fetus to be a fully fledged person is inhuman unless in defining a fetus as such caused another person to suffer needlessly. That IS what is on debate every time people try to define the unborn (from embryo to fetus) as fully fledged people (2). I would go so far as to say that suggesting that there would be no negative ramifications in defining the unborn as fully fledged people would certainly be ignorant. Conclusion: 8000 Characters wasn't enough. Instead of attempting to fix the misunderstanding I attempted to point out in Round 2, my opponent has attempted to convince the reader that I was wrong about what my position actually is. As a consequence only one point of any relevance (personhood) was touched upon very briefly. 1 http://www.youtube.com... 2 http://www.parentdish.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hate Crime Legislation because Many thanks to my opponent. Arbitrary PRO states that his model takes every group into account, not just “protected group”. He states “If hate towards a particular group aggravated an attack, or caused one to utter hate speech, then that should at the least be taken into consideration by the courts.” Note that he uses the word particular group, not just any group. This ambiguous wording gives the appearance that well, particular groups are protected through hate speech, and not others. He also cites the “Spanish and Swedish Penal Codes” as his model for hate speech legislation which uses: “penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness, or disability”[1]. Obvious, this means that the groups listed above are “protected groups” while other groups are not. However, let’s state for a moment that hate crimes do not involve “protected groups”. Well, in that scenario, it would be impossible to distinguish between a hate crime and a violent or assault charge. Let me explain. As I stated earlier, one commits a crime because he or she hates a person. Second, a person can be classified into a near infinite amount of groups. People are classed into groups based on how people perceive others based on behavior, appearance, etc. Since languages contain many words, there are many words that one can find to attribute a person into a single group. One can even form a few words together to form a type of group. For example, “rock-n-roll fans” uses two words to describe a group. A person attacks another person based on certain characteristics. These characteristics can be classified into a group, and then, bam, you just arrested a person for a hate crime. Even If a person that appears to be a part of a group “through no fault of his or her own” has a choice. For example, a fat person could possibly lose weight, even through liposuction. A gay man can ignore his urge to have sexual or romantic relations with other men. In the “Spanish and Swidish Penal Codes”, religion, belief, and ideology are all protected groups, yet these are obviously choices. A person can choose his or her religion. Why should some forms of behavior, and appearance receive extra penaliy and recive extra protection and not others? Extend this analysis. Assault is a crime within itself. Hate crimes just changes the basis of what characteristic are alright to attack and which ones are not. 2) Litigation Costs CON does not address the argument, only corrects a “mistake” I made. First, jury members are told that the suspect is innocent before proven guilty, however this does not mean that jury members have a emotive bias. If the jury sees a defendant on trial and prosecuted, then he or she automatically might think the person is guilty. Second, this still does not address that expensive resources are used to prove that an assault was a hate crime or not, even though the person will already be arrested for assault. 3) . A person can be convicted for a hate crime without actually commiting a hate crime. PRO seems to have a naïve approach to the courtroom. It is quite easy for a crime that is not “hate-based” to appear to be a “hate crime”. For example, If a white man is known to hate black people, but assaults a man for reasons other than he or she was black, the white man can be put for jail. An angry person can yell a racist or ethnic slur meant to attack the person, however it comes out as hate speech or racial-motivated. As stated earlier, what constitutes a hate-crime is quite subjective, and the defendant might not even know what his or her motive for the crime was. .A well played prosecutor could easily convict a man for a hate-crime that he or she did not commit. Police interregotars are so effective they make an innocent man appear guilty[3] . Even in well-defined cases like murder cases, where prosecution is objective, the Innocence Project has found 250 innocent people in jail for murder. 4) PRO states that his analysis is sufficient proof. However, the analysis is based on no empirical evidence. His analysis only works if we assume certain assumptions. The assumption, “people will be more likely to think twice about how they phrase messages that they graffiti if it can yield higher penalties.” He believes that an increase in penalty will decrease behavior. This is not necessarily true. For example, in Portugal drugs were decriminalized, including heroin. Based on my PRO’s assumption, this should mean that more people used drugs in Portugal. Well it turns out drug use actually decreased [2]. This renders PRO’s assumption as false. There is no evidence that hate crime legislation is effective [3]. Rebuttal: 1 ) Multicultralism I do not state that crime legislation promotes multicultralism. At least, not true multiculturalism. I already questioned the effectiveness of hate crime legislation as stated above. However, even if hate crime laws are effective, I do not believe forced multiculturalism is true multiculturalism. As a though experiment: Let’s a group of people are yelling at one another, and generally aren’t getting along. Now, I put a gun at them, and command them to all get along. They suddenly do, not because their problems have been solved, but because of force. Does this actually believe solve the problem? No My opponent does not demonstrate that multiculturalism is vital to social happiness and democracy, just asserted without substance. PRO stated that he does not advocate controlling thoughts or freedom of expression. However, his justification for hate-crime legislation is to control people’s speech to create multiculturalism. That’s quite the contradiction. 2) Does not benefit society CON rejects the claim that hate cannot be redirected, however this is a natural contradict of basic psychology of defense mechanisms and in-group and out-group theory. In general, we have a natural tendency to create in-groups in which the in-group feels superior to the out-group. It does not matter the characteristics of the in-group, but the results are the same. Hate crime laws don't change this effect. We also have a natural tendency to scapegoat as a defense mechanism[5][6] Pro also states that natural order failed to protect Rwandian Genocide. However it should be noted that assault and murder is already a crime and that it was a government carried out project. 3) Why this isn’t a justification of limited speech PRO states that my argument is against defamation legislation, not hate speech. However since PRO’s argument states that since defamation legislation is justified so is hate speech, the fact that I negated the justification of defamation demonstrated that hate speech is also unjustified. PRO states that defamation legislation is already accepted in our society, however he even states that US does not restrict defamatory speech, ignoring a society of 300 million people in the developed world, and is making a massive Ad populous fallacy. I successfully demonstrated why defamation legislation is wrong. PRO then contradicts himself through stating: “Have we no right to speak falsifiable things?”. Not only did I never once state that “we have no right to speak falsifiable things”, he agrees that people do in fact have the right to state false things, thus demonstrating that even false statements about “protected groups” should not be banned. Conclusion: PRO has not show the effectiveness of hate crime legislation. Since assault is already a crime, it does not make to increase sentences based on arbitrary group charchteristiscs. Speech hate crimes limit the freedom of expression and try to control one’s thoughts and pursuit of happiness. I look forward to the final round. http://tinyurl.com... [1] http://tinyurl.com... [ 2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is ADHD a real disease? because I am just going to refute my opponents remaining points, then do an overview and voters. My opponent has yet to answer the argument that not all identified cases of ADHD are children, which refutes and arguments about classroom settings or school in general. ========================================================== "I believe my point so much that I would bet a lot of money that my opponent did not have a balanced life during child hood. I would bet that there was some kind of dysfunction, an emtional atmosphere that disconnected my oponent from mum or dad maybe even the rest of the family. I would bet the same with all ADHD suffers and not because of statistics or believe. Simply because I have never found a ADHD suffer who was brought up in a strong, secure, loving, safe and well balanced family home. When I find an ADHD suffer from a well balanced family that will be the day I rethink a few things." Actually, I kind of did. I have had both parents my whole life, a fairly active social life, no abnormal physical health issues, normal developmental speed, etcetera. The only issue was when I moved 5 years ago, but it only took me about a year to get over that. So please, rethink. ============================================================ "I would be interested to know how much research my opponent has done into the years before ADHD was invented! Considering that psychology has been studied forever why has ADHD only recently had a need to exist? Psychologist document all behaviour and patterns but only in recent years did ADHD come about desite even smaller less sensative issues being treated as a big deal! Psychologist could have created the condition hundreds of years ago if ADHD is really only controllable by drugs but they never because it did not exist!" This is honestly laughable. 400 years ago, people believed the insane were possessed by demons. Medical science and psychology, only really started to advance 75-50 years ago. ========================================================= It's scary to think maybe a lot of ADHD kids are just really bad behaved because they are simply slower and that is not a bad thing.". I'm in contact with parents and people with similiar stories. Most of them end in the same way, is it so bad that a child cannot give something a lot of attention? Should we not nature what they want to do and make the most of that? If we had this approach would ADHD still exist or would it be replaced with schemes that allow our children to go at life with the full speed their minds want to take them at? Now you are just contradicting yourself. In the first round, the issue was that kids with ADHD were more intelligent than those around them, now its that they are less. Which is it? As for whether or not we should let children do what they wish, does this include dangerous things? Parenting must include guidance and structure, not simply acting as an enabler for anything the child wishes to do. ===================================== Alright. My opponent as yet to refute my arguments pertaining to adults, pertaining to the necessity of societal norms, or pertaining to diagnostic requirements. He simply comes, and repeats himself. As such, because the activities, energy level, and inattentiveness of children range outside of those considered usual for children, ADHD does exist, and is a real mental disorder. Because some level of societal norms must exist, if medication is an acceptable way of maintaining societal norms, then medication for ADHD is fine. There is really no choice but a Pro vote. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro) because First off I would like to begin the debate by saying Hello! Now that that is over let me begin. Systematic Failures of Communism In the world we live in today there has been in recent times a growing movement to throw out systems of Monarchy, Dictatorships, and there economic systems based on socialist and communist Ideals. Through out World History Ideas proposed such as communism have seemed good at the time but like each attempt before them have crumbled and failed. [1] The most well known example of this is the Soviet Union. The Dream of Lenin when he established the Soviet Union was to bring about Marx's' Dream of the perfect Communist State, instead he created the mess we refer to today as Russia. Another major Problem facing Communism is the rampant corruption, corruption in communist states are just awful, like few other states in the world. China is a classic example of just how corrupt and broken the system of communism really is.[2] (To clarify states is referring to government of countries). Recognition of Individualism Under the Communist system there is no individual rights, in fact in many systems there are no rights at all. Once an individual looses his right to make as much money as he wants or rise up in life. In its simple for Communism does not work because humans tend to be greedy. [3] When the ideas and work ethics of individuals are suppressed the individual is given no reason to work, especially if he will be making no more or less. Then there is no allotment for the pursuit of an individuals dreams, what is the the point of working for him? If he can not pursue the dream that he wants to accomplish, especially with no job movement what-so-ever, where is the drive, the motivation to do anything? Pros of Capitalism The idea behind Capitalism is simple, you can make as much money as you want to in life and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to, and you can take as many or as bold or stupid of risks as your heart desires, because that is simply human nature! For the health and happiness of the individual Capitalism is great. It allows for the growth of freedom in the world and the expansion of the rights of an individual. No, there is no guarantee that you will immediately be successful, but this is the only system that lets you put your all into trying to make that dream a reality. In a world where you have to prove yourself in order to earn respect and are given one chance to prove to the world that you are more than just a blip on this earth, this is the only system that will let you. It does not constrain the will and want to be free of being told what do to and how to run our lives, Communism does. [4] Why Communism will fail... "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein [5] Never once has the idea of Communism worked, trying to bring it to the U.S. (for example) would probably see one of it's biggest failures yet. Where Communism has fallen the ideals of Capitalism rise (Chile, Russia, China) and where Capitalism falls, so does the economy (Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea). For Millenium the ideas that have shaped and formed Capitalism have produced some of the greatest minds and improved the world as a whole (Rome, Byzantines, Britian, and now the U.S. and India), with out the system that shapes and defines our world, how much would we be without? How much longer would it have taken to make the scientific, medicinal, and technological advances if no one was allowed to pursue their dreams to make these things a reality? In truth there is no answer, but if given a reasonable thought, you can certainly conclude that we would be far behind, just as each of the countries under communism fell behind. 1- http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net... (I really like this sources because it chronicles the rise and falls of Monarchs and Peasant attempts at installing communism.) 2- http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net... 3- https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com... 4- http://listverse.com... 5- http://www.brainyquote.com... (Just in case) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best Yo Mamma Joke because Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Undertaker could defeat spongebob because "Everything else he didn't refute and in debate silance is confirmance so he agreed with the agruements I made. For that reason I can see nothing but a Pro balot." This statement is absolutely false. Throughout this debate,k I have refuted all of my opponents arguments. If there is anyone in here didn't refute all my argument, its pro. Pro lied about me not attacking any of his argument other than that of the cartoon argument, thus he should loose based on honesty. Pro did not attack: My absorption of water and using it as a water gun argument. He did not attack my argument that spongebob is unpredictable, he did not attack my argument of Sponge bob being able to change his body shape. voters go back and read the debate and you will find that my opponent did not attack virtually most of my arguments, and under his own words, he should loose this debate. Pro, thank you for the debate and I also thank the readers and voters. VOTE CON :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against knowledge is free will, knowledge is memory because I'm not arguing because I've already won. Your whole goal was to prove knowledge = free will and knowledge = memory. I have PROVED otherwise. Therefore, since you could not prove so, I win, and there's nothing to argue. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists because I appreciate Pro's arguments greatly. Pro presents a syllogism to attempt to prove his point. However, I must show this syllogism to be irrelevant to the resolution. A syllogism must contain a major premise, a minor premise, a conclusion, and three terms. This syllogism contains the following terms: A - Theist B - The response 'Yes.' to the question 'do you believe in God?' C - The response 'I don't know.' So, all theist respond yes. If Person A responds 'I don't know', then Person A is not a theist. That is correct, and there is no problem with the logic. However, all this proves is that Person A is not a theist. Pro still has the burden of proof to show that 'all non-theists are atheists'. Pro attempts to do this by citing About.com. I will quote the first line from this reference: "There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism." Because Pro's reference throws doubt to the definition of the word 'atheism', where can we look? The simplest answer is to look to the dictionary. Dictionaries decide on the definitions of words by examining how each word is used most commonly in both verbal and written language.[1] One such dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary Online, also defines atheist similar to the Merriam Webster definition I gave earlier: Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. [2] As the dictionary defines a word as it is most commonly used, then I reassert the definition of atheist as someone who believes that God does not exist. As for Pro's source about the prefix a-, I will also quote a relevant line from that same reference: "You can find more detail or precision for each prefix in any good dictionary. The origins of words are extremely complicated. You should use this list as a guide only , to help you understand possible meanings. " I re-assert that somebody who doesn't have an opinion as to the existence of God does not fit the definition of a theist, nor an atheist, considering that they neither believe, nor disbelieve. [1] http://www.cambridge.org... [2] http://dictionary.cambridge.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with George W. Bush is a bad president. because The typical rules of a 3-round debate usually state that if a debater does not respond for 2 rounds, it is automatically considered a forfeited debate. However let's give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. I do ask that people keep in mind that my position of Pro will not allow me to answer any of Con's rebuttals, therefore you should please disregard any new arguments introduced in the final round. I humbly ask for a Pro vote if my opponent does not successfully argue the resolution. To support my position of the affirmative in this debate, I would like to remind the readers that thus far I have cited many examples in which GWB's leadership and deicision making has done more harm than good to the United States. Because he is our Commander in Chief, he can be and certainly is held responsible to a degree for our successes and failures as a nation. So far in the past 8 years, GWB's actions have been directly attributed and/or contributed to the realities that face our country today: a bankrupted economy; an illegal and unsupported war; a betrayed and apprehensive society (most of whom do not support the policies of our President); etc. Although GWB has succeeded in some (few) areas, most of his 'good deeds' are exaggerated or untrue. I have cited examples of his failues/successes earlier in the debate. In my opinion, a President who has *so many* F-ups in comparison to *so little* good moves is a bad one. Everybody makes mistakes every now and again, but I expect my Commander in Chief and the most powerful man in the world to use his power wisely and not be wrong 99% of the time. I don't think that George W. Bush is a bad person (I don't know him personally) or the worst president in United States history as many people ignorantly assume. I'd even go so far as to note that America could have possibly benefited from a Republican being elected into the White House back in 2000. However Bush's shady practices in addition to all that went wrong on account of him and his politics (including the failures of those he appointed to be his running mate, make up his Cabinet, etc.) just prove that he was not the right man for the job. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Political Science, the most evil science ther ever could be, using law like a flea, bloodsuckers because I am happy to accept this debate. I would like to point out that as the instigator, and being the one who made the positive claim, my opponent has the burden of proof. Since he has not offered any evidence to support his claim yet, I will wait for my opponent to do so before making my first argument. I would also like to ask my opponent to keep a civil tone for the rest of our debate. Since he hasn't offered a definition of "political science", I will be happy to do so. The definition of "political science" will be as follows: Political Science: is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. [1] Source: 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Islam is a religion of peace. because Islam is in many ways a religion of peace. They are renowned for being a religion who are very much community related religion, who tend to believe what they believe. The very few violent Islamic people are usually religious fundamentalists in countries such as Iraq and Iran. These religious fundamentalists are the only violent part of this religion. Minority. All you are doing is generalising the small group of fundamentalists, who are arguing to return to tradition values with current Islam, whom tend to have the monopoly of the truth, and so they can believe whatever they like thanks to our culture becoming secular. Their countries have very few people who disagree with secularisation, however the majority in the UK are happy with their life and therefore do not feel any need to assert violence to prove a point. This is because they do not have a point to make unlike fundamentalists. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is in America's best interest,to support Israel because First of all, I would like to thank gusgusthegreat for accepting my challenge for this debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for pointing out that this debate should be judged by the merit of the argument, not any particular stand on the issue of supporting or not supporting Israel. IRAN "While Israel may be one of the only democratic nations in the Middle East, this does not justify our involvelment in it's protection and alliance." Justify? Let me remind my opponet that his burden is to prove it isn't in our best interests to support Israel. Not to justify or not to justify our support. "In fact, because it is the only so unique country in that area where nations like Iran have stated that they will blow it off the face of the Planet, given the chance, it is in our best interests to withdraw from Israel." There are a few problems with that statement: Appeasment: With this statement, and many others in gusgusthegreat's arguements, he suggests appeasing the Iranian Government by stopping to support the Israeli Government is best in America's interests. Here is some history of appeasment: In the 1939, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England, tried to appease Hitler by letting Hitler invade the Czechlosovok Republic, which was what it was called back in those days. In fact, appeasement didn't work because Hitler tried invading England anyway, and partly thanks to Chamberlain, with a lot more momentum. France, a nation that also agreed to give up their old ally, was invaded, and conquered by the Nazis. So to appease the Iranian Government by stopping to support target numero uno won't work with us either. It won't take us off their hit list: The Iranian Government, hate us just as much as they hate Israel. Allthough my opponent argues that we can take us off their hit list by suddenly stop supporting our allies, the fact is that it isn't just Iran vs Israel. It is Iran vs the West. Part of why Iran hates Israel, and why America supports Israel, is because Israel has western ideals. WHAT ABOUT OUR OTHER ALLIES: In this debate, my opponent argues that since Israel is a target, it is in our best interests to stop supporting Israel. "An enemy of my enemy is my friend policy." That means that we shouldn't have any REAL friends, in order to keep the peace. Have you ever heard the proverb: " You never can really be friends with everyone." It isn't in our best interests to stop supporting our allies, who support us in exchange. Eventually, there could be another conflict, and it wouldn't be good to be alone. "The United States' alliance with Israel links to a blood feud that's been going on for thousands of years." There is also a regional feud between the U.S. and Iran. It's called East versus West. The fact is that, as I argued earlier, the Iranian Government will hate us no matter what we do, so we might as well avoid appeasement. FRIENDSHIP "We CAN still have a FRIENDLY relationship with them." Perhaphs. But there are more benefits for both sides in the current co supportive policy. TECHNOLOGY "Without Israel we'll simply have to repair things ourselves." True. How ever, what I meant to say was that when the United States need some help with a weapon, the fact is that we do often ask Israeli engineers what went wrong and how to make it better. My opponent can't deny this. While we could fix it ourselves, The Israeli's have to fight wars on their home turf with many less men than we have, so they have to use better technology for their millitary. Two brains are beter than one. "18th place." Perhaphs one list says Israel is in 18th place technichly. But the reality is that since Israel hasn't any resources, technology is precisley Israel's depenedence on survival. Albert Einstein predicted it. Here is a list of technological acheivements by Israel: -The cell phone -The solar panell - Sea weed farming -fish coloring -Technology that makes salt water fresh water. In fact, on http:http//www.foxnews.com there is even a story that the Israelis are working on a flying car. "As for the 'Israeli breakthroughs in...' whatever break throughs they have had are all the past now." As I said the Israelis are currently working on a flying car. There is a lot of potential for more break throughs. WATER My opponent denies any possibility of water to become scarce. In fact, only 2% of the water in the world is fresh, and most of that is frozen in the icecaps. Gusgusthegreat might try to rebut alot of these arguements with: Israel could exist without our help. Let me remind the judges that it was gusgusthegreat, not I, who said that "Israel is a fragile nation." He even allowed for the possibilty of Israel ceasing to exist. Now to rebut my opponents official arguements. "1. We eliminate risks, and could consolidate resources, finances, and millitary in order to more effectively wage war on terrorism." Good point... However there are 3 problems with that statement: #1: We also take the risk of appeasment. #2: We also lose recources. #3: Effectively wage war on terrorism? May I remind my opponent that Israel helps us wage war on terrorism. In fact terrorist attacks on Israel, have started before they have on the U.S. The Israelis have more experience dealing with terrorism. "2. We CAN be friendly with them." Barely. We certainly won't be as friendly with the Israeli's as we have been for the past 60 years ever since President Truman supported it's creation. As I said earlier, you can't be friends with everyone. "3. The technology they have developed won't cease to exist." Perhaps, but the technology they are developing, and will be developing will never exist. "4. If it does 'cease to exist, it may be the loss of a good friendly country but we won't be involved in following affairs." Who knows what it would be like without REAL allies. "Action should be taken for OUR nation first and foremost." Absolotely. That is how both I, SPF and yes gusgusthegreat thinks. That is also how Churchill, and yes, even how Chamberlain thought. I would once again like to thank gusgusthegreat for accepting my challenge for debate. I will be interested in who the judges chose. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits