text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against should college sport players have to pass the same criteria as the rest of us? because Since you didn't specify that we were debating public colleges specifically, I interpreted the initial question as all colleges. In this case I believe I already won as you have just yourself stated that private colleges do indeed have the right to set different standards. However I will still continue my argument on the subject of public universities. Because this is the last round I can't ask you to clarify or expand on your statements, so regrettably I can only point out their flaws. -Public University's on the other hand should have a set standard for entry for both sets of students and athletes. This would only be fair for the students and the other schools who actually care about their students. *point 1 You never say why it would be fair. You make a generalized statement and do not follow up with evidence, sources or reasoning. *point 2 It is absolutely fair to have different standards for different students. There is already a multitude of different standards for different students aside from the distinction of student athletes and regular students. As I stated in round 2 a person who is a physics major must take different classes and is held to a different standard that a nutrition major, student athlete or not. -College is still school if you wish to have a free ride go play in the pro's. *point 1 Yes, college is a school. Some people go to learn astronomy, others computer science, yet other go to learn how to master their field of sports. *point 2 Yes, it is a free ride. But there is also free rides for minorities, low income kids, etc. What makes people who get free rides based on their ethnicity more eligible than people who get free rides based on their hard work? *point 3 These "free rides" allow popular athletics departments (like football for example) to generate an income, This in turn helps the school and as a result everyone, including the non student athletes. Lastly I submit to you my final case. I contest that separate standards are not only fair, but actually more fair than uniform standards for all students. You would not expect a person who enjoys writing and excels in it, to become a math major and excel at that. Just as you wouldn't expect the math major to be an amazing football player. You wont hold and English major to the standards of a math major and you wouldn't hold a math major to the standards of an athletes. Just as you wouldn't hold the athlete to the standards of the English major or any variation thereof. These people are in college for different reasons and on different merits. Having different standards fits in perfectly well. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Santa Claus=God because "Pro states that Santa only resembles God when viewed through a child's eyes. However, in the opening round Pro stated forthwith that Santa Claus has similarities with God; no other specifications." This is false, I never said that Santa "only" resembles God through a child's eyes. Santa may resemble a wide variety of things in a child's eyes, since everyone thinks differently. What I stated in the first round was a comparison to a song and a figure. I never stated that Santa "has" similarities with God, I'm claiming that Santa Claus "does" resemble God. "In addition, an adult may not view God has being existent. What I mean is, Adults as you say may not "know God" as well as one child does. It's simply based on belief." It doesn't matter what religion you are, a vast majority of people in the world knows who God is one way or another. It wouldn't really make a difference if you believed or not because there are Atheists who celebrate Christmas too. 1. Sure, there a lots of carols that don't involve Santa, but the same could be said for Jesus as well. 2. The reason children set out milk and cookies is because they want a sign if Santa is real or not. Just like people pray for a good future, they want to a sign to see if he's listening (in retrospect: if he's real). Your right, lets not do that. 3. So, because God has workers, he's similar to Bill Gates? No, if that were the case then God could be compared to a lot individuals. You can't compare God to any normal individual because no "normal" individual can do what God does (like create a whole universe). That being said, Santa is obviously not a normal individual because he's magical. He has flying reindeer, lives in an uninhabitable region of the world, and knows every known child on the planet. Do you know of anyone who has and does all those things? 4. "Coal is something you get for being bad." Right, and Hell is a place you go for being bad as well. You must take both sides into consideration though. A life with Santa is a more simplified way of being good then it would than being in a life with God (which has many more temptations). So when comparing the two, throwing tantrums and sassy attitudes is an equivalent to adultery or speaking blasphemy. Also, children don't fully understand the many temptations and sins that await them when they find out that Santa doesn't exist. That he is merely a mask that was put in front of the face that is God's. This is when they find out who the "gift giver" really is. Parents do this so their children don't worry about as many things as older people do, they want them to be carefree before they come to an age where they need to be brought to reality. When they are old enough to understand the difference between right or wrong, adults see this as a time to bring them to a more a realistic truth (God). With that being said, Santa is a simplified, child's figure for God. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Religion is, in general, beneficial for society because Con - What the hell are you talking about? We never agreed in the debate, comment section or anywhere else that I wouldn't get to post a final round. If you were so concerned about having an equal amount of rounds, then you should have presented a R1 argument, as you were the instigator after all. Nevertheless, here's my final rebuttal. Good luck! - - - 1) Con begins by stating that I haven't brought up these impacts (of religion affecting religious societies) until the last round, therefore this is abusive... What?! I have mentioned this in my first point from my very first round! Just because Con can't think of a proper rebuttal doesn't give him the right to make stuff up in this regard. 2A) After I corrected Con's ignorance about yoga being a form of prayer that keeps you fit, Con so rudely proclaims, "Ummmm.... I said that THE BENEFIT from yoga is that your body is getting a workout. Any spiritual or religious part has no impact upon your health." However, you'll notice that on the contrary, what he said exactly the last round was, "Fitness in no way correlates to religion. Unless you get a good workout by praying, the act of believing in a supernatural power in no way makes you more fit." Lol so again, Con basically flat-out lies here as well. 2 B/C) Con continues to dodge arguments by AGAIN stating that I have been abusive by asking him to prove that religion has more bad effects than good effects on one's mental and emotional health. Con asks, "Why the hell is it my burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects? I can just as easily say it is my opponents burden to prove that religion has more positive effects than detrimental on one's mental and emotional health. Since these burdens were not brought up earlier, discard them." This is crazy talk. First of all, I addressed this in ROUND 1. Second, I *did* prove that religion has more benefits than negative on one's mental and emotional health! Third, Con had the opportunity to answer that question in R3 (this final round); instead he chose to be a chump and again not take responsibility for failing to properly argue his side of the debate. 3) Con stoops low on this one. Basically, I said that people value tradition and as such that brings them comfort and happiness. Con says that most people aren't hard line religious. I said it doesn't matter if Con considers them to be that way; what matters is that these people (according to my cited source) DO consider themselves religious (therefore the resolution and my arguments apply to them). Instead of refuting this, Con just accuses me of dropping an argument and saying that I've dodged his point about tradition. Say what? 4A) "I can't believe that my opponent has the nerve to say that Iran's crusade against Israel is rational. Or that Al Qaeda's attacks against the US are." Too bad. I believe that Iran's crusade against Israel is justified. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with this debate. Moreover, I never said that Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. were. Con continues to straw man my arguments and not present anything of substance of his own. 4B) Con says that his point was that these extremist groups cause more harm than other religious groups do good, meaning religion in general is overall not beneficial to society. I negate. Technology can do more harm than good; however, we value science and advancement, and thus that's a risk that we accept. Moreover, Con has provided NO evidence and NO argument to back this up. Listing a few extremists discredits the MILLIONS of lives that faith based groups have saved, sheltered, helped, etc. over the years. Furthermore, Con has ignored MY argument which exclaimed why crazy fundamentalists aren't a good representation for religion as a whole. And finally on this point, you'll note that despite me bringing this up in the last round, Con has still yet to provide any facts or stats about religious extremists. I'd argue that there are other groups - i.e. politicians - who cause the same amount of harm and death each year. Con failed to respond to that too :) 4C) Con has COMPLETELY IGNORED MY ARGUMENT regarding science and religious ethics. Award it to me. 5) Con writes, "Since religion brings with it immorality, it is more harmful to have religion. If we can have morality without religion, why do we need it." THIS POINT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE; there's no point in refuting it. Also, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my last 5th point, which stated, "Once again, he is scapegoating religion as the only thing that people can be "extreme" about. I've already refuted this point noting politics, extremists who value animal and nature rights, etc. Yes, we can be moral without religion, but we can also be immoral without religion. Con is grasping at straws here :) Maybe the Islamic extremists in particular would not exist had it not been for religion, but others would." Again, since my point wasn't even touched upon, this should be another easily awarded point to me. 6) Con attempts to insult my intelligence and claims that I have not responded to his "argument." His argument was that you can't mix religion and science. To counter that, I gave him a whole explanation (twice) about the contrary and explained how and why he was wrong, along with providing a cited source. You'll notice that yet again, Con failed miserably at trying to refute this point at all... and making me look bad. Haha. 7/8) I've addressed Pro's pointless points several times throughout the debate. He's just illiterate and couldn't find them (though I pointed them out specifically numerous times). - - - Rebuttal: Con says, "IT DOESN'T MATTER that the extremists exist in politically oppressed countries. While we are drawing crazy comparisons, maybe religion is the cause of the political oppression?" Nay. People in Russia are politically oppressed, and they do not live in a theocracy. This point fails. Moreover, my point is ABSOLUTELY relevant, because the injustices Con mentioned in his argument are applied to politically oppressed nations - not religious ones. Fail. Con also admits to straw manning my argument, and then says, "Sorry about the Crusades bit. Agreed, my opponent did not say they were a minority, but she never said anything else about them either. Therefore, you extend my Crusades argument as it was never addressed by my opponent." Absolutely ridiculous. He completely makes an argument up, and then accuses me of not responding. Readers, please refer to prior rounds to observe how Con completely manipulates this point. Conclusion: Impacts/Crusades--> I've provided more overall benefits than Con throughout this debate. Also, Con has provided NO cited sources (despite my pleading) regarding the number of religiously motivated deaths. I maintain that religious endeavors have saved and helped more lives than its harmed. Also, like I said, many of the "religious" wars Con has mentioned have been politically motivated (including Hitler, which he ignorantly claimed otherwise). The Crusades were one bad example of death and destruction, but like I said, religion has been responsible for many more benefits and life saving, including - but not limited to - The Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, innumerable Christian hospitals, etc. Overall, Con has pretty much ignored most of my arguments, straw manned the others, and couldn't successfully refute those he bothered to answer. I have proven that on balance, religion is beneficial to society. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny Youtube Battle because I accept the challenge. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The New Deal: Good or Bad because When Mr. Roosevelt inherited the unemployment from Mr. Hoover in 1933, the unemployment was 12,830,000. When the New Deal policies originally closed in 1937, the unemployment was 7,700,000 million. True, there was brief recession in 1937, but in Dec. of 1941, when the US declared a role in World War II, there were 5,500,000 unemployed. The war dropped this eventually down to 1,040,000 and that the unemployment was still higher after the ND then before the crash in 1929, but this is not an indicator of Mr. Roosevelt's policy. IF he had taken office in 1929, the one could legitimately argue that because he never reduced the unemployment to the original rates, the New Deal was a failure. But, this argument is fallacious for FDR's actions while president dropped unemployment substantially. The claim that the New Deal did not "help blacks much who were in poverty most" is simply not true. Mr. Roosevelt gave 10% of the welfare spending to blacks, for they were 10% of the population. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children to believe that one particular religion is superior. because 1. Mere beliefs do not qualify as evidence... I'm very surprised that you have decided to make the case that belief supersedes evidence. Belief can't change reality. --> I'm very surprised too considering that I haven't made that argument at all. Rather my point is NOT that belief supersedes evidence, but rather the POWER of belief supersedes evidence. We see this all the time: consider evolution, for example, or the story of Creation (we know that the Earth was not formed in 6 days). Yet believers denounce all logic and evidence as rubbish, or find a way to manipulate the facts to suit their liking. So my point here is that EVEN THOUGH you and I may be able to distinguish fact from fiction, and see that the Bible is not the be-all end-all of humanity, believers do NOT share in that sentiment and there is nothing that you or I can do about it (assuming that they're good Christians, of course, who will not be persuaded). 2. A young child can be taught to believe anything, and that is where the danger lies. That is why it is so important to instill a respect for evidence, and logic instead of following something blindly. --> You're excluding my points about all of the good that religion can introduce here, such as the values of generosity and embracing community. What's so wrong about a child learning that from a young age? Further, to "instill a respect for evidence" is suggestive of the fact that evidence is greater than faith, which is the total opposite ideal that religions embrace. Moreover, you're forgetting my point that religions tend to either disregard evidence entirely, or manipulate the facts to suit their beliefs. While I may agree that this can be disruptive to education and even societal progression, I also understand that for believers, following 'blind faith' is pretty much the whole POINT. And while I do not believe that religion should have any part of politics, for example, I do acknowledge that everyone has the RIGHT to follow whichever religion they choose. They also have a right to pass on those beliefs and that part of their culture to their children. I noticed that Pro has completely ignored my comments regarding religion being a very important aspect of one's culture... hmm. 3. Again this debate is not about what parents are allowed to do, but what they should do. I'm sure you'll say that I shouldn't tell people how to raise their kids, but I'm not arguing in favor of this to please myself, but because I think it would make our society better if we cut out all the crap. So yes parents CAN teach their kids that their religion is true, or that homosexuality is wrong by fiat, or that men are inferior to women, or that blacks are inferior to other races. I know you think parents CAN teach their kids these things, but do you really think that they SHOULD? --> Well you're right about one thing: I don't think you should tell people how to raise their kids. Aside from that, the fact that you are arguing in favor of the resolution because you believe it will benefit society really has no value. With all due respect, I couldn't care less why you are arguing this point -- the fact remains that I still disagree with you. But moving on, you then posed the question of whether or not a parent SHOULD teach their children that homosexuality is wrong, women are inferior to men, blacks are inferior to whites, etc, just because they CAN teach them that. In response, I will first have to point out that this is completely abusive in terms of your point. Simply because one endorses a particular religion does NOT mean that they also endorse homophobia, racism or sexism. You're trying to draw a comparison between these analogies where none exists, and as a result, are attempting to manipulate this point by suggesting once again that religion only promotes intolerance and hatred. Have you ever considered a lesson in which a parent might say to a child, "Well the Bible notes homosexuality as sinful; however, this Book was written by men hundreds of years ago when the world was not as tolerant as it is today..." ??? My point is that it is absolutely possible for a parent to pass religion onto their child while still teaching them to RESPECT people of other cultures and beliefs, even if they find another religious beliefs to be inferior. Remember that thinking another's religion is inferior has nothing to do with thinking that the other PERSON is inferior -- it's just that truly having faith in your creed means that any other belief is of no spiritual value to you. 4. The views of an ancient middle eastern culture are being extrapolated and stretched to govern the way enlighten people of the 21st century live their lives. We're simply better than that. --> And I would agree with you here. However you're forgetting 2 very important things: One, not everyone follows the Bible to a T. Many Christians are accepting that a lot of the Bible is metaphorical rather than literal. Even so, the fact that Christians do not adhere 100% to the Bible proves that there are exceptions, so to speak. And second, what does the Bible really have to do with this debate anyway? We're talking about religion in general here, and only Christians follow the Bible. Pro cannot make the same accusations about Buddhists or Taoists, so... 4B. Catholics and the Gallup Poll --> First of all, once again I strongly dislike limiting to the term 'religion' in this debate to apply strictly to Christians or Catholics in particular. However with this point, I think you were attempting to prove that Catholics in general were less accepting of gay marriage than Americans chosen at random. However this statistic is completely flawed, because you have no way of knowing that the Americans chosen at random weren't also Catholic or religious...? Anyway this point of yours was frankly incoherent, but since we're talking about Catholics, and this debate is about kids, I figured I'd share this statistic since you apparently trust the Gallup Poll more than my own judgment (and rightfully so): "Catholic youth, however, appear to be nearly evenly divided [on the issue of gay marriage]: 52% approve and 48% disapprove." Source: http://www.gallup.com... 5. I've already made my point that theoretically, all true believers of any faith will automatically deem other religions in a sense 'wrong.' It doesn't mean that they don't respect other beliefs, but if you believe in one thing 100% then you cannot believe in another. For instance, either you believe Jesus was God or you don't. 6. My argument revolves around whether they should or not, and I argue that they shouldn't because society would be better off without it... In contrast, a particular religion is taught to a child because the parent thinks it is good for them, when in fact it is not. --> Not once in this debate has Pro proved or even attempted to prove that society or children in general would be better off without religion. 7. When I raised concerns about the practice [of circumcision], and the health effects I was thinking more of Judaic and Islamic countries where it is mainly done for religious reasons. --> So now you're saying that in Middle Eastern countries where they have THEOCRACIES that religion should not be taught?! That's ridiculous... 8. There is tangible evidence that a higher level of education is directly linked to better pay, and a better life in general. --> I've explained the benefits of religion in one's life, and besides, Pro is suggesting that better pay is more substantial than moral living as it pertains to religion, which to believers, is just not the case. 9. I would prefer that [children] not be brainwashed by anyone. --> If it's not religion, it'll be the kid in class. Or the media. Or the magazines. Etc. 10. Yeah, abortion is a whole other issue... let's not get into it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent should go Fvck himself. because In round one, I clarify that the V is a substitute for the letter u. My elaboration on the resolution in round one takes care of that problem, the reason for the letter substitution is due to the sites filtering system. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women. because Thank you for posting this debate, and good luck. Now onto the argumentation. My opponent has three key points: 1. Adding more reserved spots is bad My opponent is under the impression that stores will take away normal spots and convert them into pregnant women spots. This would never happen, as businesses could simply convert current handicapped spots into handicapped/pregnant spots. Therefore, no spots would be taken away from the average consumer. 2. It's healthy for pregnant women to walk more This is true...to a point. It is healthier to walk than do nothing, but stores shouldn't decide if a pregnant woman should walk more. That's the woman's choice. Following this paradigm, McDonald's should put treadmills at the cashier so people can lose weight before eating a BigMac. 3. The vast majority of people are not pregnant Furthermore, the vast majority of people are not handicapped either. This argument only is important if my opponent is advocating the abolishment of all handicapped spots. Businesses do not benefit from making it easier on those handicapped, and it deters people who aren't. My own arguments 4. Reserved spots are safer According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1 in 5 accidents occur in parking lots. http://www.telemundo51.com... A pregnant woman cannot jump out of the way as easily as others, and a spot close to doors can lower the chance she has of being hit by a car backing up. 5. Reserved spots are safer...for another reason An average person can trip and fall without suffering too much injury. A pregnant woman is not so lucky. The added weight increases the chance of broken bones and injury to the baby. During the winter, parking lots can be covered with frozen streets, or rain water can be the ground more slippery. A parking spot closer to the door will lower the amount of ground a women needs to cover without slipping on ice or water. 6. Can be used at discretion Businesses should offer parking reserved for women. Yes. Do they have to ensure all pregnant women are eligible? Nope. If preferred, the business can offer spots but require that the pregnant woman has a sticker/waiver/note from doctor that is in the car that explains why she needs a special spot. Again, thank you for posting this debate, and I hope it is a good one. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sonic will not lose to Mario. because . . . I thank my opponent for his extremely timely response and again apologize for my comparatively slow ones. ~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///1) Direct your attention to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. It is a collection of twenty-four events based on the Olympic Games.../// Here my opponent makes an invalid comparison. Not only is my opponent comparing the game-play from one game to that of another separate one but there is also no objective way to gauge the abilities of Sonic to those of Mario on that game. ///Did the creators of Brawl strengthen his abilities so that he can do battle with the other characters? I would say yes./// This point is mere conjecture made by my opponent with no evidence given to support it. I can just as easily say that they did not beef up Mario's abilities. ///And it's not only Mario. We see Princess Peach in the game who has an unexpected moveset that can demolish and obliterate Bowser.../// I don't see what this has to do with the debate. It is about Mario and Sonic, not Peach and Bowser. ///Were the Brawl creators rushing ideas when they made Sonic? Or were they intentionally limiting Sonic's abilities to balance him out, just as they have done with the rest of the cast?/// More conjecture, my opponent has no evidence to show that this is the case. ///Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have presented three rounds of debate on how Sonic can prove himself an impossible-to-defeat foe to Mario. My opponent has unfortunately only revealed no methods in how Mario can win, but a video of a game that acts more of a truly enjoyable tribute to Nintendo fans than a crossover that mimics flawless gameplay physics and features./// I would like to direct the audience to the resolution of the debate. >>>Sonic WILL NOT Lose to Mario<<< My opponent has gone out of his way to try and show that the provided video is invalid. This is just to try and throw you off of the fact that the debate resolution has been NEGATED. Sonic clearly loses to Mario in the provided video. I would like to see some evidence that could possibly do more to show how the two match up against each other. The problem with this wish is that there currently is not any other way to objectively compare the two in terms of fighting ability. The resolution is an absolute. >>>Sonic WILL NOT Lose to Mario<<< The resolution is not ambiguous and no terms were provided in the opening round for either of us to follow. I will reiterate, the evidence provided by me is the most objective way to conduct a battle between Sonic and Mario. Whether or not the fight was a fair one is left to the imagination, but my opponent has provided no actual evidence that shows that it wasn't. Even if he did it is not my responsibility to negate a resolution that was not stated or agreed upon before the debate's resolution. It was my opponent's responsibility in this debate to affirm the resolution in a way that I could not counter. He has neglected this responsibility and I have provided evidence that is impossible t counter. I urge a Con vote. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Unknown examination dates because As I feel all of pro's rebuttals fell through or will be addressed in my final conclusions, I will not address them directly at this moment. For my conclusion, I would like to defend the erroneous notion that I dropped the aforementioned arguments, and then directly address pro's reasons as to why he thinks he has made a better argument. 1. The round one arguments I supposedly dropped were the ideas that unknown dates would reduce time spent on emphasizing the test, and that a reduced focus on testing was good. First, I feel as though I was very clear about my view of time. I may not have put it in a big, bold heading, but I discussed even in my first post how review and repetition were vital keys to learning, and how this is well known to cognitive psychologists. All that talk we had about spaced versus massed presentation dealt with this issue of time. On the second issue, my opponent's argument was once again addressed. While his heading argues for a reduced focus on testing, his argument below that heading is actually focused on the issue of data dumping, which we discussed to death all throughout our debate. In his last section under the reduced testing section, my opponent comes back to mention the issue of reduced testing, which had nothing to do with his previous paragraph's formulation of the argument, and stated that we weren't really here to talk about whether reduced testing was good or bad. His emphasis was that data dumping was bad, and this was a result of the emphasis on testing. The data dumping was what inflates the test scores and offends my opponent, not the "side issue" of a focus on testing. 2. I did say that pro's system would make it harder to cram. But, I also emphasized that this was a short term and shortsighted solution. Cramming would still work if students timed their studying just right. If the strategy of cramming still worked, flashing lights should go off telling you the problem isn't resolved. The tests haven't changed, and higher level, long term thinking isn't being tested. While I would concede to pro that his solution would most likely help reduce grade inflation as a result of cramming, the problem pro is trying to solve is not grade inflation in general. He is bothered by the lack of knowledge retention and tests actually reflecting long term, in-depth understanding. His solution doesn't even come close to addressing this, since the assessments aren't changed at all. Pro's proposal throws the idea of Bloom's Taxonomy and universally accepted knowledge of higher level assessments out the window for a quick fix on paper. But reducing grade inflation on paper doesn't increase intellectual retention. Pro does try to save his system by saying that his will promote spaced presentation. However, pro is missing two key points. First, as mentioned above, he's not changing the assessment. Any exams taken will still only measure basic knowledge that is not reflective of long term understanding. Secondly, if pro is advocating spaced learning, he seems to agree that review and practicing for tests is a good thing, as spaced learning is an integral aspect of higher level examinations, not rote memory exams like he is putting forth. Or maybe pro is assuming these kids are going to go home and study every day. If he goes to a school where kids do that, sign me up to teach there. 3. I may be a bit idealistic, but that's the point of everything we do. When a mechanic fixes a car, his ideal goal is for it to work, and he's going to use the means he needs to make it work. As an educator, we know what works. Spaced learning, higher level thinking, goal orientation, and diverse assessments are vital to meaningful learning. Is every teacher going to teach appropriately and in align with these standards? Of course not. But what happens in the rest of the world when people know what to do to fulfill their jobs, and don't do it? Theoretically, they either get better or get fired. Not all teachers will teach correctly, and not all teachers will get caught teaching poorly. Some will suck for thirty years, until they retire. But I find it preposterous for pro to argue that I'm right about my ideals, but they're too good to be true. Things will never change if you don't hold people to standards and work to fix things, which is evident in pro's very proposal. He does not advocate solving much of anything, but seeks to minimize the damage of a broken system he aims to perpetuate. In conclusion, changing the assessment to test higher level thinking is the only way to ensure that you're actually testing for long-term, meaningful knowledge. Pro's system doesn't test for the knowledge he desires. And where meaningful assessment exists, common themes of spaced presentation, known goals, and diversity are present. You just don't see that in the monochromatic assessments and teaching that revolve around current, multiple-choice, memory based assessments. Once again, I appreciate pro's desire to train youth so they have meaningful knowledge. I respectfully disagree with his solution, but I admire his vision. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should chickens be allowed in city apartments? because If you've got more than one chicken, they will pick on the weaker and sick ones and kill them. They defecate EVERYWHERE and you can't control it. Chicken's can give sicknesses and diseases to people like the Bird Flu. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools because I will be arguing that creationism has no place in public education. It is a profoundly unscientific approach to the origin and diversity of life and the available data and evidence fit much better with the theory of evolution than with creationism. In addition, creationism violates what's known as the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution. These are the three pillars of contention that I shall be building my case around. 1. Creationism isn't scientific 2. Evolution better explains the evidence 3. Creationism is unconstitutional Let's look at point one first of all. Creationism is unscientific for a variety of reasons, it's not falsifiable, it doesn't make any testable predictions, there is no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence against it, in addition to it blunting Occam's razor by grafting on the premise that life needs a designer when we have a perfectly suitable naturalistic explaination for the diversity and complexity of life in the form of evolution (more on that later). As a result, creationism has been widely rejected by the scientific community. A Gallup poll taken in 1991 showed that of the 480,000 scientists in the U.S., only 5% were creationists. That number however takes in to account engineers and scientists not working in fields relevant to the creation/evolution debate. When only taking in to account scientists working in relevant fields, that figure drop to less that 0.15%, and that's in America, the country with more so called "creation scientists" that anywhere else in the developed world. Creationism is unscientific simply because it does not follow the scientific method. A scientific theory begins with an observation, leads to a hypothesis to try and explain the observation, makes testable predictions, constantly compares those predictions against new evidence, then experiments are done to test it's veracity even further, experiments that must be reproducable and replicated to ensure that the theory really is the best, most complete explanation of the way a facet of the world works that we can offer, and when a better theory comes along, the original theory is either discarded or ammended.Creationism begins with the hypothesis and looks for observations to support it. Creationism offers no testable predictions or experiment by which we might test it. Creationism offers nothing that could falsify it, and now we most definitely have a better theory in evolution by natural selection, a theory that provides a powerful explanatory mechanism that creationism doesn't, it makes testable predictions, and the many observations and experiments supporting it are reproducable. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism doesn't rise above the level of hypothesis at the very best, and pseudoscience at worst. So let's look at evolution. Evolution is one of the most watertight, widely supported, rigourous theories in science, standing proudly alongside relativity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics. It's supported by molecular biology, it's supported by the fossil record, including transitional fossils that creationists endlessly claim don't exist, and it's independantly supported and verified by other fields of science, including medicine, many treatments of which, such as vaccines, have to take evolutionary principles in to account, in the case of flu vaccines, the disease that the vaccine has been designed to combat evolves, which is why new vaccines need to be brought out each year to combat the new strain. The level of support evolution enjoys from the scientific community is almost unanimus, many members of which, are Christians, or religious in general. I'll elaborate further on the evidence for evolution in my rebuttals as it will no doubt be challlenged (and rightly so, this is a debate after all) but for now I want to examine the legal argument. The establishment clause is a clause found in the first amendment of the U.S. constitution that states, verbatim: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This ensures that the United States cannot ratify a state church or state religion and ensures that religion and state are kept separate from each other, in other words, a religion, any religion, can't dictate the running of the state. Creationism is a religious viewpoint, even if you attempt to dress it up as merely a biological hypothesis, it's a hypothesis based solely on one's religious opinion, it has to be, because as I demonstrated earlier, the scientific method does not lead to the conclusion that there is a designer because such a theory is unscientific in a variety of ways. As further evidence of this, I call to your attention the very highly publicised legal trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area High School. This was a result of a recent decision of the school board voting to challenge evolution and "teach the (so called) controversy". The court found that intelligent design (which is just creationism in disguise, something else the court found) was a primarily religious initiative that unnecessarily and unconstitutionally entangled church and state, failing what has become known as the lemon test. It also found that intelligent design was not science. The lemon test examines three points. Is the action purely secular? Does it promote or inhibit religion? Does it entangle church and state? A failure of any of these conditions means the action is unconstitutional under the establishment clause. Intelligent design fails all three. So, with my opening statement, I will now turn the floor over to my opponent for his first rebuttal, and shall address his opening statement in my next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Great Britain- The Anti-Christ's last stand because Europe is not a Superpower //Woah!!!!!!!! Which country do you live in? Europe currency Euro runs will on the American Dollar but it still cannot compete with the Pound. Proof that Great Britain can sustain itself.// Europe is not a country, it is a continent. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //US Jealous Neighbors Afghanistan- the Taliban will be back again. They will never be extinct. China- The red dragon- the horse of Satan is the only nation that can take up the Super Power Status after the US and it will be waiting for an opportunity to attack the US if it gets the chance. The Middle East- Iran, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt are not friends of the USA. Are they?// These are not neighbors of the US. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //I never talked of Harry Potter here. You are bringing in subjects that are not supposed to be included in this topic.// Yes, but you did talk of dragons giving blood. I assumed you confused unicorns with dragons, because dragons aren't in the bible, whereas unicorns are. And unicorns, in the first Harry Potter movie, give blood. You argument is irrelevant in the first place. Europe does not worship Dragons //You are right only god damned people of the Far East worship the Dragon or the Satan. But you cannot deny the fact that the Coat of Arms of Wales is a Red Dragon.// Prove that all people in the Far East worship the dragon or satan. In fact, atheism is highest in the Far East. For your second argument, just because something happens to have an insignia of something, doesn't mean anything. I have a dragon poster in my room. Am I a satanist? Do I worship dragons? No. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //My grammar may fail at times but that is the only reason you can put up in this debate thinking you might sneak a lucky win. Fine, my grammar is not fine I admit it but please stay in the topic. I have been called worst but I will not stop writing because I was born to write and write only. Back to the Topic// Irrelevant. //Great Britain is in Europe- You have never seen the Map of Europe its' ok you can// Terrible grammar, I don't even know what you are saying. 1)My opponent has yet to prove that Great Britain will host the Antichrist. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //Ans. The beast rises out of the Sea and the British Isles is surrounded by sea. I have answered you first question.// Many countries are surrounded by seas or oceans. Am I to believe they will all spawn Antichrist's? Also, you have yet to prove they will rise in the first place. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. 2)My opponent has yet to prove that there is an Antichrist. //Ans. The Spirit of Anti-Christ still exists. Christians consider that the people like Hitler, Nero had the spirit of the Antichrist. I wish a Christian was debating with me.// Beliefs do not equate proof. A logical Christian would agree. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. 3)My opponent has confused Europe, Great Britain, and Rome with each other many, many times. He has also confused //Italy with Rome several times. Ans. Rome is in Italy.// Okay, you still have not refuted my argument. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. 4)My opponent is connecting points that do not exist. //It would make sense if you were a Christian.// You have yet to prove this, kind sir. And I am sure many a Christian, Catholic, Jew Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Viking would disagree. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //How can I debate with someone who denies the Antichrist? I did not start the debate on "Does the Antichrist really exists?"// Simple, you make valid points and good arguments. And the Antichrist's existence has absolutely everything to do with whether it will rise or not. 5)There have never been 7 consecutive kings named Charles //That is right.// He concedes his main point. 6)According to scripture, the antichrist has never stood before, thereby negating my opponent's argument. Con wins by default. Vote con. //The Antichrist has not come in flesh yet thought the Spirit of Antichrist has been present in this world since the beginning.// Prove that the Antichrist has arisen before. The devil and Antichrist are two completely different things. The bible doesn't mention the Antichrist until revelations. Opponent's argument/rebuttal negated. //I think I have answered all your questions.// No. Even if you did, you did so extremely poorly. //Instead of debating with me you have found other ways – like criticizing me, telling me that AntiChrist does not exist and making fun of my grammar.// Criticism, refuting your opponent's argument, and a bit of flair is what debate is all about! //Debate with me.// I have done so. What I want you to do is to learn how to debate well. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum because I'll accept that challenge and thank Pro for the opportunity. THESIS: Some accepted definitions of the word "progress" do not apply to every degree on the political spectrum. Although the provided definition of the word progress is one recognized definition of the word "progress," there are are other definitions of the word that do not apply in all of the contexts supplied by Pro's argument. DEFINITION: prog·ress [ n. prog -res, -r uh s or, esp. British, proh -gres; v. pr uh - gres ] noun : activity in science, technology, etc., especially with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created. [1] For a more encyclopaedic perspective on the word progress, let's take a look at Wikipedia: In historiography and the philosophy of science, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc. [2] In the context of politics, this definition of the word is the definition that generally applies. Typically, but not quite exclusively, the application of the word "progress" is used to invoke left-of-center politics. However, the notion of progress as a social or technological evolution of humanity is clearly antithetical to some portions of the extreme right-wing: some religious groups would refute any value placed on progress or human self-determination, some nationalist extremists would oppose progress in any global context, some racial supremacists would exclude some human populations from any franchise of improvement, etc. Certainly, since Teddy Roosevelt, "progress" used as the stem word of Progressive politics or Progressive movements is decidedly left-of-center in political orientation. In 21st century American politics, an organization that places the word "progress" in its name is defining itself on the left as pronouncedly as an organization with "family values" in its name is defining itself on the right. The political orientation of the Vermont Progressive Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or the Center for American Progress is declared by simply invoking progress in the name. I should say that I am confining this argument to American politics, seeing that Pro begins by refuting the American Left's usage of the word. Left-Wing ideology, stemming as it does from the division of the French Estate General, is here defined as support for social equality. [3] Conversely, Right-Wing ideology is defined as support for social hierarchy or social inequality. [4] In so far as the political definition of the word "progress" always implies increased democratization and self-improvement on a national or global scale, the word is generally exclusive of Right-Wing ideology. So, while abortion rights might be considered tangentially progressive in the extension of a civil right, Obamacare is a more classic representation of an expanded franchise and so progressive legislation. Gun ownership as a right was originally a progressive cause, expanding the franchise of self-defense to every class of people. Gun control today may also be defined as progressive, in as much as the implementation of regulations regarding registration, training, accountability represent organizational improvements. In these contexts, all definitions of the word "progress" are relevant. A resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, on the other hand, would represent a return to a traditional, less scientific political model. Although it might represent the attainment of some organization's goal, resegregation would not mean "progress" by every definition of the word. Likewise, the continuation of many Islamic traditions, while potentially an attainable goal, would not qualify as "progress" in the sense of human advancement. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (history) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with murder is right because "Lets see if he can prove this one right. put him to the test. he nust prove murder, is in some way, good." Gladly. Murder may seem like the ultimate evil to many, but it's effects are absolutely necessary in order to maintain human life on our planet. Environmentalist estimate that the earth will reach its maximum capacity when the population is within the range of 10-12 billion. For a better understanding, take into account my chart below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Population Chart: 1804: roughly 1 billion 1927 (123 years later) roughly 2 billion 1960 (33 years later) roughly 3 billion 1974 (13 years later)roughly 4 billion 1987 (12 years later) roughly 5 billion 1999 (12 years later)roughly 6 billion The rest is what is pure estimation based off of the above increases: 2013: 7 billion 2028: 8 billion 2050: 10.7 (high) or 8.9 (middle) or 7.3 low) billion projected ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now what happens when the population overshoots the earth's carrying capacity? I'll tell you. Our resources diminish and mostly everyone ends up dying. Something needs to be done to keep the population at its current level and death through means other than old age is necessary. Murder is beneficial to keeping the population in check; it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) can be seen in the fact that it manages to help keep the world balanced. Given that my only objective was demonstrate how murder is in "some way" good, I believe I have conclusively upheld my stance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because Con, I must thank you for posting such a quick reply. But, let's ditch these formalities and get to the "meat" of the matter. (Pun totally intended.) First of all, I accept your change to the definition of Necrophiliac. That was very kind of you to edit my mistakes. Second of all, you say that "Both of these acts that said body would be donated to are illegal and morally wrong." I will assume that these acts are in reference to cannibalism and necrophilia. While they may be morally wrong to you, they are far from illegal, per say. Now, I know I said they are illegal, and I must apologize for not being more specific. Necrophilia, is not illegal. Cannibalistic, is not illegal. However, to PERFORM, necrophilia or cannibalism, is illegal. Why? Because, to have sex with a dead body would require a dead body. To obtain one, you would have to kill someone or steal one. If you kill someone, you will most likely be charged with homicide. Even if the killing is consensual, you could be charged with assisted suicide. If you steal a body, you could be charged with petty theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the coffin. However, I decided to kill you and have sex with you when you are dead, I would receive a first degree homicide charge. But I would receive no additional charge for having sex with you when you are dead. Cannibalism is the same. Yes, I would have to kill someone, which is illegal. But eating them, is not illegal. I challenge you to find any law that directly bans having sex with a corpse or consuming a corpse. Now, I can agree with you, we can't let people run amok when it comes to sex. But if we can help people, I believe we should. I support gay marriage for the same reason. And if I can help someone by letting them have sex with a corpse, then I will. "Necros have the right to have sex as every other human being does already. They dont, however, have the right to commit illegal acts, and should not be encouraged to do so." I concur. But if they are doing nothing illegal, then shouldn't they have the right? What I hope to do is allow Necrophiliacs to be able to use a government run system which would be quick and effective. I also hope to use this government run system to educate people about the possibility to help people who are cannibals are necrophiliacs. "How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this? Part of it is the thrill of knowing that theyre dong something wrong, the crimes would still be commited and the registry or "business" would fail." I disagree with you 100% here. While I cannot speak for cannibals, a study on necrophiliacs show why they have such a odd fetish. * 68 percent were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner; * 21 percent by a want for reunion with a lost partner; * 15 percent by sexual attraction to dead people; * 15 percent by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and * 11 percent by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159). See http://en.wikipedia.org... Don't go anti-wikipedia on me, because the source was from a semi-famous book. Thank you again for taking up this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Yo mama joke off because My friend told me that i'm pretty good @ yo mama jokes. So, ive come to put it to the test. (BTW im a girl so i have way more bite) BRING IT ON PLAYAS!! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Macro Evolution is supported by evidence. because I have sent this challenge to FritzStemmberger. Rules: This is not a debate on abiogenesis This is not a debate on the existance of a creator This is not a debate on the age of the Earth This is not a debate on educating children on evolution Burden of Proof is shared No semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries) Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works. Arguments: 1. Transitional Fossils If evolution is true, then transitional fossils should be observed. Transitional fossils are observed.[1] In fact, there were many primate fossils that were observed, too. [2] However, there are a few known gaps[2], probably because they have not been discovered yet. This is a valid piece of evidence for evolution. 2. Vestigial structures and atavisms Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. [3] Evolution, if true, will leave behind atavisms and vestigial structures. They have been found. There were creatures with atavisms or vestigial structures, such as whales with hindlimbs, newborns born with tails and the wings of the ostriches(which cannot fly), [4][5]thus confirming evolution. 3. Genome Size Creationists claim that evolution cannot make organisms better and better because the genome cannot create more genes and can only work with what is already there. However, that is false, because the size of the Amoeba dubia genome (not an intellegent creature) is 670,000,000,000 base pairs , while humans have 2,900,000,000. [6] Humans have a smaller genome, but are more evolved and intellegent than the Amoeba. This means that evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.talkorigins.org... [3] http://www.livescience.com... [4] http://www.talkorigins.org... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [6]www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Haiku Battle because Oh, I didn't know That you were really that bad. You don't stand a chance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution because Ok right where to begin? Thank you again for another pointless but fun debate. Just to let you know I take evolution as a joke. One big joke. I would like to point out that by saying fossils are proof for evolution is like saying a missed target was shot at, again. You simply can not say both fossils or the shot are proof for either the target being hit or not or that the fossil as alive creature, gave birth. By saying fossils are proof of evolution, you are saying also, if a target is missed, it will be shot at in till it is hit. That maybe the case that adventually the target will be hit but you got to be there to witness the shot to be completely sure. Just like you have to witness a dead long gone creature giving birth to a creature you think it evolved into. Otherwise it is one large geussing game of prove me wrong. You can take physicality as a belief too as well as spiritual existence. For an example, you have to believe that aliens exist, as you do not know for sure. Just like evolution you have to believe it, and alike with aliens there is no proof for either. Whats the difference? Alien's, you could believe that they exist, but you can not see them, as either they are too far away or they are to close to us to be seen (aliens huh). So aliens have a possible existence on their side, but not being able to see them because they are not on planet earth is a down side on their behalf. Evolution has the aspect of being able to be seen, all the dead creatures, beast and monsters, but they are dead and can not see them, but we could if they were alive. So evolution has the fact that we can witness, as they are where we live on planet earth. But evolutions' down side is that they can not been seen as they are now fossils. Let me put this in a clearer perspective for you. Aliens - Can not be seen as their are too far away. Might be seen because they might already exist. Evolution - Fossils for fact could be seen as they once were living creatures. Never again will they be seen because they are now none existent. Tell me if you have to believe in aliens, why take evolution as a proven fact? Why not take the existence of aliens be classed as a scientific fact too? Come on, see how fast open space is. One person could own 1 trillion stars on earth, just for the size value. Same equal properties, just different values. Surely they are worth the same? ^^^^Aliens and evolution^^^^ that is. Next I will discus why I think fossils prove nothing towards evolutiuon. Fossils are only remains on a once lived creatures. The strongest point here is that you or anyone else does not know for sure that any fossil gave birth to offspring. You know the sex and you know that they must have had offspring to get creatures we have on earth today. But, this is what no one knows, which creature gave offspring, and when. You may guess at the date or which creature gave birth, however you can never be totaly sure. You also can not know whether the cureture is any different than it's perants, as you can not give any DNA samples as both are dead. You either put together a jigsaw puzzle which can not fit together bit by bit but the picture would match up, or you have a jigsaw puzzle what fits together but the picture on the puzzle does not match up or make any sense. You can not inherit both, as you were not there but you are here now, either that or you die now and know what creatures look like today but you will not be here to tell people evolution is for real. Sorry by my methods for fossils are no proof for evolution at all. Carbon 14 dating and all the other datings, rock testing etc... Just either add dust or take dust away, in that I mean sometimes they are trusted other times they are not? Dating methods are either trusted or not. Just can not have both. Examples: "A Dinosaur carbon dated 9,890 years and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim" - The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods) A living mollusks was dated by using carbon 14 dating to be found at 23,000 years old. So what are you thoughts now? Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question) Or are you now going to change the facts to fit your evolution theory? This is another quotation, it is taking about carbon dating, "This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead." -- The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods) After finding out that the date which the carbon dating produced made out that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago. I for one just believe in the Bible. You may support me on this more than these carbon dating results, am I right? Look alikes: You will say that because one kind of creature looks the similiar it must be related, now there are different points of veiws you can look at this. You can say that all animals have limbs so they must be all related in some way or another. Or you can say one animal has two springy legs used for jumping and a croaky sound when it calls out. You would then say that a frog is related to a toad or another frog which is much smaller and produces deadly posion. Where as you would say that all animals are related in some way because they all have a beating heart. Either that is logic or just plain stupid. I think it is stupid. Not logical as you have come across a new bigger problem, to disprove a common designer, which is needed to create the universe in the first place. I am logical in both ways where you are only in one. I am logical about there being a common designer and I am logical about the universe needing a creator as the universe is a creation. You are only logical about, if whether all creature have eyes then they are all related in some way or another. And not at all logical about the universe appearing from nowhere or nothingness. That is final. Period! However, lets continue alittle further. You could also say that all mamales are related because they all have hair. No, you are getting closer but you are still off target. We are trying to get accuracy here not a convient belief system going. You clearly do not know if a mouse is related to a cammal because you have not witnessed any offspring which has caused there to be either a cammal or a mouse from a none mouse or cammal. You only use the fossil record like our belief in God and Christ that the Bible uses as evidence for both God and Jesus. Jesus and God both do exist no doubt just like those fossils once existed as living creatures. Evermore we take ours as a belief that Jesus did those miricals and the Christian God created the universe. You do not take it as a belief but ponder on about it being scientificly proven, when it clearly has not. If you do not believe in one thing, you have to believe in another I supose. Anyway if you said, "Ok then all creatures that can have hair, have two eyes on front of the head (not on the side) and have able fingers that can pick objects up, are all related." Again this is closer but you still have a huge variety of mamales which all have those features. Monkies, apes and humans. It seems that monkies are best at climbing, and apes are worse than monkies but better than humans. By this link you asume by using miss used logic, that can easily be mistaken for the truth, by using this logic you are forgetting about God, purposely.In that God exists today and because of that you fear hell as a consequence. These mamales are not related and none have a common ancestor but a common designer. Your life becomes much more meaningful, worthy and great when you look at life like this. Not meaningless, worthless and petty. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with smoking cigarettes is stupid because my resolution was to show that smoking is a stupid choice to make. you have conceded that there are obvious better decisions. well since it's stupid to go against the obvious better decision, then smoking is a stupid choice. i have proven my point. i never set out to prove that there are no benefits of smoking. in fact i listed a couple benefits in my first post. drinking urine can be called good because it can temporarily help quench your thirst, but it's stupid to drink urine when you could drink water. by your logic, drinking urine is a good choice to make. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I din't say it. because Since the title of the debate is, I didn't say it. I propose that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that they did not say the word 'it'. If they can prove to me that they did not say the word it, then they win this debate. If they do not, then they lose the debate. If my opponent contests with their burden of proof then I will be happy to discuss this too since we have 8000 characters to do so. The definitions of the terms in the resolution are simple and no semantics shall be used. The undefined words (all of the words) should be interpreted using common sense. If you do not understand or cannot define a term logically or sensibly. You can refer to the Oxford diction ary by typing: "define ____" into Google. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because ======================== NOOB TACTICS | ======================== RE: Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole Pines: My opponent contends that because Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole pines, that he would not be able to pull off the tactics mentioned. His reasoning behind this is that one of his physical condition could not hope to climb the tree because there are no handles or knobs to latch onto, HOWEVER . . . Let us remember the conditions both my opponent and I agreed to: 1) He has the strength to lift 180 pounds. Granted, he has no buff frame (which could possibly used to speak of attributes that don't concern strength . . . which would mean that he received this strength upgrade via "magic", radioactive insect, or latent mutant powers). 2) We both agreed that the Kleptin in this universe possessed a "high quality hunting knife." Granted that the knife is of high quality, Kleptin could use it as leverage he may or may not need (assuming his strength boost isn't enough), when climbing the tree. 3) We have both agreed that this Kleptin is a master of tree climbing. "And since the Lodgepole Pine dominates large expanses of land, and other trees are located far from that location, the time it will take to find such a tree will be much more than 30 minutes." Not necessarily. As indicated by my opponent's 4th condition, the preparation occurs within the fighting area. Simply visiting a lodge house and attaining a park map as well as a park guide would make it a simple process for Kleptin to find any other trees. Nevertheless, this wouldn't be necessary as Kleptin would no doubt be able to climb the trees thanks to the three attribute conditions which I had provided. RE: "And although I can sprint (in this debate) a mile in five minutes, a bear's top speed is 35m/hour" Very true, but this is not something which I contested, thus I ask that the audience dismiss my opponent's bear/human speed comparison. The purpose of the speed condition was to lower the amount of time it would take to travel during the 30 minute's of preparation as well as to give Kleptin enough physical stamina for a possible argument my opponent may provide. =========================================================================== Utilizing biological weaknesses =========================================================================== RE: "My opponent greatly exaggerates my intellectual resources. Though I am well versed in pharmacy, I am unable to recognize herbs and flora for their pharmacological uses. This rules out the use of plant poisons." I'm out of time, thus will possibly save this argument for later. As of now, consider it conceded to. RE: "There are no such poisonous animals that my opponent has stated." My opponent source is most certainly lacking information. Let us refer to the following source: http://www.ultimateyellowstonepark.com... "Park visitors rarely spot rattlesnakes, but the poisonous snake does reside in Yellowstone's northwestern corner near Gardiner, Montana. Reaching up to four feet long with a rattle on their tale, rattlesnakes bear brown skin with dark splotches. Most rattlesnakes will retreat unless threatened, but a bite can be fatal to humans if not treated quickly and properly. Visitors should be especially careful near rocky areas, as snakes frequently sun themselves on rocky ledges. If you hear a rattle, stop and slowly move in the opposite direction of the sound. If you are bitten, immobilize the area, and immediately seek medical attention. All rattlesnake sightings should be reported to the nearest ranger station." Now as indicated above, my opponent is correct in regards to these creatures being rare when taken the entire vass park into consideration, however . . . as shown, they do reside in a precise location, thus this depends on what part of the park Kleptin enters. *sigh* Unfortunately, not something that I took into consideration when creating this debate, thus making this area of the subject murky (I mean really, it just turns into a "Would Kleptin most likely enter in section X of the park of the park or not)". :( All I can say is that if he enters from the Gardiner Montana region, he should feasibly be able to come across the snake and use the snake venom to his advantage. However, now that I think of it, I never installed a time limit to this match. Thus, if Kleptin manages to elude the bear long enough, he could eventually each his destinationof the park on foot (though this would take a great deal of time). Eluding the bear should be relatively simple. After all, Kleptin could simply wait in a lodge house, wait for the bear to get hungry and go get a bite to eat . . . and run off (while making sure that he leaves enough of his scent into to lure the bear into following him, which can be performed via defecation or urination). Come to think of it, this method could also be used in terms of finding a tree which is easier to climb. ;) RE: "As for the targeting of vital spots, I know the locations of vital organs in the human body, but am not aware of their general location in bear anatomy." Even if this isn't the case, Kleptin should still be aware that hitting the bear nearly any place along the neck or piercing the knife through it's brain should be sufficient. RE: "It is a common myth that playing dead will fool a bear. " On the contrary: As my article indicates, Grizzly bears are likely to be fooled by this trick based on their general nature. RE: ". Since it has been stated that this bear specifically wants to kill me (it is not seeking to ensure my death but specifically to kill me) we can then say that playing dead or curling into a ball will do nothing but lead to my demise." We can do no such thing. Although it has been stated that the bear specifically wants to kill Kleptin, if the bear thinks Kleptin is dead, the bear is more likely than not going to do anything further except get back to its own business. Of course, if the bear isn't dumb enough to buy Kleptin falling over as indication of his death, Kleptin could always stage his death in more elaborate way and come up with the plan while heading to the area of the park which includes rattlesnaked (which by the way, even if Kleptin doesn't logically deduce the location, eventually traveling around the park while strategically eluding the bear would be the means of him finding one or more). RE: " As for the creation of a trap, the preparation of such a trap would probably take a substantial amount of time, not do to thinking, but actual construction." Again, something which I do not have the time to respond to (4:00 minute remaining). Gonna have to temporarily concede. RE: "Subduing the bear in the manner my opponent has illustrated is also impossible. First of all, the bear's front limbs and chest are immense bulks of muscle, whereas my spindly little arms will be nothing more than annoying twigs." No time for a precise explanation. However, if you'll look to the youtube video at the right, the proportion between an adult man and a grizzly bear should indicate that my opponent is greatly exaggerating the size of the Bear's bulk. And that's all the time I have. Will try and respond to the next during the following. However, as long as you (the audience) buy one of my scenarios for victory, it shouldn't be a problem. Later. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711. because "You haven't shown why the categorical part of the statement's being false affects the actual resolution." The categorical is part of a conjunction: the resolution. If one part of a conjunction is false, the conjunction is false. "If Hunton711 actually accepted this, then the question is still whether or not I would have won if he accepted the original challenge." The question never was whether or not you would have won if he accepted the alleged "original challenge". The question always was whether or not you would have won "this debate", as you four times clarified it. The word "original" or equivalent appears nowhere in your post. The word "challenge" appears once, as a verb, present tense, followed by "...to this debate." You then inform us that you're "opening it up to the floor", suggesting that the resolution itself has not changed. Perhaps the most damning evidence against the "original challenge" theory comes from your keyboard in Round 2: "...he would be arguing the same thing you're (supposed to be) arguing." Unless I'm "supposed to be" arguing against anything but what you now identify as "the resolution", it appears he would be arguing that he did in fact accept "this debate", as that's the simplest way to refute the resolution. "Second, I don't see why the truth of the statements is relevant. Really, your only job is to negate the statement 'Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won.'" It's unclear whether you're implying that falsification is something other than negation or that I negated the wrong statements. False statements have truth value 0, thus falsification is precisely negation. The reiteration, "Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won" is semantically equivalent to the resolution. Thus, it can similarly be deconstructed into negatable components and thereby negated. "You're trying to create semantics where there isn't really any room for semantics." See Comments <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO because Hect has dropped nearly every point, so extend all, and vote pro. Key Dropped Points : The DDO Terms of Use he agreed to actually forbid plagiarism. Every voter has full authority to penalize plagiarism. DDO would be a nightmare if plagiarism were allowed. Plagiarism is most clearly bad sportsmanlike behavior. Final Rebuttals : "I don't do this to 'win'" Hect believes he should win for cheating. "I should be locked up … Airmax1227 can blow me" I will however cede that he may be looking for a different kind of victory, as he's seeking attention from the site admin, then requesting to be "locked up" for it, to receive sexual favors. "what are you my English teacher" No, but you may be need of one. The fact that you plagiarize Sam Harris' work, but don't know how to properly write his name ( "Sam harris's" ), implies a lot about your education. "my cowardly opponent would see this knowledge blocked of from the general public" No, I would see it cited so people know where to find more of it. "only those wealthy enough to afford a proper education or the adequate books " This I can fully refute in one word: Library . "I say nay, nay to your capitalist society and nay to your elitist regime." Wonderful pathos. Completely without merit in logical argument, but would sound nice in a speech. "No I will not steal from the poor and give to the rich I will steal from the rich and give to the poor." It has already been established that plagiarizing here is attempting to cede ownership of material to Debate.org, which in turn gives it to the parent company Juggle.com; therefore when you say "give to the poor," your definition of poor is those rich enough to own a NASCAR. I fail to see the benefit. "this is outrageous and my opponent should apologize and show some shame!!!" Apologize for wanting people to be able to find who wrote ideas to learn them more in depth, I could have sworn access to information was your argument, which concealing the authorship actually harms. Review : Last round I put forward an unrefuted case against plagiarism, and the way to avoid the pitfalls of it (penalize it when caught). Whereas Hect has no case. The best he did was Robin Hood themed pathos appeals based on straw-person arguments; which were both pre-refuted and self-refuting. Plagiarism is cheating. It is cheating the readers, cheating your opponent, and worst of all cheating yourself. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because Although IVF allows couples who are infertle to have the opportunity to concieve there are several harmful effects to using the conventional IVF procedure. Drug protocols shut down the woman's regular cycle and takes 4-6 weeks to take effect. For the carrier mother, Ovarian hyperstimulation Syndrome is extremely common(CREATE Health ltd.2016). Also if the eggs are taken, then there are effects on the pregnancy such as a spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, underweight and premature birth, and for the mother a risk of preclampsia which cause an extreme rise in blood pressure and if undiagnosed can cause deaths (WebMD.2016). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation is better than the Minkowski interpretation because Ave Resolution This debate will be about whether the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better than the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity. I will be taking the position that the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better. Con will be taking the position that the Minkowski interpretation is better. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other. Rules The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating. I made this debate 10k characters so that each debater can have a very good reference page for investigation, not so each debater could ramble for a full 10k characters. Definitions I will be using William Lane Craig's definition of each interpretation, as I find them to be suitably simple and understandable for a debate like this. Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame. [1] Minkowski Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 4-dimensional geometry of spacetime points. The central feature of this interpretation is the light cone structure in spacetime, and the familiar notions of reference frames, speed of light, etc. play no role in this interpretation. Objects are four-dimensional wholes, whose respective proper times and lengths vary from coordinate system to coordinate system. [1] Better: best supported by philosophical and empirical inquiry http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Vale <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I Am Not Charlie_Danger because You is so dumbfounded by my greatness, amirite? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Science is not evidence against the existence of God. because I thank Con for his arguments. I do however feel like he has completely missed my point. Fortunately I think his arguments may be helpful in making my point clear. Con says "If you see something in the world, that is an observation." What Con says is indeed true... but one's observations aren't always true, correct, or accurate. Observation once suggested that the Earth was flat, and science believed it... that was an observation that perfectly illustrates why observation does not always match Reality. It's not just about observing, but about seeing the bigger picture and seeing things from the right angle. There are also thingswhich simply can not be observed in the first place. Reality does not conform to observations, explanations, or science. Con should be careful not to overlook this critical point. Con says "If you have an explanation for something, that's a hypothesis." Whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law... they are all ultimately explanations . First let me once again say that Reality does not conform to explanations... explanations are supposed to match or describe Reality. If an explanation does not match or describe Reality accurately then it is wrong. It doesn't matter who came up with it or how they did so. It doesn't matter how long it has been accepted or considered true. It doesn't matter how much observation and experimentation has supposedly proved it. Reality is not dependent on explanations. Explanation are dependent on Reality. To put it another way... Reality is the Territory and science is the Map. First of all the Map can never completely represent every aspect of the Territory. Secondly an accurate Map depends upon an accurate perception and interpretation of the Territory. It is never ever the other way around. One should never forget that a Map is a representation of Territory. A map is not only a representation of Territory but is by necessity based upon Territory. Finally a map is an explanation of a Territory, an explanation that allows one to understand and move through the Territory. Reality is the Territory, and science is the Map. Science(the map) must always conform to Reality. Reality(the territory) never ever conforms to Science(the map). Con says "Science itself refutes the existence of God as something that cannot make it past testing has no hold in the scientific community." I have explained above why Science does not determine Reality. Science has absolutely no bearing on what does or does not exist. A map has no bearing on what does or doesn't exist in a in the Territory it describes. A map can of course decide what “supposedly” exists or doesn't exist but if it doesn't match the Territory then the map is wrong. By the same token Science explains Reality by observing, hypothesizing, experimenting e.t.c but none of this alters reality. Even after going through the rigorous scientific method, something accepted as a theory or law can turn out to be wrong. This is evidence that Science does not determine Reality. If science did determine Reality why would it ever be wrong? With that in mind, what science can or can not test is completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to existence. What science can test may determine what can be proved to exist or not exist, but what actually exists doesn't need to be testable in order to exist. Testability is not a criteria for existence. Our inability to test any given things or phenomena does not make it non-existent. There are countless things in the universe which science will be able to test... we couldn't possibly test everything in the universe. Does that mean that all those things don't exist? Is any part of the universe that we can not or have not tested non-existent? That would be a ridiculous and baseless assertion. Now one can always argue that something that can not be tested does not exist... nobody is denying that. But don't think that Reality is going to bend itself to match your arguments. Just like Reality isn't going to bend itself to match what science expects of it. My point is simple, Explanation and Reality are two different thing. Knowledge and Reality are two different things. Science and Reality are two different things. Reality does not answer to, depend upon, or conform to science. Con says “Until you can actually follow the scientific method, don't lecture me on what's real or not.” What is real is not dependent on whether you or I can “actually follow the scientific method”. What is real is not dependent on the scientific method in the first place. What is real will stay real whether or not the scientific method proves it to be real. To put it simply: Science(and the scientific method) do not deterine Reality. Con says “If God did exist, we would have noticed by now.” Whether or not God exists does not depend on whether or not we notice Him. Just because we still haven't seen or noticed some star at some remote edge of the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our notice has no bearing on existence... though it can change existence haha. It does not however determine what does or does not exist. Anyway, my apologies for taking so long to reply. I look forward to your arguments, and I hope I have finally made myself clear. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Morality does not come from any religion. because Re.Argument Number; One Rebuttal Number One & Rebuttal Number Two: Resolution: "Morality does not come from any religion." "The Ten Commandments is a list of ten moral standards by which the God of Christianity would want his people to live. So, I have showed that the Christian religion have morals. Once again, my opponent hasn"t showed exactly how all of these morals have been adopted by the Christian religion from the. So, my claim still stands to be true, unless my opponent proves otherwise." I agree that there are moral teachings within religion; however Religions adoption & exploitation of our naturally occurring morality, likely done so to add weight to the given belief system, is not proof of creating the original morality that they reinforce. Hence the morality came from another source and Religion plays on it. "standards that humans created for themselves" We did not create these standards, they are traits that evolved and were favoured. Language was not required as they started out originally as behaviours and were instinctual and /or emotional responses. Quote from interview with Professor Psychology, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University Marc Hauser. http://www.abc.net.au... "Those people who believe that morality and religion are synonymous need to think twice out that. Well, I think it's a completely misguided view. I mean Peter Singer and I have written about this. But I mean what we're finding now is that in many cases when you ask 'do people with a religious background show different patterns of moral judgement from those who are atheists or agnostic'? The answer is no. What we're interested in doing now, which is one of the projects that we're engaged with, is if you ask questions that are morally live right now like abortion, and euthanasia, and stem cell research, you'll pretty much find religious groups kind of lining up on one side and non-religious on the other side. But the intriguing thing is that when you can conceal the dilemma in terms of the real role case and give a kind of an artificial dilemma that captures some of the crucial ingredients, there does not seem to be differences between people with a religious background and those without." I understand and contend therefore that we all share the same sense of morality as we evolved it together, it is no wonder that Religious people deny this as the science vs religion divide makes them feel understandably threatened in their beliefs & there is psychological value in the beliefs held. This does not change the fact however that there is significant evidence that people behave in a moral way with or without Religious teachings and that evolution and group theory provide a logical and evidenced based proposal that i believe reinforces the argumen t " morality does not come from any religion". Marc Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong published by HarperCollins provides lots more than I ever could on the subject. This has been my first debate , so please forgive any informalities and thank you to my opponent whatever the outcome. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with murder is right because In his R2, CON has claimed that he sees no problem with my analysis of murder but that I still haven't managed to demonstrate how it is good. However, ladies and gentleman, I've done just that. For you see, there is no single universal idea of "good." CON requested that I demonstrate that murder was in SOME WAY good and I gladly complied by demonstrating it through being good in a utilitarian paradigm (hence my line "you gotta love utilitarianism in these debates . . . which is actually a nod to my LD days, but that's besides the point :D ). http://en.wikipedia.org... : Essentially, this form of ethics looks at the results of actions when identifying good/ethics. The results of murder contribute to decreasing overpopulation (which can and has caused the nigh-complete annihilation of many species). Thus, when taking this into consideration, this is quite literally a finished debate where I am already victorious. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall answer his responses provided in the previous round. RE: "Sure our population needs a decrease badly, but i find no morality in having an innocent person die by the hands of another, and have it called 'good' just because the population decreased one more." See my explanation on utilitarianism. In addition, good doesn't merely equate to morality. If we are to speak in terms good meaning sheer benefits/gains, then again, murder is in SOME WAY (again, these be the words of my opponent) beneficial as I've already explained. RE: "If your mother was killed tomarrow, would you say that it is 'good' because the population is a tad bit better?" In spite of my opponent employing an incredibly obvious appeal to emotion here, my answer to his question is YES. If we are to agree that murder helps combat overpopulation (which we both agree as bad), then my mother's death would be in SOME WAY good. This "some way" would be utilitarian good. RE: "If were worried about population there is other ways of achieving this goal." 1) Red herring fallacy. Whether or not there are indeed other ways of combating overpopulation, this has nothing to do with whether or not murder is able to do this, hence be in SOME WAY good. 2) I never said insisted murder was the only way. My point was that it's beneficial and nothing more. Thus, I really need not entertain my opponent's "counter plan" to combating overpopulation (as it is completely irrelevant). Nevertheless, to further pacify him as well as be as thorough as possible in this debate, I shall do so anyway. RE: "1st, we can take a non-murderous but very communistic action and be like china banning more than a few children per person. 2nd, we can do what they do in the movies and live on mars." 1) Ignoring the fact that such a plan fringes on liberty, I'd have to point out that what my opponent has claimed is too idealistic. Just how are we going to get the entire world to cooperate with one another, much less give into this plan. No doubt would the mere attempt cause wars. 2) Although seemingly a good plan (when ignoring the fact that there are faults from this first plan which would be faults of this plan as well), I must point out that real life doesn't quite equate to "the movies." By current technological standards, we cannot live on mars. It's absolutely unfeasible at this point. And given the blows NASA is getting, I doubt we'll even be colonizing to mars during this CENTURY. RE: "Both these ways, though odd, are ways we can survive population problems without killing anybody at all." Both of my opponents methods are unrealistic at the moment, thus really shouldn't be looked to as means of solving the over population problem. Still, even if you are to buy into his methods, we've gotta remember that citing different methods of dealing with overpopulation has no bearing on my arguments or this debate. I could say that living in a mansion is better than living in apartment, but this doesn't disprove the fact that there are indeed benefits to living in an apartment. The scenario is the same here as the debate concerns whether or not there is any good that comes from murder. CONCLUSION: I've complied to my opponent's terms and have shown how murder is in SOME WAY good in terms of a utilitarian understanding of good (again, not to repeat this 10 million times, but it's good stimulates from the fact that it contributes to decreasing overpopulation). Thus, for great justice, vote PRO. Thanks for the debate. :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater because First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. Pro has only proven that Bill-O likes to yell and scream a lot. This is not bias. Pro has also shown numerous clips of Bill-O debating people with opposing viewpoints, which supports my argument. If Bill-O was biased, he would only interview people with the same viewpoints, which is obviously not true. My opponent has defined "bias" but has failed to define "completely" or "often". -completely - to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... -often - frequently http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... I would like to remind my opponent that he bears a tremendous burden of proof. Pro bears a tremendous burden of proof because he has to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator. I am greatly curious to see how Pro proves that Bill-O is 100% biased and frequently false. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with animal breeding because well that was boring! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against RAP BATTLE(begginners) because Damn you must not've heard of me; you're sounding so absurd to me If this is war dude then you're going down like Germany I could still win even without another word from me As it just occurred to me your skills haven't reached maturity About to get beaten by a girl and feel a world of insecurity And I'm glad to see you claim that you respect women Was that supposed to impress me? Sorry, it didn't Like your last verse - how could you think you made a fool of me? Yours was worse; rhymes so sad I thought it was eulogy So I hope this means that your days of rapping are dead Maybe some Hooked on Phonics should happen instead After I win, my ego's fed; we'll make peace and break bread But til then I won't cease; you're too easy to shred So you better bring your A-game in upcoming rounds But don't think of acting foul just cause your balls are out of bounds On your weakness I'll pounce even after smoking an ounce Cuz there's only 1 title and there can't be 2 crowns <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics. because I accept burden of proof. Apathy- lack of interest or concern http://www.merriam-webster.com... pacifism- opposition to war or violence of any kind http://dictionary.reference.com... "Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny." -Laurence Overmire Part I: Apathy When a people do not care what their government does to them, they are more likely to tolerate it. People gradually take more and more until they are victims of tyrrany. Being apathetic is the ultimate cause of tyrrany. If such a thing occurs to a people, it is often because they were apathetic. Apathy leads to tyrrany; therefore, it is a dangerous approach towards politics. Part II: Pacifism Often times, violence is justified. This is especially true when a people are being attacked by a group that does practice violence. The group that is pacifist will tolerate this violence towards them. Ultimately, they will be abused and ultimately ruled by the very people who were violent towards them. Pacifism leads to being ruled by foreigners who care not for your people. Part III: Conclusion When a people tolerate too much, their situation gets worse and it effects their lives in dangerous ways. I'll leave it there and await an opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals because :O PRO has forfeited.... == REBUTTALS== I didn't finish refuting PRO's arguments in the last round so I shall finish here. PRO says " My opponent then for his second contention states that The American Dream must be achieved by the people themselves. Our belief is that any person deserves the chance to achieve the American Dream, but this doesn't guarantee them a successful life. He gives some examples to. The examples he gives show people, who one in a million. Bill Clinton may have had a drunk father, but he lived in a good neighborhood and worked hard, where as we can see that there are a lot of people that live in bad neighborhoods, don't have schooling, drop out, and then make bad decisions. To event further extend my own point, lets looks at President Bush, he was a drunk and failed out of most schools. But because of his wealthy father he was able to get back on his feet and become president. People may have to work for their dreams, but they cannot properly do so if their ability to carry out work is hindered." 1)Even if he lived in a 'good' neighborhood, it doesn't change the fact that domestic violence occurred. Domestic violence can cause traumatic stress and increase mental problems, yet Clinton worked around this. 2) PRO talks about how candidates have an advantage with money, but money doesn't force people to vote for those candidates. The people can choose whether or not if they wanted to vote for, in this case, Bush. Democracy is still evident. 3) In the case of presidential campaigns, candidates receive public funding from the government. PRO says "Finally my opponents third contention state that the existence of wealth among the citizens of America simply proves that our free markets are working. Many of America's wealthiest citizens are also among the most ambitious, clever and hard-working. This is a sign of the freedom to successfully direct one's economic self-destiny. Okay, every country has an existence of wealth, does that correlate to success as a whole. The fact is, is that these wealthy people have more rights, the fact that our markets are working has not relation to the threatening to democratic ideals, and not everyone has access to the markets, and even of those who do, only a handful have a noticeable profit." 1) I've already stated this before, and I will again. The rich and the poor are entitled to the same exact rights. One cannot say that you can "buy" certain rights. 2) PRO says that my argument about our working markets isn't relevant to the topic. However, a commonly cherished democratic ideal is the idea of a free market. We invest in a free market system, and gaining profit from this is a sign that it is working. 3) PRO also states that not everyone can access our free market.. However, this isn't true. Anyone who wants and has money can access a free market. A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. A free-market economy is one within which all markets are unregulated by any parties other than market participants. We've already established that we are talking about employed people, which implies that we are dealing with people that have the right resources. Now, anyone who meets these standards can participate in the exchange of goods. Needless to say, they are in a market where prices are determined by supply and demand. By the way, I've decided to elaborate on my response to PRO's argument about how employment doesn't mean that people have enough money. 1) Within America, there exists something called the "minimum wage", which draws the line at which businesses can give the lowest pay for a person's work. This increases the standard of living of workers, reduces poverty, and forces businesses to be more efficient. == RECAP== 1. I've stated how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by any employed person. 2. Everyone has the chance to fulfill the American Dream, but isn't guaranteed the success of it. 3. Income disparities show that our free market economy is working, and people can direct their economic destiny. 4. Student Loans, supported by the government, allow more people the access to higher level education. 5. Government and local organizations exist to provide a range of services for the needy. This allows them access to the rights of life and liberty, however the pursuit of happiness is in their own hands. 6. The government has passed laws in order to ensure equality between different races. 7. Spending limits withhold the amount of money a candidate can spend on a certain state. 8. Public funding by the government is provided to presidential candidates for campaigns. 9. Limits on how much you can donate helps to prevent and hinder people who are trying to gain 'favors' from candidates. 10. The top contributors are made public. 11. Secret ballots keeps who you vote from private, so that 'buying votes' is impossible, as you have no form of confirmation. ==== VOTE CON :D! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid because My opponent's arguments are all logically invalid, as I will show. 1. My opponent claims that something with qualities that are not qualities of life is living. This is obviously false. One of the properties of life is having boundaries. http://findarticles.com... (Property Number 3) However, God is defined as omnipresent. Therefore, God is not considered to be a living thing. Therefore, it cannot die, as living things do. 2. My opponent's second claim, that God does not have a physical body (therefore it cannot function) is false, as an omnipotent God would not need a physical body to function. Further, "listening" to prayers is not a defined property of God, and judgement was not specified as something God does. 3. My opponent states (again) that God must have a physical body to function. An omniscient and omnipresent God would not exist in a particular location and would not need to be present in a particular location to percieve (as it is omniscient). 4. My opponent's third argument attacks specific religions. However, this is irrelevant to the debate. 5. My opponent's final argument is that God would need a cause. This seems the most justified argument yet, and so I will take some time to answer it. This question creates a trilemma: Either: 1. God existed eternally and the universe did not. 2. There is no God and the universe existed eternally. 3. There is no God and the universe did not exist eternally. When compared to the first possibility, the second is eliminated, as it would be foolish to assume that the physical could exist eternally yet the metaphysical could not. When compared to the first possibility, the third is eliminated as well, for it assumes that the universe exists definitely (so there would need to be a cause for its existence). However, nothing exists outside of the universe to cause the universe to exist. Therefore, the universe should not exist. However, it does, so the third option is eliminated. There exists a fourth case, though it was eliminated by logic: 4. God and the universe existed indefinitely. This seems even more unlikely than 2 or 3, as God has already been defined as the creator of the universe; therefore, if God exists, then the universe did not exist indefinitely. I await my opponent to reinstate his points. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with its ok to be homofobic because Peaceful protesting is perfectly fine, though it doesn't prove that it is not okay to be homophobic. In addition, my arguments still stand. What is there left to do? Vote pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Capital Punishment because I value life, and with this value i uphold the people who have died by murder. The innocent people who lost their life by currupt minded people. By losing their life they have lost all happiness their life had to offer, or any joy they brought to their families or friends. Capital punishment is just. because how else do we punish these sick minded people who go out and slaughter our innocent people of America? We kill them, so they feel the same pain and loss that the person they killed felt. It's fair, and it's right even though it may be harsh. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Adobe Photoshop Battle because Ok so this is what I have done. Made a response image to Rockylightning's image as requested it is in my album called "Photo shop" here is the link to it http://www.debate.org... I have done this buy using photos from Google image search. I am using CS3 My challenge for my opponent is to make a ruined modern day city. images used ( I have run out of characters I cant send the other links) http://www.google.com.au... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sarah Palin would be a good president of the United States. because In the lead up to the 2008 presidential election, Senator John McCain was in need of a running mate that would serve as his vice president. And given the extremely competitive nature of that race, McCain was in need of someone that would give him his desperately needed popularity boost. From an outsider's perspective, it would seem that his advisor's criteria for deciding a vice presidential candidate was fairly straightforward. They had to pick a nominee that would sufficiently sway evangelical voters and simultaneously appeal to disenchanted Clinton supporters. To strike this balance, McCain's advisors choose governor Sarah Palin — the slogan spouting, wolf hunter from Wasilla. Quite thankfully, the former governor went down in history as one of the two losers of the 2008 presidential election. Unfortunately, the campaign ended up making her a national figure. Consequently, the prospect of Sarah Palin attaining the republican ticket for the 2012 presidential election isn't as completely ridiculous as it once may have been. Those that care about the future of civilization should find this disturbing. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Palin's nomination as president of the United States would represent one of the most potent and invidious threats to American hegemony and global stability since the Cuban missile crisis. This may seem like a grandiose claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the potential hazards of a shocking blend of piety, confidence, and ignorance. Should Palin become president, she would become capable of enacting policies so ill conceived and detached from empirical reality that the world's various nations could conceivably unite to oppose us. Of course, this need not be the case; there are other options to a Palin presidency. ============> The Audacity of Hype: Why Sarah Palin Is Unfit For The American Presidency <============ C1: Sarah Palin's views are incongruous with the pursuits of a civil society. Though many of Palin's views are fairly mainstream (in the context of American religiosity), some of them still represent dangerous fantasies that are at odds with rationality. For example, given the religious milieu that Palin grew up with, there is every reason to think that she believes in the rapture and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. While Palin's beliefs about the origins of life are disconcerting, her likely views on the rapture are far more disturbing. In fact, it is a faith position of the Assemblies of God church she attends that Alaska will be a ‘refuge state' in the ‘last days'. [1] Thus, if this bright-eyed Alaskan were to suddenly wake up and hear that a mushroom cloud had replaced New York City, it is plausible that she would see a silver lining in the subsequent plume of ash and destruction. To the eyes of the former Governor, such an event would be a sign that the greatest event that would ever happen was about to occur – the return of Christ. This is precisely the type of thinking that society does not need. There are scarcely any other beliefs more dreadfully maladaptive to the future of civilization than the belief that society must necessarily come to an end for Jesus to return. C2: Sarah Palin doesn't posses the intellectual prowess necessary for high office. Sarah Palin is, quite evidently, intellectually unprepared to assume more power than any other person on the face of the Earth. However, she does not appear to be stupid. In fact, upon close scrutiny, she seems to be perfectly average in terms of her intelligence. And this is the problem. An average intellect isn't an acceptable attribute for the leader of the free world. If this attitude seems snide, consider, by analogy, the fact that when one goes to get brain surgery, one does not seek the council of an average neurosurgeon. Likewise, when one has end stage cancer, one does not try to find the appraisal of an ordinary oncologist. Therefore, shouldn't it be obvious that it's important for any nations political leaders to be elite. Given how high the stakes are, the United States just can't afford to have any presidents that aren't elite. ::Conclusion:: Former Governor Palin is the embodiment of a very backwards, parochial, and primitive mode of viewing the world. And her continued presence in the American political system is nothing short of an absurd mockery of the enlightenment values on which the United States was founded. Thus, to say that she is unqualified to be President would be an understatement. Of course, Palin also has many critics from the right as well as the left. Indeed, over the last two years, there has been a growing chorus of staunch conservatives who have come out to denounce her. In particular, the highly respected conservative columnist George Will has stated that he thinks Palin is "obviously" not prepared to be president. [2] Mr. Will is not alone in his sentiments. There is simply no way to deny what is obvious to most people: Sarah Palin is a religionist that is intellectually unprepared to grapple with the intricacies of the American presidency. Sources: 1. YouTube - Olbermann: Palin's Religious Beliefs on Israel and the Rapture. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 09 June 2010. . 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Are eggs fruits? because I thank my opponent for his timely response. Counter Arguments 1. According to my Sources No source is given, so this claim is immediately dismissible 2. Eggs Can Grow From Female Chickens This point is uncontested because it is both true and unrelated to bridging the gap between eggs and fruits. 3. "Out of the fertile soil grows eggs" - Everybody I have no idea where this quote is coming from, but it's clearly metaphorical at best and completely made-up at worst. Conclusion Pro didn't so much as attempt to fulfill his BOP. More importantly however, I had a dream last night that I won this debate. If dreams count as evidence in this debate, then the voters must vote Con in accordance with my dream. This is a foregone conclusion. Vote Con! =) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." because Thanks to Mongeese for starting this debate. My opponent has attempted to affirm the resolution that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." His one and only argument to back this claim up was: "People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns." While I agree entirely with this assertion, my opponent has made a fatal flaw in his argument; he forgot about police officers and the fact that they can still own and carry guns even in countries where guns are entirely outlawed. Police officers are not ALL outlaws, yet all of them will still be allowed (required) to own, carry and operate guns. We can therefore conclude with certainty that were guns outlawed, it wouldn't be ONLY outlaws who have guns. It's a bit early to claim a win, but what the hell. Vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better) because My penis is better than halo <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders. because [ Decency ] Con begins by providing that the term standard means: Something established by authority, custom, or general consent; however, note that THIS IS NOT THE DEFINITION WE HAVE AGREED UPON at the inception of this debate. Since Con cannot introduce a new definition in the final round, we must accept and go with the original agreed upon definition of standard, which instead reads: A rule or principle that is used for the basis of judgment. Keeping that in mind, my original point applies. I have maintained that there are standards for morality; however, a majority opinion should NOT be one of them. It would be fallacious to accept this faulty logic, and Con has not denied that reality. A more appropriate standard would have been logic itself, or perhaps the citation of a moral theory such as Utalitarinism. However, Con's only proposed standard was ad populum, which would be an inappropriate standard on the grounds that it is not logically acceptable. Again, Con cannot assert that custom is the appropriate moral standard; that is only another fallacy: APPEAL TO TRADITION. Again, Con is putting forth additional faulty logic which cannot be applicable to the standard of decency or this debate in general. So, because I have actual reasoning to support my beliefs, you absolutely cannot dismiss them as being indecent based on tradition or the number of people who may disagree with me. The ONLY way Con could have done this would have been to attack those beliefs and explain why they were indecent for reasons that did not prove fallacious. Because he has not done so, you cannot consider me indecent for the reasons he has cited. Furthermore, Con did not respond whatsoever to my point that even if my belief on one or two issues were immoral or indecent (they're not, but I digress), that this would not necessarily make me an indecent person in general. For instance, people are not perfect beings; everyone does something wrong or immoral at some point in their lives. Does that make one an inherently BAD person? No. Similarly, even if I did hold one or two indecent beliefs, I would not be an indecent person in general making Con's assertion again entirely fallacious. Remember: Con's point was that I supported abortion (which can be considered murder). Note that I am not for late-term abortion; in other words, I am not against the killing of a conscious fetus, meaning it is not murder by legal as well as scientific standards. And finally, keep in mind that what some people consider murder, other people see as being perfectly acceptable. For instance, technically implementation of the death penalty is murder; however, some people feel it is an acceptable choice the same way many people feel that abortion is a perfectly acceptable choice. My point here is that simply terminating life is not and cannot always be considered murder. This is a moot point. With all of these points in mind, Con has failed to prove that I am not a decent person. [ Good Head ] Con begins by asserting that a warpy head would be much more difficult to read (emotionally) than a non warpy head. I would tend to agree with that statement. However, this is entirely irrelevant, as Con has failed to prove that MY head is indeed warpy. In fact, he has done the opposite! Originally he cited my default DDO picture as being my head, which I denied and noted was actually a DRAWING of Johnny Depp's head. My opponent did not refute this, meaning he accepted that reality and thus could no longer bring up a warpy head argument. He also then cited another image of my head which he was indeed correct in establishing as my head. Because said head is not warpy or deformed in any way (physically) nor has Con argued as such, we must accept that my head is not warpy or deformed, so far making it stand that I indeed have a good head. Next Con has said that my head could only be considered if it had a protective bulletproof film over my eyes. He did not indicate why this would necessarily be good. For instance, such a film might not be see-through therefore inhibiting my sight which I would argue is not good. Moreover, if I were to have such a film, I would be very different from all other people who also do NOT have such a film. Con himself has said, "Difference is good, but only on a small scale. People with strange mutations, for example, are considered ugly and "deformed." In other words, if I did have such protection (including over the ears as Con has suggested), I would be considered NOT GOOD by Con's own standards. I rest my case on this point. Con has not proven that I do not have a good head. [ Head on Shoulders ] Con has given nothing sub stantial to prove that there is no read on my shoulders. First, in analyzing my analogy about food on a plate on a table, we can see that this same logic applies to the head on my shoulders. If there is food on a plate on a table, I would assert that the food is on the plate but ALSO on the table. Con has inquired about whether or not a head can also be considered on the ground since the head is on the shoulders; shoulders on torso; torso on legs; legs on feet; feet on ground; ground/shoes - etc. First! Note that CON HIMSELF SAYS: "My head is on my shoulders; my shoulders are on my torso..." In other words, Con has conceed to my point that one's head is on their shoulders!!! As if that were not enough (it just negated his entire point, but I'll continue for the sake of debate), I'll elaborate even further. Let me begin by saying it's ridiculous for Con to try and say that one's head can therefore be IN one's shoes, as being IN something has absolutely nothing to do with this debate (we're discussing about being ON something). Con himself acknowleges this disrepancy in noting in the famous, "I'm getting IN the plane" quote. In and on are not synonomous. That said, I'll argue that Con has manipulated my point in talking about a head being on the ground because he ignored my important argument about there being A connection (not several connections). I have said that my head is on my shoulders because it is connected via my neck. In Con's example, a head is connected to the ground not through one connection joining the two surfaces (AND SURFACE TOUCHING WAS PART OF CON'S PROVIDED DEFINITION OF 'ON'!) but through various parts of the body where no surfaces are touching or adjoined through a single link. Finally on this point, I can say that "I" am on the ground. Because "I" am not only a physical entity but a mental one as well... and the mental me resounds in my brain which is in my head... then technically speaking it is logically correct to say that a part of my head is on the ground (if you accept that *I* am on the ground). Nevertheless, I have trumped Con on this point on several accounts. He has not proven that my head is not on my shoulders. [ New Arguments ] I do not have to prove that there is constantly someone's head on my shoulders; only that there was a head on my shoulders (perhaps someone elses) at that time that I WROTE THAT STATEMENT. Plus, as I said, Con is making the assertion in this debate in countering something that has already been provided as a theory. Therefore it is his burden to prove that there WASN'T a head on my shoulders at that time, which he can't and hasn't. Saying, "Since she is capable of providing proof while I am not, it should be up to her to do so" is ridiculous. The fact is that not only isn't it my burden, but I CAN'T prove that I had a head on my shoulders at that time, and so we are both in the same boat... and this is a moot point. I've run out of characters, but note that Con did not even ATTEMPT to respond to my final argument. He has also not effectively refuted ANY of my original claims, meaning he has failed his burden in this debate. This is a clear win for the Pro : ) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abortion because I am not completely for abortion however I believe that everyone has the right to a choice. This does not mean that I want everyone to have an abortion for whatever reason they desire however I do believe that people who will be affected mentally or physically should have to choice. It is unfair to say that a woman has no right over her body once there is a lump of cells fused together inside her. A woman that does not want her child should not have to bear child birth and the mental or physical problems giving birth might bring. Advances in science can show us when a developing embryo or foetus is going to suffer massive trauma or disability once it is born. It is unfair to say that a woman must give birth to a child that she didn't intend to have and then suffer the trauma of watching that child die. Personally I wouldn't have an abortion unless it was down to age (20 or younger I would consider it) or if that baby was going to be born with a disability that wouldn't allow that child to live past a certain age. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against 6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson because Melanie Chisholm --->Sam Jackson 1) Melanie Chisholm in Spice World with Meat Loaf, 2) Meat Loaf in Formula 51 with Sam Jackson. ==Challenge== Tom Hardy ---> Sam Jackson <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with COD vs Titanfall because Yes, but some people like dumb ai cause it is fun to mess around with them and you can get good quick scopes and amazing kills with ai. So that is another reason I say CoD is better. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Any animal other than a human can't use a computer because Look at these. http://buckycast.org... http://1.bp.blogspot.com... http://media.photobucket.com... You also did not specify what "using" meant. A cat could rub up against a computer and be using it to mark it's territory. Vote for CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Puppies should be tortured and killed. because Once again, you opinions over the matter hold little to no weight in this debate. You have not shown any thing citing that you have the ability to judge that puppies are cute. In fact, you merely state that all puppies are cute. But you have not proven that puppies' being cute saves them from untimely deaths. Thus, your case is defeated by lack of sufficient evidence and lack of rebuttal to my case. And again, you offer no evidence to support your claim that rainbows like puppies. You merely state that rainbows like puppies. Your case offers nothing on how rainbows liking puppies saves them from being killed thus that point falls. One cannot merely restate their claims after they have been disproved. Thus, nothing you have stated can be considered true since I clearly attack each point you set forth. And since my case was never truly attack other than the restating of your own case, Tatarize cannot claim victory. I now stand open for what comes next. (I am greatly enjoying this haha) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God exists. because Ave. [No Initial State Argument] Pro drops the entirety of this argument (once more). 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] I asked Pro to give us some reasons to think that god created the Earth, and that everything came from a prior something. Pro ignores this and does not give us any reasons to think these things are true. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [Contradiction] I showed that Pro was contradicting herself. She never responded to this argument. Another dropped point. [Dreams and Visions] Pro drops this argument. [Pro's Proof] There is nothing about Pro's proof that demonstrates anything requiring the supernatural. There were traitors, murderers, sexual deviants, and malicious, hateful, envious people during the times Revelation and Titus were written. Why do you need a supernatural being to make those observations? None of those verses even make a prediction about the future. They describe the present moment or the past. [Preponderance of the Evidence] Pro dropped the following points. - God created the Earth. - Every something came from a prior something. - My argument as to why Pro was contradicting herself. - My argument against the existence of god. - My argument against the argument from dreams and visions. [Sources] I gave more sources than Pro, and they were of good quality. [Conduct] Pro broke a rule by giving arguments in the first round. Vote on that as you wish. Vale. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God because The proposition on offer is that according to a body count derived from the time period over which the Bible gives a history, Satan has killed far fewer people and is thus more moral than God. ************************** According to: ( http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... ) God has killed some 2,301,427 people. According to a count here: ( http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... ) Satan has killed only 10 people that God shares at least some responsibility for ( Job's 3 daughters and 7 sons). Thus, it is plain to see that by a Biblical body count, Satan is more moral than God. AFFIRMED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States because Allow me to begin by thanking my opponent for his very incisive opening arguments. You'll remember that I said I was going to defend two basic contentions. First, there are no legally tenable reasons to ban same-sex marriage. And secondly, there are good reasons to think that same-sex marriage should be legal. Con has advanced the standard procreation argument against same-sex marriage. I will demonstrate that (1) his argument is false; and (2) even if it were valid, it wouldn't affect the argument I have presented. C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right. My opponent and I both agree that marriage is a fundamental right. So, before I continue with my main argument, let me go over some of the reasons why the state has an interest in marriage. Linette Scott, the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health, has indicated that the state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. For example, marriage helps to (1) facilitate public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units; (2) develop a realm of liberty and free decision making by spouses; and (3) create stable households.[1] All of these purposes apply in excelsis to same-sex couples. Consider, for example, what the American Psychological Association has to say on this matter: "research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits."[2] To use a legal term, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated. C2: Gay people qualify as a suspect class. I was actually quite surprised to see that Con has essentially dropped every single argument I've made that classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect. Indeed, he seems to be under the misimpression that "nothing of importance" follows from whether or not gays are a suspect class or from my Due Process and Equal Protection claims. I maintain that he is demonstrably wrong on this point, as evidenced by the legal views of attorneys arguing both for and against same-sex marriage.[3] Even the attorneys arguing against same-sex marriage acknowledge the burden is on them to justify that denying gays and lesbians the right to marriage does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[4] Con is clearly mistaken. Essentially, Con is trying to shift the burden of proof. When a fundamental right is being denied, the burden is on the state to justify this discrimination. What's ironic is that Con immediately tries to do this by attempting to show that marriages are heterosexual in nature. In arguing for this position, Con raises what is generally referred to as the procreation argument. I submit that the procreation argument is nonsense upon stilts. I've come to kick out the stilts. Not only is this argument completely unsubstantiated, I think that we have good reasons to reject it. 1. First, the notion that marriage is only between individuals capable of procreating is entirely ad hoc. My opponent presumably supports the right of sterile couples to get married, though they are incapable of producing children. His argument, then, is best summed up in the following way: Only unions whose members, under normal circumstances, are capable of procreation qualify as marriage. Why would anyone want to define marriage in such a contrived, narrow and ad hoc fashion? I'll venture a guess: to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Such a definition stems from a private interest, perhaps a religious interest. It is not a state interest to define marriage in such a manner. 2. Second, the United States Supreme Court has never indicated that procreation is an essential feature of marriage or that marriage is only between a man and a woman. What the Supreme Court has actually said in 14 cases is that the right to marriage is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[5] It is my opponent, not I, that is trying to create a revisionist conception of marriage. The fact of the matter is that the state has never inquired into a couple's procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.[6] In fact, the Supreme Court has indicated that "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."[7] Lawrence, 539 US at 567. Likewise, the Supreme Court has also mentioned that, completely apart from procreation, choice and privacy are an integral part of the marital union. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US at 485-486.[8] Con mentions Skinner v. Oklahoma, but the case isn't about marriage, as Con admits. And the Supreme Court only said that marriage and procreation are fundamental to society. The Supreme Court did not say that marriage was about procreation. 3. Third, as former solicitor general Theodore Olson has argued, if the right to marriage were somehow intractable from an alleged state interest in procreation, the state could take away the right to marriage.[9] According to Olson, the state could say that it no longer has an interest in procreation if the United States became overpopulated and remove the right to marriage from its citizens. 4. Fourth, even if the state has an interest in the procreative component often associated with marriage, such an interest would not by definition exclude non-procreative unions or establish that marriage was exclusively heterosexual in nature. Moreover, allowing gays and lesbians to marry would in no way harm the procreative function of heterosexual marriages or discourage heterosexuals from marrying. 5. Fifth, even if I were to concede that the "responsible procreation" argument is valid, it wouldn't even affect my argument. The procreation argument has only ever passed rational basis review in the courts, and it would certainly not come close to fulfilling the enormous burden imposed by the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, my opponent is burdened to show that bans on same-sex marriage are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. No matter what way you look at it, the procreation argument fails to prove its conclusion, even under rational basis review. It's completely irrational and procreation has never been recognized by the Supreme Court as being an integral component of what marriage entails. C3: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've previously argued that bans on same-sex marriage are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause for at least two different reasons. My opponent has dropped both of these points. C4: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've also argued that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause for at least two different reasons. My opponent has also dropped both of these points. Moreover, bans on same-sex marriage put gays and lesbians into a suspect classification based on sexual orientation. Under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, this classification requires strict scrutiny. Con has yet to respond to my argument. | Conclusion | To summarize, depriving gays and lesbians of the ability to marry is in violation of the constitution because doing so involves taking away a fundamental right from a suspect class. As we've seen, the procreation argument that my opponent has outlined is not only fallacious, it's not even relevant to my argument. And yet that's all Con has to offer you in defense of marital discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is for these reasons that same-sex marriage should still be legal in the United States. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States. because My opponent begins his case with a funny statement. He tells us that there are a "mere" 26,000 alcohol-related accidents per year. That statement refutes itself; 26,000 alcohol-related accidents is an enormous, horrific statistic – a number that will be significantly reduced by a new Prohibition. Next, he quotes a statement I made in my first speech, where I mistakenly stated that illegal use of drugs is minimal. I made this correction in my second speech, stating that the ABUSE of illegal drugs is minimal, and as we will see later in this case, the number is decreasing. My opponent also does his math wrong. He states that 26,000 alcohol-related accidents amounts to 0.000086% of the population. However, his statistic does NOT tell you the number of people affected by the alcohol-related accidents, and thus his conclusion that 0.000086% of the population is affected by such accidents is false. With this argument, my opponent disrespects those who were affected in those accidents by demeaning their suffering and insults those who have lost their lives to drunk drivers. Thus, my opponents response to my framework should be disregarded, and my framework that we must include all uses of alcohol, both legal and illegal, and that we must weigh impacts against each other, should be extended throughout the round. Next, my opponent claims that I am advocating all things we do for pleasure should be prohibited. However, this statement is both false and misleading. Alcohol, unlike other pleasurable things, has terrifying side effects that harm both the abuser and those around him. Meth abusers and cocaine addicts feel pleasure from their drug use; is my opponent advocating that we should legalize those drugs too? My opponent's response to my second contention is merely a re-iteration of his first contention. However, I have refuted that contention by providing my framework, stating that deaths occurring from drunk driving, drunken fights, and the abuse and violence that occurs from alcohol use outweighs the "600,000 people who will save themselves". There are alternative methods to prevent heart attacks which are much more effective than alcohol. My opponent then claims that cities will be a frightening place to live in due to violence. This is an allusion to the Prohibition. However, Prohibition-era violence will never occur again due to an increase in national security. A major contributor to Prohibition era violence was corrupt law enforcement; a critical factor to the catastrophe of the 20s which no longer exists. Without corrupt law enforcement and with the power of American national security, the conditions of the Prohibition of the 20s will never occur again. Ultimately, my opponent's case has been thrown out the window. The health benefits to alcohol are not unique, and can be found from actual medication. Secondly, his argument about pleasure has been both refuted and he has dropped it. On the other hand, the impacts given by the pro are very clear; no legitimate need exists for alcohol, meaning it isn't a necessity. Alcohol related deaths occur 26,000 times every year, killing one person every 15 minutes from DUIs alone. Thousands more are indirectly affected by such accidents. Thirdly, Prohibition-era corruption and fear will not occur in today's United States; the law enforcement scene and national security scene have drastically changed, and security is at it's highest in decades. Finally, the number of drug users have drastically dropped with every subsequent generation. Likewise, the number of illicit alcohol users will also drop after Prohibition with every subsequent generation. Finally, I would like to respond to my opponent's final statement. He states that I try "to touch our hearts by saying that our neighbors will die if we drink alcohol. This is completely ridiculous." I used to live next to a friend named Jonathan; his mother died in a car accident when a drunk driver slammed into her vehicle. He was seven years old. These incidents aren't rare; they occur all the time and affect thousands of people. 26,000 accidents per year is no small number. As the judge in today's round, if you can face a mother who lost her son in an alcohol-related accident or a son who lost a mother in such an accident and tell them they're part of an "insignificant" statistic, and that the "pleasure" and "health benefits" of alcohol are more important than their loss, then I urge you to vote for my opponent. But if you understand the humanity behind an affirmative vote, and if you understand that even a slightly imperfect system under a Prohibition is better than today's system, and if you think 26,000 alcohol-related accidents and one death every fifteen minutes is too much, then you must affirm the resolution. References: [1] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [2] http://www.a1b2c3.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The cosmological argument is evidence for a God because :| Well, to rap this thing up. Look: "Current theory is that time and space began with the Big Bang, but that part of the theory could be wrong or simply incomplete" If you believe in the big bang theory or quantum fluctuation, your vote belongs to the PRO. CON denies both of those theories, deeming them incorrect. I'm out of time to explain myself, but based on what I just said, my contentions are protected with the most widely accepted scientific theory, the big bang. Thank you. Vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should mobile phones be allowed in schools? because The structure of this debate will be the following: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Rebuttals <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G because Let me just say, TheSkeptic is a worthy opponent. Not only did he bring his "A" game, he clearly understands the nature of TAG, something many of my previous opponents have failed to grasp. This debate is certainly going to be engaging. I will defer to my opponent's structure and deal with each of his rebuttals in turn. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== Thankfully, my opponent does not argue against the existence of logical absolutes in general. This means we can both be rest assured that rational debate can indeed yield meaningful results. We both agree that logical laws are universally binding and can be used to pursue objective truth. Interestingly, instead of arguing that atheism can account for logical absolutes, he opts instead to show that theism cannot. Fortunately for me, this means I don't have to defend my original assertion against atheism on this matter since my opponent concedes this point. However, it does mean that I need to defend theism in this regard. TAG follows this flow of logic: Logical absolutes, by necessity, must be abstract and immutable. Being immutable, they must be transcendent, existing outside an ever changing cosmos and within another unchanging reality. Being also abstract, they must also be products of thought. The precondition, therefore, for logical absolutes is a transcendent, unchanging, and rational mind. God meets these preconditions in every way. This goes far beyond the atheist's ability to account for logical absolutes, which cannot account for abstract, immutable entities whatsoever. My opponent tries to push the problem back on the theist when he says, "The theist can't account for why God has the attributes he has, and not OTHER attributes." It is not necessary to show why God has some attributes and not others, or why he exists. All I must show is that he exists. This is the resolution. I could just as easily say that anyone claiming that logical laws are derived from nature must therefore show why the universe is X and not Y, or why it exists. It is a straw man defense. TAG argues that a particular kind of God must exist. Why he exists or why he is the way he is does not alter the validity of TAG. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== My opponent and I both seem to agree that logic is absolute and nature is uniform. He says, "existence behaves consistently with itself." While my opponent recognizes this fact, he cannot account for it in his worldview, nor does he try. The universe just is what it is. He assumes it is true (and it usually works in his favor), but he doesn't justify it. The theist has justification. The necessary precondition for order is, once again, a transcendent, ordered, rational mind. It is irrational to assert that order comes from disorder and question begging to simply assert that existence is what it is. Since TAG rationally accounts for principles of scientific inquiry, it remains valid. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== My opponent claims to be a moral nihilist. He says, "We do not need to predicate God's existence to account for objective morality because objective morality does not exist." I already argued quite the opposite when I said in the first round, "So, for debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding." Debate relies, quite often, on moral absolutes. When a resolution argues for "is" or "is not," then we are taking a logical position. But when a resolution states "should" or "should not," then we are taking a moral position. Take one of my opponent's own debates: http://www.debate.org... . The resolution says, "Prostitution should be legalized." This is a moral position. Granted, he analyzes prostitution from an amoral position within the debate, but he does so in order to prove that prostitution's current status of being illegal is wrong. The point is that moral nihilism cannot be actively lived out. If there are no moral absolutes, then any statement of moral obligation is meaningless. If ever my opponent files a police report, defends his honor, or refuses to let others copy his homework, he is living in a world in which there are "oughts" and "ought-nots." Even his expectation that I debate rationally is based on morality. If I start denying the law of non-contradiction, he is likely to rebuke me for doing so. And if he doesn't, then I can win using any irrational tactic I choose. Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Theism accounts for these absolutes, and atheism—as demonstrated by my opponent—leads to amorality. So, TAG remains valid for accounting for moral absolutes. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== My opponent's final effort is another straw man. He claims that TAG cannot prove the existence of God as defined in this debate since an allegedly infinite number of Gods could account for logical absolutes. Yet TAG does not prove the existence of an infinite amount of gods because not just any God can fulfill the prerequisite of logical absolutes. Only a transcendent, immutable, rational God meets the criteria. It doesn't matter how many gods we fabricate with the same characteristics, since in so doing we are still referring to the SAME god. A rose by any other name is still a rose. So, even if my opponent can make up a million gods, only the ones with the right characteristics fulfill TAG, and of those that do, he's really just giving different names to the same God. TAG is valid, because it does in fact argue for a unique God. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's efforts, as admirable as they are, have not yet succeeded in invalidating TAG. His attempt to show TAG does not account for logical absolutes turned out to be a straw man. His argument that nature is uniform because it just is that way was question begging. His claim to moral nihilism contradicted his actions. Lastly, his argument that TAG does not prove a unique God was based on a non sequitur notion that reimagining lots of gods with the same characteristics somehow means TAG is arguing for infinite gods. The resolution remains affirmed. And now, I give the floor back to my challenger. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Society would be better off without religion because Ok, I didn't copy and paste from that article, but skimmed thorough it and many other sites because i don't know much about atheism, Islam, and Jewish customs. I needed to be educated before making a good response. There are many moral atheists and i agree. But if religion never existed most of these morals wouldn't be i place. It was the ten commandments that laid out the frame works for the rest of these morals. So yes atheists and religious people have the capability of being good and bad, but we needed religion to make the first morals, this cannot b denied. And it's stay out of saying life at conception is a myth, we can debate about this later if you please. How is teaching both sides absurd? Just because one has scientific evidence and the other one doesn't do what. Should we outlaw people who say the earth isn't warming? Science proves that t is, but why outlaw their teaching? And b0th are taught in schools. I think one needs both sides to understand their history. So people should teach both. Morality would still exist today, well yes. Once again I will state, morality will always exist, bu with out religion people may have a totally different mindset. Which could be good or bad. All I am saying is that religion makes morality more efficiently, and sometimes this is good or bad. So in conclusion, religion should stay because people should be free to believe what they want to believe. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con) because This is a war debate directed to Kylar. Tell me what country you will represent, and tell me why I should choose you to be my opponent; give me a very good reason as to why you want to do this debate and why you would be a worthy opponent. I am (Ukraine). Comment if you are interested. If you want to debate, message me. If you are a member of the Art of War (AOW) debate group [created by @The-Voice-of-Truth], then you must vote on this debate. If you are a member of AOW and accept this debate, then state your win/loss ratio. If you are interested in joining AOW, message @TheRussian or @The-Voice-of-Truth. The primary prerequisite to join this group is: you have to have participated in AT LEAST ONE war debate. If you are a member of AOW, you must vote on other members' war debates unless a valid reason is given. You can challenge other members to debates related to war game scenarios. There is a Moderator who will ensure that this debate follows the below rules. For this debate, the Moderator will be whoever asks first and is an AOW member. There are some strict rules that apply. Voters must penalize any violation of the rules. 1. When you accept the debate, state your country, and state the numbers of your armed forces (aircraft, men, ships, etc.). Use this source for military numbers ONLY, as it is the most reliable: http://www.globalfirepower.com... ...; 2. Each country's turn can range from about 3 days to 60 days long, so all actions must be in accordance with this time period. (DO NOT try to win in one turn! Take into account that your opponent is also a living, thinking being that can adapt to a situation.) 3. Morale is a key factor in your armed forces' effectiveness. 4. You may produce more military forces (soldiers, ships, aircraft, tanks/humvees/cavalry), but it depends on your military budget, your country's population, and how industrialized your nation is. 5. You may choose to invade or defend. 6. The defender makes the first move. 7. The defender's primary military objective is to remove the attacker's forces from the defender's territory. The attacker's primary military objective is to annex the other country, or destroy it (physically, economically, etc). Secondary military objectives can be made by the debaters if they wish. Fulfillment of the military objectives is victory. If either side fails to fulfill their set objectives, the voters are free to reasonably determine the winner based off of who was more successful in completing their objectives. 8. If a nation's capital is destroyed/liberated, this does not necessarily mean that the war is won; the capital could be recaptured. If one of the debaters destroys or controls the administration of the opposing country, OR if the opposing country is destroyed to the point of no administration, then that debater is immediately guaranteed a 7-point victory. 9. Every aspect of the war must be realistic and must remain within the parameters established by the rules and the title. Any unrealistic action and actions deviating from the rules will cause the entire action to be void. Any further deviation after the first void action will result in a complete debate forfeiture. 10. Weapons of mass destruction are NOT allowed. A WMD is defined as: -Radiological weapon or a radiological dispersion device: any weapon designed to spread radioactive material -Nuclear or Thermonuclear weapon: an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions -Chemical weapon: a device that inflicts chemicals designed to harm or kill humans/animals -Biological weapon: the use of biological toxins or infectious organisms to inflict damage. Non-conventional detonation of conventional weapons IS allowed. 11. No allies (NATO, UN, Muslim Brotherhood, or otherwise) under ANY circumstances. Annexation of other countries or agreements that allow formations of larger nations and/or direct military intervention is NOT allowed. Personnel and forces CANNOT be supplied by other nations. You CAN have military or diplomatic agreements and/or treaties with other nations (agreements not to interfere etc). Radical groups, militant organizations, paramilitary factions et cetera are NOT allowed. Religion is NOT a factor. No economic sanctions from any other nation, but economic warfare is allowed. You cannot increase your country"s population, nor can you use ANY method to allow the involvement of other countries other than what is specified. You cannot receive donations or economic support from private agencies. 12. Cyberwarfare is allowed. Electronic warfare is limited to radar/radio jamming and interception; NO EMPs. 13. The country chosen must be one of the 206 sovereign states recognized by the United Nations as of 2015. Former states such as the USSR are not accepted, nor are territory-controlling factions not officially recognized by the United Nations, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, currently the Islamic State), and Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, but recognized by the UN as a part of Palestine. You cannot choose my nation. 14. Appropriate conduct MUST be maintained: no insults, cursing, profanity, vulgar language or trolling. Any violation of appropriate conduct WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities. 15. If you fail to follow the rules once, you will be given a warning and your actions in that round will be void. Further disobedience of ANY of these rules WILL result in an immediate loss of the debate. 16. The Instigator is Pro. 17. These debates are strictly Force versus Force; no civilian action is allowed unless Total War is declared. 18. TOTAL WAR can be declared only as an absolute last resort. Total war is defined as the complete mobilization of all available manpower of the country. In a state of total war, every able citizen either joins the military personnel or the military labor workforce. 19. All scenarios MUST be realistic; there MUST be an established reason for conflict. 20. We may either follow the date-time storyline format, or state the events that occur directly as realistically possible in a period of 45 days. 21. This is a Category 2 AOW debate. A category 2 debate DO NOT allow the usage of WMDs. Category 1 debates allow WMDs. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Hunting should NOT be illegal. because Hunting should not be illegal because it is ethical, traditional, and morally correct. First of all, it is morally correct because the quick death from a bullet or cloud of shot is much less painful or cruel than the long miserable death of starvation or disease caused by overpopulation. Hunting is also traditional. We, as a species, have been hunting for thousands of years, and it is not right to take away our tradition because you disagree with it. I am by no means saying that you have to approve of hunting, in fact I respect your decision not to hunt. All I ask is that you respect my decision to hunt. Finally, hunting is ethical because in the hunter trapper education class, hunters are taught to be respectful of both landowners and animals, to kill as quickly and effectively as possible, and to not disrespect an animals carcass. Finally, in the aspect of ethics, those who truly deserve the right to hunt will make a quick end to any animal that may have unfortunately survived the bullet/shot cloud, but not without injury. :( As a last little side note, even though I hunt, I do NOT agree wih every aspect of it. I agree with you non-hunters in some areas. I don't agree with trophy hunting, baiting, or camera traps. I beleave that those are unethical and/or immoral reasons/ways to hunt. I await a response. Any and all information can be found in some form in "Today's Hunter and Trapper in Pennsylvania" or at a hunter trapper education course. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime because Hollywood sucks when it comes to making films out of anime, and great anime too <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best dirty rap songs because So I like Kool Keith's song "Girls Would U Fvck Tonight" a bit better than this one, but for some reason I'm inclined to go with "Sex Style" probably just because the lyrics are a bit more heinous. However I've said that I'm not just posting songs with dirty lyrics (which Google would make easy) -- I'm going with songs that I actually don't mind listening to. In this case, I feel as if others prefer "Sex Style" to GWUFT so to please the audience I'll go with that one, since I guess both tracks are about equal. Sample lyrics... Don't be so stiff, take your panties off Get in the fvckin tub, here's a washcloth Warm tea and chicken broth My arousal, you fvckin it off Teasin me with a thong on You look sexy eatin popcorn Camcorder ready, your pu$sy is warm Fvck rotation, listen to the quiet storm Play with yourself in the shower, I'll be jerkin off while you gone Stick my tongue in your a$s to fight your arm Strawberries on your clit, that's the bomb Baby all d!ck in my palm C0ck your a$s up and remain calm Penetrate where you fight it Pull your panties to the side, you like it My chest, you lick and bite it Hair on your pu$sy, don't hide it That gets me excited Plane flights, fvckin you in mid-air on United Your G-strings is wet, I'm delighted <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bowser vs the Sonic the Hedgehog. Hopefully... because Countering Sonic Pro says Sonic will not attack Bowser as he is charging forward, and his reasoning is that Sonic has a joking attitude. Just because Sonic has a sarcastic attitude doesn’t make him stupid enough to miss such a great opportunity to attack Bowser. Then he says Sonic’s attacks won't do much to Bowser. Sonic is capable of ripping through a battleship when traveling less than the speed of sound (768 miles per hour) [1]. If he were to go at his top speed at Bowser (3,840 miles per hour), Sonic would literally rip right through him. Pro also says that Bowser will understand the pattern behind Sonic’s attacks; however, when I last checked, Bowser lacked a large amount of common sense [2]. While he may be intelligent in designing machines or coming up with extravagant plans, he is extremely stupid when in the heat or midst of things, as shown when he breathed fire on a Superbombomb because it would not blow up. He also did not realize that he could not rule the world if it was destroyed until Mario explained this to him. Clearly, Bowser will not be capable of understanding Sonic’s pattern. Even if Bowser somehow did get Sonic’s pattern, he would be helpless to stop it. Bowser is just too slow for Sonic. Pro also says Bowser can burn Sonic to death; however, I have already showed that Sonic is capable of running at light speed without even catching on fire. Clearly, he is extremely resistant to fire, and as a result, Bowser’s fireballs will not work on Sonic. 1) Straight Forward Attack In the source Pro provides, it says that Bowser’s speed is inconsistent, and he is usually slower than Mario; therefore, he is most likely going to be his usual slow self in this fight. Pro says Bowser can summon lightning. In the first video, it is shown that it takes time for Bowser to summon the lightning. His hands begin to glow for approximately two or three seconds, and then he has to aim at where he wants to fire the lightning (happens at 0050 to 1:10) [3]. In the time that Bowser has to charge up his powers and aim at Sonic, Sonic will already be attacking Bowser. Bowser will also have a very difficult time aiming at Sonic, since Sonic can move at 3,840 miles per hour. While Bowser is raising his hands in Sonic’s direction, Sonic can go behind Bowser or move to another spot. Bowser will be too slow to aim correctly at Sonic, so he will not be able to hit him. Pro also says Bowser can teleport. In the second video, it shows Bowser teleporting by fading very slowly and after several seconds, he appears somewhere else (happens at 7:55 to 8:25) [4]. In addition, when Bowser “teleports,” you can see a circular shadow move to where he will teleport. This shadow moves very slowly, so Sonic will be able to follow the shadow to where Bowser appears and continue to attack him. Moreover, he can only use this move every ten seconds or so, which leaves Sonic with plenty of time to continue hitting Bowser. You will also notice how Bowser moves slower than walking speed in the fight. Clearly, using his teleportation drains Bowser’s speed, and this will make it very easy for Sonic to attack him. 2)-5) Bowser’s abilities will not work for reasons stated above. 6) Sonic Drift Pro says the blue flames will follow Sonic; however, they will not be able to keep up with him, and from his perspective, they will seem to be moving extremely slowly. Sonic can also attack Bowser at very high speeds and then run away again so the flames will not hit him. Sonic is also resistant to flames, as I have already shown. 7) Pure Speed and Intense Reflexes I didn't say Sonic could go at light speed in two seconds. I said it would take him two seconds to get far enough away, and then he could charge at Bowser using the light speed attack. That takes about four seconds. In total, it would take about six seconds. In addition, Bowser, as I have previously mentioned, lacks large amounts of common sense. I do not think he will understand what Sonic is doing, and he will probably believe he will have won the fight, since Sonic just ran away from him. If that is not enough to fool him, Sonic could always shout out, “Oh, no. Bowser is too powerful. I’m so scared,” and run away. Bowser's teleportation will not work against Sonic's light speed attack. His lightning would not work either because it takes several seconds to charge, and in that time Sonic could have run around the arena and hit Bowser multiple times. My Case- 1) You were hitting me this whole time? Oh, I didn’t notice! When Sonic runs, he usually runs forward. Since he can run forward at light speed and does not catch on fire, it is clear that Bowser’s fire will not work on Sonic regardless of which way he is facing. My opponent also believes that Bowser’s spikes will hurt Sonic; however, he completely disregards what I said earlier about Sonic enduring very heavy blows. Also, since Sonic won't be affected by the fire, he can use his healing abilities. Let us not forget that as Bowser turns around to stab Sonic, he is giving Sonic a chance to run away, so this attack won't work anyways. 2) Pfft, I’ve faced people way more powerful than you! This argument was to show that Sonic's willpower will allow him to win any fight, no matter what situation he is presented with. Pro has made no attempt to show that Bowser is as powerful as Emerl; therefore, if Sonic can beat someone way more powerful than Bowser, then it is logical to conclude he can beat Bowser himself. 3) Time to attack! Shockwaves travel faster than the speed of sound [5]. Bowser will not be able to dodge this. Lightning does not affect shockwaves or wind, so it will be a useless defense. Also, shockwaves become stronger as the medium they are traveling along becomes hotter; therefore, the lightning will simply strengthen the shockwave [5]. Pro also drops the “Insta-shield,” argument. 4) Strategy time! As I said before, Bowser is not very smart, and he will be pretty angry at Sonic, making him think irrationally; thus, it is likely this tactic will work. Now I will refute my opponent’s additional arguments. 1) Size Transformation In the third video that I have provided, Bowser can only turn Koopa Troopa into a frog using his wand (happens at 6:10 to 6:20) [7]. My opponent said no items were to be allowed within this debate; thus, he is breaking his own rules. Pro also says that Bowser can make Sonic small (according to his source, it happens in Mario Party 4); however, looking into the game, it turns out that characters only turn small when they land on a certain square and obtain a mini-mushroom [8]. Again, no items are allowed in this debate, so this will not work. 2) Adrenaline Rush Bowser can only grow big when he is in mortal danger. He also needs someone to actually go inside his body and shoot orbs of adrenaline at his heart [9]. No outside help is allowed, so this won't work. Before ending this round, I would like to make an additional argument. 5) Sonic’s Shoes My opponent said Sonic will be allowed to have his shoes; thus, Sonic will be capable of summoning a thunder shield, since he has a yellow gem within his shoes given to him by Mr. Roberto [10]. This will block any lightning and/or fire attacks Bowser throws at him and can also be used to harm Bowser. Sonic can also slow time down around him using the red gem in his shoes [10]. Well, I have exhausted my character limit, and I thank my opponent for posing such a challenge. This debate has been much harder than I expected. Sources- [1] http://sonic.wikia.com... [2] http://www.mariowiki.com... [5] http://www.britannica.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.mariowiki.com... [9] http://concept-mobius.technoguild.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against should children have to wear school uniforms? because On bad clothing, I believe dress codes should be enacted. A student should dress moderately, but they shouldn't have their breasts half showing or their pants sagging. The purpose of school is to teach. If students violate the dress code, they should be punished. This all ties into self-responsibility. Students must be prepared to live in the world after high school. The only way to do that is to give them responsibility and to take appropriate action when students act irresponsibly. It's the same way that society works. People are free to do bad things, but they will suffer consequences. Students need to realize that freedom is to be respected and so when they leave school they will be responsible and prepared for what lies ahead of them, not going about relishing their new-found freedom and doing things that are illegal. So when it comes down to inappropriate clothing, I think it's better to allow students to test the limits of the dress code while in school, so they can be punished and be 'tamed' so to speak. The notion that dress codes don't work is that students aren't punished adequately and feel like they can do what they want because the rules are either enforced weakly, or not enforced at all. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2) because According to Con's definition, god is: 1) Morally good 2) all powerful 3) all knowing If I can show that a being with these three properties is incompatible with evil, than it follows that any being with these properties would be incompatible. Before I begin my argument, i feel that a few more words need defining. Happiness = A quantitative measure of a beings pleasure. I admit we have no method of determining happiness in a quantitative manner, however we can determine it in a relative manner (mostly), and a quantitative must exist, as are brains are physical things. Note, happiness can be negative, which would represent sadness Good = an action which results in a net increase in the total happiness of everyone, can be expanded to a number which would allow us to say one action is more good than another. Again this could be negative, meaning bad. Moral = taking the action that results in most good. Evil = bad = negative good I will be arguing for the validity of the following statement: If evil exists then God does not exist. 1) If God were to slice space-time into tiny pieces, and remove those pieces with a net negative good, the net value of good would be greater than it is now 2) God has the ability to do (2) 3) By definition of moral, (2) is morally good. 4) By definition of God, he would do what is morally good. I await your response <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage because When discussing the topic of same sex marriage, the majority of those who oppose the legalization of allowing gay couples to marry do so based on religious grounds without any logical consensus as to why it should not be legalized. This led me to conclude that there are no real arguments against gay marriage. Using religion to dictate legislation is a violation of every American's constitutional rights and in this case should be considered discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. I want my opponent to present a logical, clear argument against gay marriage. If necessary provide evidence from a credible source to support your claims <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against fairy vs demon because Two worlds exist: the otherworld and the mundane world. Common mythologies tell us that, in addition to many gods who assume powers over nature, there are the demons and especially the little inhabits of the otherworld, fairies. I personally feel much more for the fairy. The fairy, who appears in tales and fables, has a much more subtle and powerful magic to them, ascribed through the use of symbolism, the images of rafts and waters--and so on: I digress. Contention one: Fairies have numerous origins, many of which are a status above that of demons A common belief of fairies is that they are a class of demoted angels who were too impure to remain in heaven, after our Father closed his gates to the fallen beings, but too pure for hell. In this case, fairies are subject to the Devil (who is excluded from this argument). It is common to say, ever since the stories of his fall, that with the devil fell one-third of the host of heaven. From this, I will make the following mini-arguments: 1. The hierarchy of angels is: seraphs, the messegers and pronouncers of god's glory, cherubs, thrones, dominions, archangels, and so on. Judging solely from the characterization of the devil in medieval and Renaissance works as a tricksters, a proud being, and a worker of macchintions and lies, I argue that the fairies, who, according to this belief, retained their purity, are more higher in the angel hierarchy...The virtues and the heavenly governors, and especially the seraphs and so forth, who are close to the glory of God, are supposed less vulnerable to temptations and lies than their servants. Another belief is that fairies were pagan deities (in Celtic tradition) who subsided to the authority of the Lord after their reign. For an instance, let us define what a god, the synonym of deity, is: (dictionary.com) "one of several deities...presiding over some portion of worldly affairs." A demon is merely "an evil spirit" who works harm but whose powers are limited. (arguments may rest on whether or not the pagan deities, of classical mythology--for example, are more or less powerful than the demon or servant of the devil). The word "deity" itself is associated with a sense of ethereal, heavenly power that is far superior to that of the demon or devil... Contention 2: The fairy's weaknesses are few compared to that of the demon. Fairies are vulnerable mainly to iron, which, according to common mythology, is like poison to them. However, they are not fearful of the church's bells, or the cross, holy items, or the presence of the priest as demons are. Contention 3: Good triumphs over evil. The basic stories have been that the forces of light, wise, careful, and powerful, have triumphed from now and then against the forces of darkness. Several examples include: 1. the triumph of Zeus, arguable the force of light--due to his connections with heaven, justice, order, and thunder, against Typhos, the child of Gaea and the storm giant after the Titans 2. the overthrow of Lucifer, the epitome of rebellion and chaos, by the hand of God 3. the classic story of Faust (Goethe) 4. numerous fairy tales in which the trapped prince, by a witch or evil spirit, or princess is freed and the villain defeated and so on. I do not think that fairies, who are connected with innocence and beauty, along with mischevious behavior, and childhood, are not exempt from this. Nor are the demons who, among others, encourage sorcery and witchcraft, sin (sloth, greed, and so on), violence, and are known for their animalistic bodies exempt from this either. Therefore, the fairies, the force of good, would triumph over the penultimate forces of darkness. (In addition, here are the requirements and details of the debate: --remember, this is a purely strict debate. Classical mythology, and other religious mythologies, may be used to back up one's claims. In the end, the ultimate goal is to provide enough evidence whether or not older mythologies (not that of shows or comics--please) demonstrate which of the two, the fairy or demon, is more powerful and superior. --This is not a debate of epic proportions. We won't be discussing stem cells, have arguments over the Messiah, the trinity, or any other religious controversy. It is just, in my opinion, a frivolous debate.) I hope that we will have more time, in the next four rounds, to argue about our cases and provide more information than in the opening round. (Source: "Fairy" www. wikipidea.com.) For any comments on my sources, RoyLatham, please write them in your argument. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against help me with debate because I thank my opponent for the response. My opponent quoted: "Thank you very much for your help and now hopefully i will be a really good debater just like my brother and his debate team you may no him he is really good his room is full of metals and trophys" It appears that my opponent has been satisfied with my advice. Since my opponent has not refuted my argument regarding the resolution, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. I am pleased I have been able to satisfy my opponent. I await a rebuttal. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust because Thanks for having good sportsmanship. I understand, if your busy, maybe we should debate again some other time! Good luck with whatever your busy doing. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers because I thank my opponent for his articulate and speedy response. I've addressed the arguments in his RD 2 order. On his first paragraph (grouped response to my counter-arguments 1 & 2) 1. My opponent attacks the example without actually addressing the main point of the 1st counter-argument I give. The gist of that was the profiling will happen with or without a decal. Police officers profile based on age, or sex, or ethnicity just by looking into a car window. They profile with regards to types and quality of car. This is basically a wash. However, as stated in my 3rd counter-argument, since the decals do allow for an increase in defensive driving, which will inherently increase the overall safety of all drivers, I'm still winning the cost/benefit analysis. On Electronic Parking Permits: 1. How many high schools in the US are really using these? 2. Way more importantly, this is an attack on an example while totally ignoring the meat of the argument, which is about profiling occurring against young people no matter what. On decal quality and appearance: 1. Attack on the example. 2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1] This decal is perfectly removable, and the law does not mention the size of the decal. If we are going to argue about the specifics of the decal, then it can be removed any time the student is parked. This would further mitigate whatever minute harms can be gained off of the sexual predator argument, because only vehicles in motion would be subject to target, and sexual predators simply don't target their victims by following their moving vehicles around town or on the freeway. These harms are totally unwarranted. On campus security and sexual predators: Campus security is really null in this debate. Again, this was merely an example that my opponent is exploiting while ignoring the gist of the argument. Sexual predators target places where these young people hang out (i.e. are generally stationary) *like* school campuses, churches, playgrounds, parks, local hang outs, etc. He never warrants why it is that sexual predators will target vehicles. Furthermore, as I mention later, we don't have a problem with predators targeting driver education vehicles, all of which, by the way, are required by law to be marked as such constantly (those markings are generally not removable since the vehicle has been mechanically manipulated as a training vehicle). However, even if they weren't, by my opponent's logic, those vehicles and their passengers *should* be the target of predators. On the attack on my second source: 1. My opponent disregards the first source, handily, which states that: "The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash." "Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes. 2. While I can't find the chart my opponent refers to (can I have a specific link so I can evaluate the data?), we are talking about aggregate death, not a breakdown of the cause or number of passengers or any other important details that would allow us to assess the meaning of those stats. 3. The statistic I was specifically referring to was on the page *of* that link. It is a pie chart stating that motor vehicle deaths account for more teen deaths than any other cause. The next closest method of teen death is homicide. 4. My opponent's narrowly focused attack does not actually mitigate the argument I'm making that teen drivers are still a danger due to their relative lack of driving experience. The second source I listed is an entire government webpage dedicated to improving teen driving. Obviously, the federal government is concerned to a great extent about the safety of teen drivers. On student driver cars being marked: 1. What's the point of this rebuttal? The decals are fully removable, so the harms of these decals must be identical to those of student driver vehicles. So, my opponent is de facto arguing that we should not put markings on student driver vehicles as well. However, the safety benefits of this practice are clear. The same principle clearly supports the use of New Jersey's new decal. On my dropped 4th counter-argument and dropped alternative: 1. My 4th counter-argument is absolutely topical to this debate. My opponent directly stated in RD 1 that one of the harms of the decal, based on his profiling argument, was that teens with tickets won't have recourse once the citation has been issued. How is me addressing this fallacy not a point of contention? He is claiming that this inherent bias exists within the judicial system as well as the enforcement system, when it clearly doesn't. You can extend this as a valid offensive argument. 2. My alternative proposal is also directly related to the case at hand. My opponent is opposing this piece of legislation due to something he finds morally or ethically repugnant. I am doing the exact same thing. If the goal of this debate is to form a more just law (and, considering that the purpose of debate is to support some sort of change, even if it won't necessarily happen), then I am attempting to fulfill that goal better than my opponent. This is a pretty standard debate tactic. I'm just trying to increase education in the debate. After all, the more people know about this piece of legislation and its errors, the more people can act within the legislative system to make it more just. Furthermore, I am informing about an actual injustice within the legislation, and my opponent is not. Again, extend this as a valid offensive argument. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because I accept this challenge. Furthermore, I agree with the definition of "waterboarding" and the rules of debate, both of which have been provided by the opponent. I look forward to an insightful debate on this matter. Many thanks to RoyLatham for acting as my opponent in this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code because Thank you for accepting, Con. I look forward to a robust debate. I will structure my argument thus: why schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code, followed by the demerits of a non-uniform dress code. A uniform dress code allows a student to fit in without fear of judgment reflected in the way they dress. A uniform dress code erases social or cultural barriers that manifest in the clothes that children wear. It has been noted that uniforms blur the differences between the different social and economic classes of the families that children come from. This allows children to focus on the learning (that schools purpose to impart) that takes place without fear of judgment from other students, especially in tender, impressionable ages, and teenage years, when social status is of particular consequence to students. In addition, it imparts an important value of respecting each other beyond their social status. Their inability to discern other students' social status results in them treating each other equally and this can lead them to understand that the barriers separating people based on status (etc.) are psychological. A school uniform acts as a unifying element between all the students. They wear it every day and are identified based on that, when they are in school or even outside. This allows for it to increase the unity and team spirit between the students, effectively improving their love for their school and improving the environment for each student. School uniform reduces the potential for a teacher to subconsciously pick favourites among students, based on their appearance and dress. Bearing in mind that clothes contribute to the first impression a person gives off, it is understandable, yet undesirable for teachers to subconsciously form more positive or negative impressions of certain students based on the way they dress. It goes against a school's purpose of imparting knowledge and inculcating character. Uniforms prepare students for the reality of the world that awaits them. A great many professions, both high-skilled and otherwise, make use of a strict uniform dress code. The reasons for these include respect to the responsibility of the profession, respect to the people they interact with, or simply a desire to impress and give off an impression of attention to detail and good grooming. I shall give just a few examples. In the law industry, lawyers in most countries have a strict dress code before attending court, judges wear robes and in many jurisdictions, even wigs. Employees in banks have a strict dress code, extending even to the way they present their hair. Businessmen and government officials wear suits or office attire. Constitutional institutions like police and fire defence have their own uniforms. In more technical professions, less of this is seen, though janitors are an example of those who often wear a certain uniform. In short, including uniforms in school allow children to come to understand and expect the demands of appearance that the world makes of professionals. I shall now move on to disadvantages of having a free or non-uniform dress code. Having a free dress code places stress on students to wear clothes that are in fashion, or that measure up to the standards held in school. Often, appearance is linked to self-worth and this manifests in worry about appearance and by extension, self-worth, which is undesirable in a school setting. It is also unproductive for students to spend a lot of time (which can happen) pondering what to wear the next day. The ex-President of the Group Resolving Antisocial Problems in Anaheim, California, stated in 1994 that she believed that a free dress code contributed to the country’s societal breakdown. This is especially because she felt that it goes further than encouraging free expression; it is a distraction for students during school time. I am certain that my worthy opponent sees the point: for students to spend time attempting to craft an “appropriate” identity in terms of clothing and fashion distracts them from exploring knowledge and academics, which is the primary function of any school. The source also advises that a free dress code is not appropriate during school, but that “[s]elf-expression in clothes is appropriate after school, on weekends and vacation”. A study done by Lillian O. Holloman, assistant professor of clothing and textiles in Virginia Tech's College of Human Resources, states the following: “School officials have observed that a significant number of antisocial, even violent, acts performed by youths both on and off school premises have been related to clothing. According to state law enforcement officials, some of the most severe problems include assault and robbery by youths for sneakers, jewelry, and professional sports-team jackets or because groups wear certain styles and colors that promote hostility in rival groups. One of the most commonly occurring crimes is the theft from stores of popular, status clothing.” This reiterates that a free dress code can cause unnecessary stress to students attempting to conform to certain standards, and can encourage antisocial, rebellious behaviour such as crime. Finally, a free dress code can substantially raise the risk of people wearing obscene, inappropriate, or offensive clothing. It is more than obvious that this is thoroughly unconducive for the learning environment in a school, and in more extreme cases, could lead to altercations if anyone gets offended by something that someone is wearing. I conclude with my position that a uniform dress code is the best approach for a school to take, and that a free or non-uniform dress code carries with it several undesirable side-effects, of which it is in the best interests of any school not to deal with. I look forward to seeing Con's counter-arguments. References: Smith, Katherine. "School Uniforms Change Behavior." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 6 Mar. 1994. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. http://articles.latimes.com... Holloman, Lillian. "VIA Holloman." VIA Holloman. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. http://www.via.vt.edu... Pedzich, Joan . "Student Dress Codes in Public Schools: A Selective Annotated Bibliography*." AallNet.org . N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014. < http://www.aallnet.org... ;. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen because Mirza challenged me to this topic and calls me a coward for refusing to accept, so here we go. He is also attacking my character in his debate with tvellalot so he owes me the opportunity to defend myself directly, since he refuses to let me post comments on that particular debate. Rules: Mirza will post his defense in round 1 (he can copy/paste from his debate with tvellalot if he likes). No new arguments in the last round. Strategic - pertaining to or marked by strategy (Random House). Strategy - a plan or method for achieving a specific goal (Random House). The goal in this case was to have innomen win. == My case == Mirza initially voted all 7 points to me on my debate to counter a perceived vote bomb from ApostateAbe. Then Gileandos countered Mirza's counter vote bomb with 7 points to innomen. It was later revealed that ApostateAbe, who hates me for "gish galloping" on our debate about Jesus, had in fact intended to give all 7 points to innomen "legitimately" and had "not vote bombed." Thus, Mirza's and Gileandos' votes were cancelling each other out. Mirza also had posted as his "RFD" that his counter-vote bomb was temporary until he actually read the debate and voted. I checked the debate frequently so that when Mirza finally did vote, I could either counter Gileandos' vote myself or ask Gileandos to correct his vote. It didn't matter, however, since I was far enough ahead of innomen that even Mirza's un-countering wouldn't have resulted in innomen winning. Then two hours before the voting period ended, Zetsubou voted 3 points to innomen. This meant Mirza's vote would have made a difference. At this point, I frequently checked the debate to make sure nothing was remiss because I had had MANY problems with some of the people voting for innomen and this debate was causing me a great deal of frustration. Ultimately, Mirza voted SO close to when the voting period ended that I had no chance to counter Gileandos' vote bomb, even though I was checking frequently. Mirza voted so close to when the voting period ended that he had no chance to leave a full RFD in the comments section, even though he said he would. His RFD seems extremely hurried, if you read it. It also seems unlikely that Mirza had enough time to read the debate in full, if he voted a minute before the voting period ended. He either a) read the debate beforehand and thus should have voted a long time ago or b) if you believe he was having "computer issues," he must have logged on without enough time to actually read the entire debate, in full, so his vote was by definition a vote bomb and was strategic. Mirza admits to knowing that his vote would result in innomen winning (because of Gileandos' un-counter-able vote bomb). Mirza: "I knew my vote would determine the outcome." http://www.debate.org... Mirza also admits to open contempt towards me as a motivation for his voting behavior. He says that he pictured my face when I won the debate and couldn't bear the thought of my elation at winning. This is the reason he voted. Mirza: "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray." This sounds like a 100% admission of guilt. I look forward to Mirza's response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with zelda better then final fantasy because I would like you to know that zelda is played more often for an ex http://www.escapistmagazine.com... more people liked zelda better then ff. Zelda has also been around a lot longer then ff, making it more popular, then ff. I probably lost this debate but still I like zelda better! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Aliens are Real because 1. There are so many planets out there, there just has to be life on other worlds. 2. It is impossible to disprove the existence of ETs because you would have to search every inch of the universe, and other universes 3. They could be microscopic. 4. UFOs exist, The Tinley Park case is the best evidence These UFOs were proven not to be flares, they have to be, a. Top Secret Government Craft, or aliens 5. The meteor found in Antarctica proves there was life on mars http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6. Europa may have life on it. Conclusion since it is impossible to disprove the existence of life on other planets, it is not possible to say there is no life on other planets. Probability suggests there is life on other planets. I leave it to Con to search the entire universe and show me it is all dead. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Bradley Manning. Traitor. because I will now begin my rebuttal by arguing against the things my opponent has stated. Before I begin I would like to say that my opponent started arguing about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. That is a completely different topic and debate and has very little to do with this one. I humbly request that in future rounds we refrain from crossing that line. Thank you. Now to begin. I would like to thank my opponent for stating the legal definition of treason. She suggests that by that definition it proves Manning did not commit treason. However, proving that he did by that definition will be my primary focus of this round. While it is true that Manning did not "levy war against the United States", what he can be charged with is aiding the enemy. In order to argue this I must first state for the record who the enemy is. My opponent made the very false assumption that the enemy of the US is the "public opinion" or "anyone who isn't an ally", which is absurd and border line conspiracy mumbojumbo. She also suggest that since Saddam was dead there was no enemy. However this does not challenge why he released the Afghan war logs or the embassy files, which had nothing to do with Iraq. It is also irrelevant that Saddam was already dead since we still have a very strong and determined enemy we are engaged with in the Mid East. I really didn't want to get into the Iraq war thing but since she already used it I feel pressured to counter at least this one instance. Yes it is true that our goal when we first invaded Iraq was to capture Saddam, dismantle his government, military, and arsenal. We achieved these goals in the first 2 years of the war, after which victory was officially declared. However the fighting did not end there. Who was the enemy? Before Saddam's downfall he issued one final order to his military, to continue fighting the Coalition as a guerrilla force for as long as possible. The parts of the military that obeyed that order made up about 30% to 40% of our opposition. another 10%to 20% were people of Iraq that just didn't like having invaders in their land and didn't like being conquered. But the vast majority of our enemies were radical Muslims from all corners of the earth that answered the call of jihad given by various religious and terrorist leaders to drive off the infidel invaders from Muslim lands. These are who our enemy's were in Iraq at the time of the incident, not Saddam. The enemy's in Afghanistan should be self explanatory. Ok with all that out of the way on to how Manning aided the enemy. First off as I already stated he released names of informants and Ally's of ours in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the locations of safe houses. How this aids the enemy should be obvious. Also released were troop movements and updated tactics. For those that don't know, our enemy is very adaptive. When ever we use a certain tactic or technique the learn it very quickly and adapt in order to counter it. Because of that we are always having to improve and create new tactics to stay ahead. Such as the different devices we use to scramble IEDs. Because of Manning the enemy had a sneak peak at our next line of tactics and so the enemy could begin adapting faster then normal. Once again, obviously a problem. Bradley released the profiles of known terrorists as well as all the knowledge we have on them. We keep profiles on all the Jihad's we know of and use them to track them down or spy on them. Because Manning released this information the enemy got to see everything we have on them. So lets say haji bob is a local al-Qaeda cell leader. He doesn't know that we known everything about him from where they have their secret meetings to his mothers bra size. Now that he's seen the info Manning released and sees we know about him what do you think he does. Disappears. Obviously a problem. A direct example of this is the information we had on the Pakistani Secret Intelligence Service or ISI. For the last few years ISI has been supporting and financing the Taliban. Before Manning they didn't know that we knew and were trying to figure out how to prove it and reveal them so that they could be removed. However thanks to Manning they now know that we knew so what do you think they did. Scraped all operations, quit all their treachery, and destroyed all the evidence. Now our chances of proving these crimes have greatly diminished. Also released was information that we had on Iran supporting terrorist groups. The next thing I would like to argue is the claim my opponent made that because Manning gave the data to Assange, not directly handing it to Saddam's zombie or osama bin laden, and because he didn't not intentionally mean for the info to get into jihadist hands, that he is some how absolved of any wrong doing. This is absurd. Its a simple matter of cause and effect. Because of his actions that data fell into enemy hands. Had he not released it that would not have happened. Yes he didn't directly give it to them nor did he mean to give it to them but he knew that the data would be seen by the entire world, which means to our enemy's as well. Maybe he didn't think of it at the time but he still knew. Just because he didn't do it intentionally or with malice does not absolve him of the crime. If you decide to drive drunk and hit and kill a pedestrian you still get charged for man slaughter do you not? You didn't mean to kill him but because of your actions it still happened. Cause and effect. The next thing I will cover is Wikileaks. My opponent made the false assumption that I called them a foreign entity cause Assange is Australian. This is as I already said false and my statement had nothing to do with Assange' s nationality. Wikileaks is a non American organization, that was not made in America and nor made by Americans. Thus it is a foreign entity. I hope that is clearer. Wikileaks may use and share fundamental beliefs that we also believe but that doesn't make them an American organization. Nor does it mean they are not anti-American. Their actions against us speak for themselves. My statement about if he had given the data to an American organization like info wars was mostly my own personal feelings and due to them not being a foreign organization. However if he had giving it to them he still would be guilty of breaking the law. My opponent stated that it might be better to go after Wikileaks instead of Manning since it was them who release the information to our enemies. This is wrong. Wikileaks is nothing more then the middle man here, since with out Manning giving them the data they would have had nothing to release to our enemies thus making it irrelevant. Once again its cause and effect. Furthermore Wikileaks is not a service member of the Armed Forces of the United States nor are they subject to the laws of the US military and Federal government. Unlike Manning. MY conclusion in the third round is that by US military law Bradley Manning is in fact guilty of aiding the enemy and Thus a traitor. Once again I wish my opponent best of luck and look forward to seeing her rebuttal. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap Battle(general) because You're rhymes are so boring Your sh!t has got me snoring Your phrases are so repetitive It's almost like you're anticompetitive You want to sign a peace treaty, sweetie? My rhymes are perhaps too meaty For your minuscule prefrontal cortex Got your head spinning like a vortex Don't deny that you're perplexed What you rapping about killing me for? These lyrics I deplore Your insults I ignore You're beneath me, like an underscore I understand that your jealous I can teach you to be zealous Come hang with me and the fellas Mr. "I'm MC Sleazy" Are you seriously trying to make this easy? Your sh!t is so cheesy It's not even funny, it's so bad I'm getting queasy Everyone knows i'm the best lyrically I can prove it to you empirically You got to read it to feel it You didn't so you wouldn't get it Socialpinko's blood, I'm bout to spill it His homosexual anarchist philosophy, I'm bout to kill it <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The process of Gift Giving is a waste of time. because Thanks for starting this debate. Pro's thesis isn't really clear, but I'll accept the title, "Gift giving is a waste of time" as what I will argue against. Pro doesn't specify under what circumstances he supports his thesis, thus we have to assume that "Gift giving, under all circumstances, in every case, is a waste of time." So upon presentation of only one situation of the giving of a gift NOT being a waste of time, the thesis is disproved. Let's suppose you have a significant other. And one day, on the anniversary of your relationship, your significant other hands you a rose, as a symbol of his/her undying love for you. You take it and slap him/her across the face with it, because, "Gift giving is a waste of time." OK, maybe that is a poor example. The point is that the process of gift giving has a deeper significance than just of actual process of exchanging purchased merchandise. And the expression of those deeper meanings are not wastes of time. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Obese customers should pay more for flights. because First, my opponent's exaggerated picture of an obese individual was abusive and entirely unnecessary. In fact, its only "point" was to raise the question of whether or not you would like to sit next to the individual in the photo. My opponent says, "You can choose to donate half your seat to this guy..." however, you have about a 1 in 6+ billion chance that you would ever have to sit next to that guy. So, if those odds are enough to get you to vote for my opponent, by all means... The reality is, however, that not all obese people are extraordinarily overweight by society's standards. In the past few years, the average waist line has expanded by 2 inches. Seeing thicker people is now more common, and you yourself may be obese or even have a family member who is considered obese without you even knowing it. For instance, if you are 5'5" and weigh 180 lbs, you are obese. If you are 5'8" and weigh 198 lbs, you are obese. Not all obese people are as massive as the one represented in the picture, and my opponent made no differentiation between that guy and the masses. Thus you must disregard the image and actually hold it against my opponent for stooping to that level (desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess). Next some $$ issues come into play. Pro says, "However, had the airline intervened and helped the gentlemen get a specialized seat (at a slight increase in expense), neither of you would have had to endure that experience!" What BS! Apparently he hasn't been paying attention throughout this debate where a huge focus has been the decline of airline resources, and how airlines are on INCREDIBLY tight budgets would eliminate any opportunity to implement new seating. If this were to actually happen, it would cost A LOT more than a "slight increase" of cost. I've noticed that Pro exaggerates quite a bit, hmm? Also, if this extra cost were applied to everyone, then it would not just be obese people paying extra for flights but EVERYONE. This contradicts the resolution. Then Pro suggests that obese people should have to pay between $20 - 50 extra per flight. I'm sure you can figure out that this small cost would not be enough to cover the cost of ripping out already existing airline seating and replacing it in terms of man power, cost of products, cost of supplies, etc on EVERY flight. Further, if the original goal was to have obese people buy an extra seat, we all know that a plane ticket costs well over $20. Thus, the airline would lose a lot of money here... and this doesn't even include the fact that by implementing more, larger seating, the airline would lose money in the sense that it reduces the amount of available seating per flight. This inconvenience could wind up costing airlines big time in the end, meaning it would cost money for ALL flyers as well. Considering that the odds are HIGHLY AGAINST you sitting next to an obese individual (10%!), well, you do the math. Next Pro tries to use the logic of, "When an obese person walks into a department store to buy plus-sized clothing, does he or she not pay more for the extra fabric?" Um, actually no - they don't. If Jen buys a pair of jeans in a size 4 and Jess buys the same pair in a size 16, they will both pay the same price for the jeans. And yes, at size 16, Jess is considered to be obese. Thus this logic does not stand here. Pro says, "Of course, the group of people required for this small fee would be small. We're talking about the truly obese here (BMI greater than 3.5), not the common overweight." Well okay, you actually need a BMI greater than 30 to be over-weight, but nevertheless, this would actually include a lot of people. See some examples of weight statistics above (i.e. if your dad is 5'10" and weighs 210 lbs, he would have to pay extra for a flight, AND - according to Pro - not be able to sit with you or his family due to the necessity of him having to sit in "specialized seating"). Speaking of which, this kind of "specialized seating" is degrading to those who are forced to endure such an experience against their will. Things like this are NOT TOLERATED. So indeed my opponent's claim that "this eliminates the need for embarrassing moments" because the "obese are people too" is BS. Then Pro tries to portray a happy-go-lucky scenario of someone buying a ticket and being asked whether or not they prefer plus sized seating. While I agree that a little extra room would be preferable, I also acknowledge that paying extra for it is NOT. Some people wouldn't want to or wouldn't be able to afford it, but Pro is suggesting that it's mandatory. If it's not mandatory, or if obese people wouldn't have to pay extra for this seating, than that completely negates the resolution in and of itself (because obese people are not paying more). Going back to old contentions, Pro asserts that taxation on things like cigarettes are so high because the government is essentially taxing for insurance. Uh, that's not true -- I cannot believe that Pro is actually naive enough to believe that high taxes are for INSURANCE purposes...?! Alright, I'm dumbfounded, so I'll let a quick cited source do the talking for a moment... "The legislative controls in this case, which are represented by higher tobacco taxes, were not intended to cause people to quit smoking but rather to increase revenue. The state's claim that these punishment-style taxes are to encourage people to quit smoking for health reasons has only a smidgen of truth, just enough to become the facade... Since unequal taxation is inequitable, it is a human rights violation, more specifically an equal rights violation. The higher tax rate on tobacco is inequitable because it doesn't affect all citizens equally, only smokers. Targeting a minority is inequitable." The source for this information is the Bureau of International Information Programs (U.S. Dept of State) which can be found here --> [1]. Thus my opponent's propositions are not only morally wrong, but unconstitutional as well... at least via the current interpretation by government. In terms of my other contentions, Pro has merely brushed the surface on a defense. He says that I must prove genetics to be the #1 cause of obesity, but that is untrue -- After researching the main causes for the disease, what I came up with was clear across the board: factors include genetics, lifestyle and psychological disorders. Stress was considered to be in the top 3-5 causes as well. However if we take a look at these causes, almost none of them are preventable. Genetics - obviously not. Lifestyle - nope. Because you are born into it. If a child is raised in a household where parents/people over-eat, they will imitate the same behavior. People also cannot choose their culture (another huge factor) or necessarily control the stress in their life, etc. Bottom line, Pro is wrong here. Because he even wants taller/larger people in general to pay extra, and obviously people cannot control their HEIGHT. Again, this is highly discriminatory and WOULD NEVER FLY (no pun intended) without serious legal repercussions. Also, since Pro is once again naive enough to believe that obesity law suits do not exist, he might be surprised at the results of Googling "obesity personal injury law." A tip? IT DEFINITELY EXISTS! [2] So no, unlike Pro, I have not made up any random facts throughout this debate. I don't need to stoop to that in order to be a good debater. Btw - Pro never included citation regarding the # of obese people who require medical attention on flights to prove HIS point, so disregard it. It also does not address other high-risk flyers. I've noticed that Pro did not respond to my arguments regarding cargo space/weight, costs and other points -- clearly he has not been the better debater in this debate. Sources: [1] http://usinfo.state.gov... [2] http://www.google.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Scorpions are good pets in general. because Good debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with People can be proven wrong. because I thank Con for accepting this debate. Con said, "it's impossible to prove people wrong." I will first present two hypothetical scenarios where someone is proven wrong. I will then present 4 cases of other people who were proven wrong. Lastly, I will rebut the arguments presented by Con. I. Hypothetical Scenario. Say a man was arrested by police shortly after a reported robbery occurred. The man claims to the arresting officers, "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I didn't rob the store." During the court case, prosecution presents video evidence of that very man committing the robbery. His face is clearly seen on the screen, it's, without a doubt, the same man sitting in the court room. In presenting that evidence, the prosecutor has proven that the man was wrong, he did infact rob that store. If it wasn't the same man, then the defense attorneys would have proven that the man was right, that it wasn't him. In essence, if it was indeed the same man, then the prosecutor proved the man wrong. Hence, someone proved someone else wrong. II. Hypothetical Scenario Two. You are walking your dog down the road when suddenly a man drives by. The man then stops his car and tells you that all pigs can fly. Ironically, you are across the road from a pig farm and can clearly see that those pigs do not have wings nor the capacity to fly. You then show the man that those pigs across the street can't fly. Bam, the man was proven wrong. III. Four other, real-world examples. "The Beatles have no future in show business." This was said by a Decca Records executive after the Beatles auditioned for them in 1962. The Beatles went on to become one of the greatest bands during the 1960's, and most certainly found their future in show business. "There is no reason any individual would want a computer in their home." This was said by Ken Olson, founder and former CEO of Digital Equipment Corp. in 1977. Nowadays, computers are found in 84% of American houses. [1] "There is no chance that the iPhone will get any significant market share." This was said by Steve Ballmer, the former CEO of Microsoft, in 2007. Nowadays, the iPhone is the most recognized phone in the entire world, and it's most certainly taken control of the market. "If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." This was said by W.C. Hueper, of the National Cancer Institute, in 1953. Nowadays, we know that excessive smoking is one the most common causes for lung cancer. Each of these can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com... [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... I have now shown multiple cases proving that people can be proven wrong. **Rebuttals** IV. Irrelevant arguments My opponent seems to enjoy posting abstract, irrelevant claims in some effort to negate the resolution. As I understand it, it's Impossible to prove a negative. This is irrelevant to the resolution which focuses specifically on proving people wrong. It's Impossible to prove Impossibility. Please see above response. It's Impossible to prove Absence of Evidence. Please see above response. V. L. Ron Hubbard My opponent said: L. Ron Hubbard stated in his 1950 book on Dianetics that Absolutes have to be considered logically Impossible. BOP to disprove that is on you. This is, again, irrelevant to the resolution since we are not discussing absolutes. There is no BOP on me, in this regard, because there is no relevance of your argument to the resolution at hand. VI. Purity My opponent then goes on to state: Pure Truth, therefore, cannot exist. Pure Falsehood, therefore, also cannot exist. A person cannot, therefore, be completely right or completely wrong. A person, therefore, cannot be proved right, or wrong. There is a difference between being completely right, and just being right. Con is jumping across that gap without giving any justification for doing so. Furthermore, there are most certainly scenarios where someone can be proven wrong - please see above examples. VII. Absence of Evidence First off, it's absence* with a *c*, not an *s*. This site has the option to "check your spelling", use it. Secondly, the reason I hadn't provided any evidence to back up my position was because I hadn't posted yet, lol. You literally went before me - so obviously I wouldn't have any chance to present evidence until my turn came. To claim absence of evidence when I hadn't even had the chance to present any yet is just absurd and fallacious. Lastly, I've now presented evidence - thus the absence has been filled. In closing, I believe my opponent fundamentally misunderstands what I am trying to debate here. Roughly 80% of his arguments were either irrelevant, unjustified, or nonsensical. I have presented several instances where people have been proven wrong, both hypothetically and in reality. I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Con. I now return the floor to Con, and caution him that trolling is against the rules of this debate. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Alcoholics Anonymous is NOT a cult because "I would like my opponent to point out where the article clearly states that the checklist usually defines "dangerous cults." I would love to. "This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern." That is what this checklist is for. Usually things that are causes for concern, are dangerous to an extent. "However, as the advocate I had the initial responsibility of defining terms, in which I used their checklist to do so. The article clearly states that their checklist ‘may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.'" I agree. However, this still does not change the fact that this list is "not meant to be a "cult scale" or a DEFINITIVE CHECKLIST to determine if a specific group is a cult." Emphasis has been added by me. But this is still a direct quote. "They then turn to the power of the group, which is indeed more powerful than their own strength." I understand this. However, i feel as though my opponent has not answered my question to the fullest. To reiterate my question here again: "Really. And what sort of "Higher power" could an atheist call upon, to which they are helpless against?" This is, after all, one of the main sections of the 12 step program, which is admitting that you are helpless against this higher power. "Others have been known to use Mother Nature as their Higher Power." In other words, Pantheism. "the Agnostic AA groups can format their meetings differently, but they are still AA meetings." Very well, then. I shall ask my opponent this question. If a group decides to throw away the 12 step program in favor of a more secular, yet vastly different approach that is based upon a different Secular Alcohol rehabilitation group, is that group still AA? Rebuttal 2. And i have also successfully provided an example of a religion that is deemed as a cult by many, but which utterly fail when the checklist is applied. This example was Raelism. Infact, i would like to ask my opponent a very important question. Does my opponent believe that Christianity is a Cult? Rebuttal 3. I shall address this in further detail once my opponent answers my question regarding AA meetings, above. Rebuttal 5. Yet, clearly, when Bill, the founder of AA, created the "Big book", which was an outline of the history, methods and beliefs of Alcoholics Anonymous, he produces the 12 steps, which specifically mention God. One could only conclude that by "Higher power", Bill was referring to God, specifically. Otherwise, he would have kept the words "Higher Power" and never would have used the word "God". I fail to see what a forced dichotomy has to do with answering the question. My opponents arguments depend solely on the interpretation of the word "Higher power", and claim that one could not possibly assume that the word "higher power" directly references, or equates to "God". If my opponent is Christian, and I am an atheist, then we are on opposite sides of the playing field. Therefore, if we both reach the same conclusion as to what the word "Higher power" means, then clearly this is a representation of a larger group, and not just a single group of like-minded people. I would like the audience and my opponent to be mindful that the fallacy of composition is only applied when the whole is assumed to be true based on the partial. However, I have never claimed that every single person on the planet will instantly point to the word "God", when the word "Higher power" is mentioned. Thus, there is no fallacy present. Furthermore, it is even more absurd when my opponent claims the fallacy of Ad populum, when the claim is "Most people who hear the word "Higher power" think of the word "God"", because that claim IS dependent on majority opinion. Buddha is a god. Pantheism. Existentialists are not atheists. The twelve step group is a worship in a deity. In every instance that you have substituted a higher power for, the instance is related to Theism or a deity in particular. This is laughable. Hindu India = Theism. Buddhist japan = Theism. Catholic Spain = Theism. There is no such thing as an Atheistic Russia. In fact, the majority of people in Russia are theists(1). Maybe you are talking about the Soviet Union. I wasn't aware that we were in the 20th century. "I am curious to see if my opponent will interject his personal opinion and state that these examples are also religious in nature, as he did for the previously mentioned conceptions. His opinion does not represent the opinions of everyone else." Yes. Because, clearly Catholicism has nothing to do with religion. Clearly, Buddhism has nothing to do with religion. Clearly, Hinduism has nothing to do with Religion. This is not my personal opinion. This is a fact. And this is probably why you chose to write "Hindu India, Buddhist japan, Catholic Spain". The truth of the matter is, I asked YOU, or rather, MY OPPONENT the question. I did not ask a group of people. I did not circulate a worldwide poll. I asked my opponent, as to whether or not he buys his own argument. My opponent, is christian, i agree. However, so is the majority of this country. Infact, the majority of the human race that has the means to suffer from Alcoholism, is religious. This does not create a dichotomy, or a fallacy of the majority. I am not claiming that "Since the majority of believers would point to God when they hear the word "Higher power", therefore everyone in the world would do the same". I am claiming that the majority of people who hear the word "Higher power" will believe it to be pointing to the word "God", and this is most definitely a fact. My opponent just refuses to answer this simple question because even he does not believe in his own argument. Rebuttal 11. Nonetheless, i would like to continue addressing the fact that the checklist is a potential checklist in determining whether an organization is a cult, but not a determinate one, nor a requirement. Rebuttal 12. Ditto above. Rebuttal 13. Ditto above. Rebuttal 14. Again, Ditto above. Rebuttal 15. Although I could ditto this too, I will ask my opponent a question instead. When a loyal member of the AA group, who believes in the 12 steps program and also in the 12 traditions, has his faith shattered and can no longer believe that a higher power exists, what do you believe will be the most general course of action that this person will take? Source: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence because My opponent has an impossible burden of proof. He has to prove that two things have the same chance of existing. However, without evidence, this is impossible. So, there really is no way for PRO to affirm the resolution. At all. Therefore, vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Islam is a religion of peace. because Two. Out of all the UK. And I think you'll find Muslims may not start of happy, but due to a phrase known as cultural transition, the idea that their religious community helps them fit into this new Westernised culture. And these very few fundamentalists, the 25% who apparently are not the minority. are going through cultural defense, protecting their culture from these Westernisers. These have been proven by the sociologist Steve Bruce. As for the two soldiers. the fact that people generalised this once again to even more Muslims is once again showing the feeble minded individuals that the UK possess. whom more UK citizens are most probably killed by other UK citizens. My closing statement is that this 25% who ARE the minority are doing it in a cultural defense mechanism, and most of these cultural defensive muslims are in fact in their own country, and proctecting themselves from other religious organisations trying to overthrow them- the same as Russia did in the 70's. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Reality is an Absolute because Thank you for your arguments Pro Pro attempts to re-define the terms I have already defined, not using any dictionary, but his understanding of the terms. Not only is this an attempt to skew the argument in his favor, his definition is inherently flawed. Pro defines reality as 'Things, or the actuality of them'. By Pro's definition, only 'things' are part of reality. The state of such things isn't part of reality then. Meaning, the Earth being closer to the Sun than Neptune, isn't part of reality, as being closer is a state of location. Pro defines perception 'As being aware of things through senses.'. Being aware of things references a state, just as being ready, being dressed, being awake, etc... Perception is not a state, you wouldn't say 'I am perception', you would say 'I am perceptive'. Perceptive is the state associated with perception. I propose that my definitions were first, came from a dictionary, and are more proper. Pro's argument stems from these definitions, but these arguments are flawed as well. We don't perceive objects. We perceive the light bouncing off of them as sight. We perceive the kinetic energy of an object striking them, being turned into vibrations, as sound. We perceive the repelling force of atoms when our hands get close to objects as 'touch'. In no way do we actually perceive the objects directly. Instead, we perceive reality 100% through our senses and thought processes. As everything is being processed through our brains, we have no way to objectively step outside of that personal process to 'compare notes' with anyone else. Just as you can't step into my body to perceive reality from my point of view, I can't step into your body to perceive reality from your point of view. Pro states that reality is independent, and does not depend on anything. I assert that reality depends on our perception. If you remove all perception of reality, does it still exist, and how can you show that it does without perceiving it? Because we have no method to test anything without some form of perception, reality is entirely based on perception. Further, because all perception is processed subjectively and individually through our brains, we have no method of objectifying our perceptions into a perfect consensus. A man is hit on the head and this causes him to see the world as red. This is due to the perception of sight being directly related to electrical impulses between the eye and the brain. As Pro stated, this doesn't make the world red, it is just what the eye and brain are processing. Similarly, each individual has no way to know if his eye and brain are processing the world correctly either. Each individual has only his own experience of what is correct to judge by. By definition, then, reality is defined subjectively for each person. If there is an absolute, objective, external reality, we have no method to test it. Without a method to objectively and empirically test it, it remains in the same category as Gods, spirit, and invisible pink unicorns. In addition, this entire debate is completely subjective, based on definitions of words, which are defined with other words, ad infinitum. Using Pro's definition of and dictionary for Absolute we get the following: Absolute: Complete in itself. Complete: Finished. Finished: Polished to the highest degree of excellence; complete(first instance of circular synonyms) Polished: ... refined; Refined: polished, cultured(again, circular synonyms). All words are defined with other words. There are no 'base' words, so there are no 'absolute' words. If there are no absolute words, how can there be an absolute argument about reality? Even this debate isn't absolute, as it relies entirely upon circular logic of language to even exist. Pro attempts to require the axiom of 'Existence exists' for his argument, but the entire argument is concisely about whether or not existence exists in an absolute form. Take both of these arguments as an example. Everything said on both sides is perceived by you and fits into what you perceive as reality. I assert that reality is only a word we use to describe our view of what is and what isn't. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because "Ok let me know when youre done..." Ahaha, will do. =) "I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent." And it's just that. An opinion. "Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan..." The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e. "What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here." The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion. But if even one necrophiliac or cannibalistic crime is committed this year, that's too much. In conclusion, if we allow people to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs and cannibals, it will have a positive effect on crime rates. Not to mention, if someone wants to do it, who are we to judge? It doesn't concern us, so I think it's best to just let it lie. Well, I thank my opponent for a fun and entertaining debate. Good luck! And by the way, when I die, BBQ at my place. Formal dress attire. Bring your own beer. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God most likely exists because Thanks for the excellent rebuttal. Remember that my argument is P1 Mind is mental P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental P3 Mind interacts with reality C2 Reality is mental As I expected, my opponent has attacked only P1. Remember, that if I can defend P1, the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably. God My opponent claims that even if the above argument is true, it doesn’t prove God. Let me explain. Materialism argues that there is only one type of substance, and that this type of substance is physical stuff. The mind, therefore, is reducible to physical matter. Idealism, on the other hand, states that there is only one type of substance, but this substance is “mental”. Mind is not irreducible to physical matter for the idealist, but physical matter is reducible to mind. Let’s say you’re baking a cake. You take ingredients and mix them up, put it in the oven, and out comes the cake. The materialist says that these ingredients you made the cake out of are physical in nature. The idealist says that these irreducibly ingredients are mental in nature. So if I can show that the mind is irreducible, then I have shown that “mind stuff” is the basic ingredient. P1: Whatever is mental is either (i) a mind or (ii) caused by a mind. P2: Reality is mental C: Reality is either a (i) mind, or (ii) caused by a mind. For the sake of this debate, either option will do, since in either case, there’s a mind behind reality. My opponent also objects that reality could be caused by a CPU which is physical and not mental. But once again, this doesn’t work, since the interaction between this CPU and our minds would be impossible as I have shown. Materialism My opponent, as you will recall, is arguing for materialism. This means that he is not arguing that physical matter has other “mental” properties, but rather that our minds are, in some way or another, the same thing as physical matter. To put this in philosophy terms, he is arguing for a reductionist form of the mind, not an emergent one. He’s not saying that if you mix up certain physical parts then poof! Out comes a non-physical mind. He’s saying that the mind just is physical. He also argues that materialism makes sense of the world better than idealism, and gives examples of the mind’s dependency on the brain, and optical illusions. He claims that materialism makes more sense of the necessary connection between brain and mind. But who is to say that there is a necessary connection between brain and mind? He surely hasn’t shown this. In our world, yes, there is a connection between the two. But is this the case in all worlds, which is what it means for something to be “necessary”? We haven’t been given any reasons to think this. Remember the diagram above? Well I’ll admit there is a relationship between mind/matter in our physical world, but not necessarily in all metaphysical situations. In regards to optical illusions, he is also mistaken. Idealism doesn’t say that science needs to change how it functions. All it says is that the philosophical presuppositions science assumes need to change. So under idealism, there are still atoms, quantum particles, black holes, etc. The difference though, is that materialism says these things are, in their philosophical nature, physical. Idealism says that in their nature, they are mental. So science works exactly the same on idealism as it does on materialism. The difference between the two is the ontological nature of reality. My opponent also says that materialism is favored by Occam’s razor. Under materialism we don’t need God, but under idealism we do. So materialism makes less assumptions, right? Once again, this is assuming that idealism and materialism are on equal footing as far as explanatory power goes (which they’re not, as I’ve shown) and that reality can go on without a mind. I am intending to show that it cannot. So if my argument succeeds, this is completely irrelevant. Occam’s razor might favor the position that there’s no black holes, since that is an unnecessary assumption, but we have evidence that they exist, and positing black holes explains things much better. And remember, the only part of my argument Con has disagreed with is the premise that mind is irreducible to matter. The heart and soul of this entire debate rests upon that one premise. Consequences of materialism My opponent argues that if materialism is true, then we don’t have any free will, and that's just the way it is. The problem is that we most definitely do experience something like free will. Free-will seems obviously true. Sure, it might end up being false, but we do experience at least the illusion of it. Materialism needs to explain why we experience such an incredibly strong illusion of something that doesn’t exist, and it has a lot of trouble doing so. But idealism can easily explain why we think there is free will. Because we have it! So I shall argue that there are numerous reasons to believe that the mind is immaterial, and it able to explain things, such as free will and the self. Materialism fails on both accounts. Defending P1 Let’s get into the main part of the disagreement. Strap on your seatbelts because this might be a bumpy ride. Dissimilarities of mind and matter Suppose you had never before seen or even heard of a rabbit. Suppose you also had never seen or heard of chewing tobacco. Now suppose I showed you a picture of both. "Now" I ask you, "how do you know that these aren’t the same thing?" You laugh at first, but then realize I am completely serious. "How do you know?" I repeat. "THAT" you point at the rabbit "is a small fuzzy cute animal. But THAT is a paper package filled with black shredded stuff." I still insist "But how does that mean they're different things? They still might be the same thing for all we know." At this point, I think most people would be frustrated and flabbergasted. They'd probably throw up their hands and say "Look, dude, they're completely dissimilar. They're just completely different types of things." And you would be perfectly justified in making that inference. If I wanted you to believe otherwise, I should show you that a rabbit and chew are actually the same. What is physical matter, the brain, composed of? Grey tissue. Neuron firing. Stimulation of C-fibers. Shifting in voltage. Chemicals releasing. But what is "mind"? The self. Sensations. What something feels like. Beliefs. Desires. Thoughts. Let me put it this way. How much does my belief that "it is raining today" weigh? How many centimeters "long" is the self? Since we are justified in making the inference that a rabbit and a pouch of chew are not the same thing, we are also justified in making the inference that neural patterns and what I feel when I step on a lego are different things. If the rabbit and the chew were the same things, then when we look at the picture of the rabbit, we’re also looking at the chew. But if the mind is the same as the physical matter of the brain, then every time I introspect, or look inside myself, I am looking at neurons. We can identify the rabbit as much as we like, and we will never be aware of the pouch of tobacco. The thought will never enter our heads. This makes absolutely no sense if they’re the same things. But we can do the same with the mind! We can understand everything there is to know about neuron firing patterns, but this won't tell us what something actually smells like to that person. So if the C-fiber stimulation and the pain I feel when I step on a lego were the exact same thing then they wouldn't be such completely dissimilar things. But you could scan my brain however many times you like, identify neurons, but you will never “feel” my pain. In other words, mind is inherently first-person, while matter is inherently third-person. They’re completely dissimilar. My opponent isn’t comparing apples to oranges. He’s saying apples just are oranges. Solipsism My opponent claims that solipsism might be metaphysically possible, but we don’t know for sure. He compares it to Goldberg’s Conjecture. Since we can’t know whether or not Goldberg’s Conjecture is metaphysically possible, we can’t know that solipsism is metaphysically possible as well. But there’s a problem here. Unlike in Goldberg’s Conjecture, we can analyze the properties of physical matter, and the properties of the mind, as we have done above. We can compare the two, and see that they are actually quite different in their nature. Thus, we can conclude that it’s perfectly metaphysically possible for the mental states to exist apart from the brain states, and it’s also perfectly conceivable. Contrast this to Goldberg’s Conjecture. In the case of Goldberg’s Conjecture, we cannot yet analyze the properties of an infinite amount of numbers. We just don't know. This is a very obscure and complicated example and should not be compared to the obvious example of the mind. So my opponent’s analogy does not hold. In the case of solipsism, we can easily examine mind and easily examine the properties of physical matter. This is not the case with Goldberg’s Conjecture. To compare the mind, which is what we know most immediately (in fact, all we ever know) to an infinite amount of numbers which the greatest mathematicians cannot find an answer to is not a valid analogy at all. He also asks how I know this is conceivable? Well how do we know it is conceivable that the rabbit might exist while the chew doesn’t? Because they’re completely different things. My opponent also argues that my argument is invalid. However, this is a modus tollens argument which is perfectly valid. P1 IF mind is matter, THEN there is no possible world in which solipsism is the case. P2 There is a possible world in which solipsism is the case. C Mind is not matter. As I have defended P2, which my opponent has attacked, the argument remains. Thus, we have seen good reasons to believe that the mind is immaterial. Unless, of course, my opponent can give us arguments to think otherwise. The resolution remains affirmed. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Andrew Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill. because "That point was "Andrew Jackson did not approve of fiat money", to quote my opponent, "this is unwarranted revisionism". Andrew Jackson may have favored commodity backed currency during his presidency, but that is only because he feared for the country's economic welfare. He thought, by passing the Specie Circular in 1836 he would prevent a future economic downturn when people started buying large amounts of land in the west with "soft money"." This would be a valid argument if you could show where in his speeches or writings there is a "fiat is okay in the future, just not right now" statement. You can't, because there is no such place. "He did not express any ill feelings towards "fiat money"" Check his farewell address. http://en.wikisource.org... 's_Farewell_Address Or, translated out of politicese, he's attributed by Remini's Andrew Jackson and the Bank War as having called paper (fiat) "The instrument of the swindler and the cheat." "and popular belief between many historians, Michael Baradat to name one, is that he would not mind his face being on American currency." "Popular belief" with no verifiable referents is useless, even if it's professionals choosing to believe it without evidence. "He would be honored for his face to be portrayed on the most used bill in America and no amount of past ideals can change that. " No amount of the bill being against what he stood for can change whether he would feel honored about it? By that reasoning, John Locke should be quite honored to have his face on a Cuban ration. " My opponent's next point was much like his whole speech. It lacked evidence. Just because the teenager fighting for the proposition believes that "The $20 bill is unethical". This has no relevance for what we are talking about!" It does indeed have relevance. If the removal of a face from a bill is a necessary condition of the removal of a bill (which it is), and the removal of a bill is good, it follows that the removal of a face from a bill is good. " The next 4 points my opponent brought to the table were all largely irrelevant because they related not to Andrew Jackson but the $20 dollar bill it's self." Excuse me, but the "$20 bill" itself is part of the resolution as written. This means information about the 20 dollar bill is relevant. It does not ask "Should Andrew Jackson's face appear on whatever currency there should be?" but "should it appear on the 20 dollar bill?" "And since you have obviously failed to bring up a good argument for taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill that I have not brought substantial historical evidence to refute" Namedropping a random historian to whom I can find no references other than a facebook page, who cites no evidence, is not "substantial historical evidence." The ultimate authority on Andrew Jackson's opinion is Andrew Jackson, and his statements support my interpretation, not yours. " No president, no matter his monetary belief would object to being honored on a piece of American currency." My opponent has never even been 1 president, let alone all presidents. Therefore he has no possible knwledge of what "no president" would object to, unless he can find a statement from each and every one of them detailing their lack of objection. "In fact, the original case of Andrew Jackson being put on the $20 bill is proof showing that it was not offensive." Performing an act proves it is not offensive? This renders the concept "offense" without any possible referent in reality, in any situation. By your reasoning here, nothing on earth is offensive to anyone in any way. "For why would we purposely dishonor a true American Hero?" First, this is a misleading question. Dishonoring someone does not have to be purposive. It can result from stupidity as well as malice, something the sort of people making these decisions have never lacked for. Second, any reasonable person seeking to establish a policy will note that in most cases dishonoring in one way or another one's most important opponents is often helpful. Third, there is no "We." No unanimous action is being proposed. There is you, there is I, there are the bureaucrats, and there are a number of other parties, all with separate interests in this matter. "I am positive that when he was put on there was the object of controversy that he should not because of "..." reason. But obviously it was not a good enough reason to keep him from being accepted as the next candidate for the $20 bill." Again, appealing to the fact as justification for the prescription. This is not valid. Otherwise I could claim, by the same reasoning, that because Hitler was given power, obviously preventing genocide wasn't a good enough reason to prevent his attaining of power. "o taking Jackson off the $20 would in fact be dishonoring him because of this. But it wouldn't only dishonor Jackson, but America as a whole. For what is a country that takes someone off a piece of currency for objecting to something." For objecting to the currency? I dunno, a country with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity, for once? I object to the gallows, which is why you should not leave me on them, unless you wish to dishonor me. :). "But we're Americans! And we honor our presidents, so vote con, and respect not only Andrew Jackson, but AMERICA!" "Respect" does not consist of saying "Yes, continue doing wrong, your majesty, we love you for it." Respect consists of making recommendations that make sense. If you wish to respect either Jackson or the currency, let alone both, separate the two, they don't mix well. If you wish to respect America, give it a currency suitable for a free country. It is only if you disrespect all three that you can continue encouraging such a symbolic contradiction. " My opponent's next point was that Andrew Jackson didn't cite any regional favoritism while distributing taxpayer money. Did you even RESEARCH how money was distributed back then!?!?!??! Distributing taxpayer money was the job of congress, not the executive branch" You are twisting my words to mean something completely different than they do. This is not unique among your arguments here, merely a particularly egregious example. My point was that he didn't cite any regional favoritism IN the bank's actions (Obviously Congress delegated some distribution of money to the bank, or it wouldn't be a BANK), as the reason for his objections. He cited it's favor of those who become rich by government favor, and it's lack of redeeming qualities. Region was not mentioned. "Andrew Jackson had to close down the bank because it was the only thing that he COULD do to make sure each state was equally represented." Equal representation of the states WAS NOT MENTIONED as a reason when he closed down the bank. Pay attention to the reasons he actually gave, not the ones you imagine for him. " My opponent's next point was as drastically un-cited as the last point," You have yet to make a single citation of a specific work, the closest thing to it was a citation of a random historian, without even providing the historian's probably nonexistent reasoning. "Jackson did not "Remove" the deposits in the bank at all." http://www.u-s-history.com... http://www.maths.tcd.ie... "ackson then used his second presidential election victory later that year as a mandate to order the withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank in 1833" Sure seems like he did. Last I checked, he even rewarded Taney with a Supreme Court seat for carrying out his orders. " And finally, my opponent's last point had to do with the economic stature of the $20 dollar bill, which, yet again, has nothing to do with why Andrew Jackson should be removed from it." I wouldn't want my face on a symbol soon to be tarnished. Would you? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ross is the Main Character on Friends because Thanks to Marauder and the readers! Affirmative Case The Everyman & The Damsel in Distress When we meet Ross, he has few remarkable attributes and is easily one of the least unique members of the group. At the same time, he is surrounded by absurdity; his friends are odd, his wife left him for another woman, and the love of his life, Rachel, shows up one day in a wedding dress. An otherwise normal character who is faced with unusual circumstances is known as an Everyman [ http://tinyurl.com... ]. Famous examples include Leonard (The Big Bang Theory), Jerry (Seinfeld), and Ted (How I Met Your Mother). These characters are protagonists; their normalcy in the face of insanity provides the audience with someone to identify with and use as a standard by which to judge the progress of the story. Compare this with Rachel, who we first see alone, confused, and having just run out on her wedding. As we learn more about her, we discover that she is also rich, sheltered, cries constantly, and is ignorant of the world around her (she’s never done laundry, taken out the trash, etc.). Characters portrayed as helpless, attractive, and naive are known as Damsels in Distress [ http://tinyurl.com... ]. Famous examples include Penny (The Big Bang Theory, season 1) and Diane (Cheers). These characters’ quirks get them lots of laughs, but those same traits disqualify them as protagonists. Rachel, like Chandler, Monica, Joey, and Phoebe, is written to be a caricature and plays off of our “normal” hero, Ross. A Hero’s Journey Ross faces challenges and evolves throughout the series in ways indicative of a protagonist growing along with the audience. Ross’ primary struggles - his relationship with his ex-wife, raising his son, overcoming his difficulties in relationships, and his unrequited love for Rachel - are long-term plot points. Each of these elements are introduced in the first season and recur time and time again, showing slow but significant advances throughout. While Rachel’s personality traits last throughout the show, her areas of growth pretty much happen entirely in the first season; she gets a job, makes new friends, and finds her independence. Based on Con’s own synopsis, the rest of her involvement in the show involves primarily dating various people and occasionally changing jobs. The Pursuer vs the Pursued Consider the roles Ross and Rachel play in developing the show’s primary plot: their relationship. Ross has always loved Rachel and from the beginning he was the pursuer. He initiated their first kiss, sleeps with the copier girl and causes their first break-up, gets them back together, says Rachel’s name at his wedding, breaks up with both Julie and Emily for Rachel, breaks up Rachel’s relationship with Joey, and the entire final season is about him finally winning Rachel’s heart. Rachel, on the other hand, is passive in all this. Her one attempt at making an impact - flying to London to stop Ross’ wedding - ends with her hugging him and telling him good luck. Protagonists propel the story forward and she has done nothing of the sort. Rebuttals The show begins & ends with Rachel Countless series begin with the boring life of the protagonist being shaken up by the entrance of a potential love interest. Consider the pilots of The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother. In both cases, the lives of our average protagonists (Leonard, Ted) are changed forever when a beautiful, available woman suddenly appears (Penny, Robin). Like Rachel, these women are main characters and pivotal in the story but they are not the protagonists. Rather, they represent the start of the protagonists' long-term relationship arc. As for Rachel leaving at the end, that is another example of my Pursuer vs Pursued argument. We see the entire ordeal through the eyes of Ross, which makes sense considering protagonists must be the one confronting and resolving conflicts, not simply experiencing events as they unfold. Rachel’s career improves Every main character on Friends showed significant job improvements throughout the series. Ross ended up as a professor, Rachel a fashion consultant, Joey a movie star, Phoebe a masseuse, Monica a chef, and Chandler an office worker. In terms of wealth and dream fulfillment, Joey attained the greatest career success. Rachel’s relationships Con mentions one of Rachel’s suitors: Gunther. Gunther pines for Rachel throughout the show and actively damages her relationship with Ross; he mocks Ross’ advances and even caused them to break up by revealing to her that Ross cheated. In literary terms, Gunther is known as an antagonist [ http://tinyurl.com... ]. Antagonists are directly at odds with protagonists and work to impede their progress and make their lives difficult. As Ross is the only target of Gunther's attacks and no other characters are faced with similar conflict, we can conclude that Ross is the show's protagonist. Con's second point is that Rachel’s relationships are highlighted in the show. He does this by running through each season and relates them each to who Rachel was dating. What he does not seem to acknowledge, however, is that every single one of these relationships except one involves Ross! The one outlier - Rachel’s brief fling with Joey - ends because of Ross. Thus, if these relationships are a point in Rachel’s favor, they are a point in Ross’ favor, as well. Rachel lives with the cast Con mentions that Rachel lives with the other cast members. To start, this does not indicate that she is the protagonist. Daphne, the housekeeper on Frasier, lived with the other main characters and she obviously wasn’t the protagonist (that would be Frasier). Still, this point is irrelevant as Ross lived with the other 5 cast members, too. He lives with Monica during high school flashbacks (and visits her constantly at the beginning of the show), he moves in briefly with Phoebe, then with Joey and Chandler, and finally Rachel moves in with him at the end of the series. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson. because You are naming these names like it makes a difference. When all they did was shield your ignorance. Oh, so you knew James Buchanan. You mean the president that sat by and waited for the union to die. Your Acquaintance destroyed my patience. If we are playing the game you fight with name, then John F. Kennedy was who I knew, others who can say that, are in the few. I may have made bad decisions in the economy, but who are you to judge, honestly. You came in peace time. I came in grease time. We had a war to solve, all you had was resolve. You messed it up so bad, people got sad and asked "What if, John Wilkes Booth wasn't so mad?" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.' because Philosphical has been a pillar of morality for this entire community. He has never been shy about correcting other people, or putting his foot down in the face of injustice. He has sworn that he would NEVER (!) do something like make another account on DDO, V-bomb, or pretend to be someone he is not. Obviously a man of his stature would not be so hypocritical and condescending to those liars and cheats whom many now consider his peers. However, philosphical has indeed been accused of some harsh matters which he says he will defend against any accusation. I am here to help him prove to the world that he is indeed telling the truth by giving him the opportunity to lay out his defense in a clear and organized fashion. So, without further adieu, if my opponent accepts this debate then I will begin discussion in Round 2. For clarity: Philosphical: http://www.debate.org... GhostWriter: http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sniperjake1994 is a conservative. because Thank you sir for accepting this, No problem I enjoy debating. I'm still rusty from not debating for months. So bear with me, thanks. I will. 1. Counter evidence: I'm true to what I have on my profile. Example: I am 15/sophomore. I apologize but you are not an accurate representation of all society. People due lie, you merely say that you are 15, this could be one truth amidst thousands of lies that we don't know about and you are unwilling to shed light on. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. You could be lying just to win this debate. Seeing as this is a key area of debate I offer the following surveys to validate my logic and thus prove my side true. [ http://www.truthaboutdeception.com... ] [ http://www.human-nature.com... ] In short they prove that while lying may or may not be genetically encoded it is an adaptation made to survive, and achieve goals (like winning this debate, or fitting in) 2. But he still leans more to the right than the middle. We both agree in 87% of the issues. And I've taken tests that show I am conservative and because we agree a lot then he is also more of a conservative. Exactly he has conservative views, you never refute the claim that he could be a conservative moderate, who pledges his allegiance just to join a party and fill in a bubble. This shows that you are reiterating my position, that he is not a conservative or liberal rather something in between. B) His ideology states: CONSERVATIVE. And I've posted a comment/question on his profile. This question was never answered, mind you. So once again we don't have any support for the claim. But furthermore even if the question was answered we would not be able to verify it as truth. We don't know wether you too are in cahoots, conspiring to beat me, and willing to lie to do so. But even though he did put conservative as his ideology we can not tell why. There are a great variety of reasons why one might put something else as their political ideology when in actuality this is not the truth, the following are a few possibilities: 1) Right wing snipers threatening his life unless he alters his ideology and joins the conservative group 2) He could be a wayward boy, lost and along desperately trying to find someone to accept him, and under ideologies it just so happened that "Conservative" was early on in the list. 3) Someone could have hacked his account. 4) It could have been a bet, dare, or practical joke. So as we can see just because it is on a profile does not make it true. 3. Alright! Someone believes Bush wasn't a failure. The wars are somewhat justified too. Yes I agree with this statement but it was never argued that I am a liberal! This proves too things that conservative views make a conservative not. a) Bush is a conservative and he supports Bush therefore he is a conservative. As I showed with my example I agreed he was not a complete failure but does that mean I am a conservative or support him? No, it simply doesn't. The logic does not allow for a conclusion of this nature. No where does Sniperjake1994 state he supports Bush, and even if he had we couldn't ever verify the claim. b) Claims can be backed by facts. Which in no case were they, so you have failed to uphold the burden of proof. Also please extend the Duck analysis which shows how all the "Logica" presented by the PRO holds no weight and is untrue. So we ought to vote CON for the following reasons: 1. We can't verify claims 2. My opponent failed to uphold the burden of proof. 3. Duck analysis shows that even if the majority of the evidence was extended and found true, which is impossible, we still can vote CON. Therefore Sniperjake1994 is not a conservative. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gene Therapy because Ethical Question: Is gene therapy ethical? Definition: A method of replacing or manipulating a dysfunctional gene with a functioning one to help treat diseases such as hereditary diseases. This can lead to the cure of cancer, Parkinson's, Hemophilia, ect. Pro arguments: · Cures genetic disorders, hereditary diseases and others deadly illnesses that cannot be treated with any kinds of medications or antibiotics. · It can wipe out genetic diseases before they can begin and eliminate suffering for future generations · Good technique for diseases not researched yet · Give people a chance at a normal life that otherwise would not be able to. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should there be a border fence? because My opponent quotes: "Okay, I am conceding defeat." My opponent has given up the debate and has accepted defeat. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. because For the sake of clarity, I will try and distill my opponent's points into numerical categories. I would also like to ask my opponent to do this in her following round – for both the readers and my own sake. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 1. In regard to the popular vote My opponent asserts that the popular vote does not matter. But one may wonder, is it important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people? She may do well to remember the reason our nation even exists. Taxation without representation was against the will of the people and subsequently led to a fight for independence. I am not suggesting that such laws would cause a revolution, but it would violate the ideals of this nation and inevitably cause civil unrest. Laws are not passed needlessly and in accordance to the moral whims of teenage girls. Only 35% of the population agrees with gay marriage. Since the consensus is an overwhelming NO to gay marriage, we should not permit it. Since permitting gay marriage would require circumventing our current legal system, I emphatically denounce the proposition that it should be allowed. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 2. Homosexuality is innate My opponent insists that homosexuality is not chosen. That is fine; I never suggested that it was. However, there is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Correlation is not evidence – if it were, we would be blaming the decrease of pirates for recent climate trends. So a good note before my opponent embarks on more science research, correlation is not causation. We are not talking about hypotheses, I can make one of those. This "study" also says nothing in regards to lesbianism. But again, let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is correct, that homosexuality IS innate. If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. My opponent's logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights – they are innate after all. Furthermore, both children AND animals are able to give consent. Children consent all the time. Indeed, a child's consent is necessary if they are to be adopted (ages ten and up). Many acts of bestiality are performed by male animals – consent is obvious in these cases. The female dolphin however, will actually approach you and, if she likes you, will expose her belly to let you know she is consenting. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 3. The argument from equality My opponent suggests that gays do not have the right to marry. This is completely wrong. Indeed they have the exact same right that I have to marry. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal (at least in my particular province), just like a zoophile cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile. This IS the definition of equal. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 4. Polygamy and Polyandry My opponent insists that polygamy and polyandry takes advantage of the legal benefits of marriage? But wait a minute, if we are going to permit the right to marry a person of the same sex, on what logical grounds do we bar 3 consenting individuals from marrying. Heterosexuals take advantage of the legal advantages of marriages, and no doubt homosexuals would as well. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that most polygamists would not get married unless their intentions were genuine. My opponent says that it would be illegal for them to "stray against the law" and aberrate from monogamy. But It is not legal for homosexuals to get married, so why in this case is it permitted to "stray against the law." Indeed, if we are going to ratify legislation to permit homosexual marriages, what logical reasons do we have for not expunging laws that prohibit faithful polygamists from marrying? .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Responses: 1. What about Denmark? First of all, Denmark has Legal civil partnerships, and they have been allowed since 1989. Since this is not an accurate example of gay marriage I will let my opponent try again. But my opponent should be informed that if we follow her reasoning to its logical conclusion, polygamy, pedophilia, and zoophilia are basic human rights as well. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 2. What about the benefits My opponent says that limiting promiscuity and infidelity are among the benefits of gay marriage. But such trivial benefits do not trump the consequences. For instance, we could acquire the same results by mandating chastity belts and straight-jacketing the suicidal. But this is neither right nor warranted. Wrong things with benefits are still wrong. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 3. Argument from personal experience My opponent insists that she has a moral vantage point given her experience with suffering. Let me say this: my fellow brothers and sisters as we speak are being imprisoned, tortured, and martyred because they are Christian. This is happening in China, Laos, North Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, all over Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. I hold dearly to the accounts of their persecution. I am aware of suffering and what it looks like. It is wrong. It is wrong to be cruel to a fellow human for any reason. The things you mentioned were wrong, no qualms about it. But we are talking about the legality of gay-marriage. We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Specific Responses: "Actually, it is. When ninety percent of us have the right to marry the adult of our choice and ten percent is not, there is a clear violation of a civil right." Actually, it is not. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex. - - - - - "Well I'd support the revamping of sex-education in our schools. Gay and lesbian youth make up a whopping thirty percent of suicides among adolescents (2). They also make up a quarter of homeless youth, and twenty eight percent are forced to drop out of school due to their sexuality (2)." If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion. Such a revamping of education would be against the will of the people, and would indoctrinate children with minority propaganda. - - - - - "My opponent does not make a valid point. Many homosexuals would be happier with a legal marriage." So would a polygamist. - - - - - "I am curious to see the reasoning behind the claim that this passage does not support my position." This moral edict has limitations, and it was never meant to be all encompassing. If I wanted to kill myself, would I be in the moral okay to kill another person? This edict is trying to emphasize that we ought to love one another and treat them rightly – at times this means correcting them where they error. The Bible categorically states that homosexuality is wrong. The ONLY given relationship is between a man and woman. Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent for arguments and I look forward to even more challenging ones in the next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with InfraRedEd pisses me off because InfraRedEd does piss me off. When I refer to InfraRedEd, I am strictly referring to the debater on this website. http://www.debate.org... The definition of piss off for this debate shall be: piss off- to anger. http://dictionary.reference.com... Reading throughout InfraRedEd's debates, I can tell he pisses me off/angers me. He tends to rant and has created ridiculous debates that piss me off; such as: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Although my opponent has taken the Con side in these debates,I believe he made the debates just to fool around and either get an easy win/make himself feel even more foolish than he already is. Conclusively, InfraRedEd certainly does piss me off. I shall await my opponent's response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Charities should be forced to prove where their money is actually going. because Thank you for the debate topic, I hope this will be an enlightening discussion for us both. Not sure if we are making arguments first round but since no prerequisite was made I will assume its okay. Pro asks why Africa is still a 3rd world continent after 33 years of raising millions? Well the fact of the matter is that the money being sent to these places is sent to give commodities such as food and water to the people who are suffering. And usually its given to people in power to distribute which allows for exploitation in many different forms. Beside that the commodities that are given away don't improve infrastructure or give incentives for business to form or thrive in that area. So just because these charitable goods are being given doesn't mean they will be benefiting the society as a whole. All they do is provide temporary relief to specific groups of people. This is at least for most cases of charity. To the issue of charities needing to tell you exactly what they are spending the money on the only thing you need to look at is the charity as a private or public charity. If the charity is private then you have no right to see what they are spending the money on unless it is said in making the donation that you can. As a private entity the charity organization can do whatever they want with your money and they can choose not to tell you. This is why people should be hesitant with charity. It is solely your faith in this charity and its promise that gets you to donate. But once you have made that donation its their money. As a private entity they can do what they want with their money just like any other entity. Its like if you get paid and your boss wants to know that the money he's paying you is going to your livelihood. Its none of his business even though he's transferring that money to you. Its because at the point of transfer its your money. If you don't trust the charity don't donate to it. But you cant force a private charity to show where the money is going. Whether its going to giving goods to poor people or going to advertisements to help garner more donations or maybe to pay the people working for it. I thank pro again for the subject and look forward to what he comes back with. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Apathy is not a f****** ideology! because It's fine, I can understand that real life takes precedence; still, you make it sound like debate is insignificant when you say 'I do have much better things [to do]...'; I like this activity very much, however. And while I am arguing with you, I am debating for the voters, since I am trying to convince THEM, not you; if I could convince you, there would be no point in debating. So please, first of all, don't call me arrogant, and don't insult the judges; that inherently makes your yourself arrogant for assigning us such labels; second of all, this is yet another batch of personal attacks that you are using; finally, this personal assault, voters, takes no place in the round. I simply thought that I ought to defend my integrity as a person and as a debater by covering this. Now then, I am arguing against the idea that apathy is not an ideology; obviously, poking holes in your side of the case is going to help me accomplish that goal, especially since you have not answered any of the arguments which I have presented. Also, it is not difficult to look up an internet definition of terms for the purpose of debate, so, again, please refrain from using personal attacks, especially when I am only attempting to better the quality of this debate. Additionally, I don't think that being apathetic degrades the Moral Worth of humankind; regardless of the ideology of a person, every human life has Moral Worth. And, since this is a question, I will answer no; I am not scared that there are hundreds of have lack of concern for life; especially when the number, as you claim, is only in the hundreds, compared to the billions of other people on earth. Finally, again with the Ad Hominem attacks, I don't look down my nose at you at all; it is because I respect you and this topic that I took the CON side of this debate; also, I do not believe that my argument is stuck up; you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that to me in a debate round is both irrelevant to the topic and outright disrespectful; do not forget that you are the one who posted this topic; you should have been prepared for any potential arguments. And, as far as this debate is concerned, I do not think that it is 'pointless' at all. Through debate, we learn, we grow, we gain a lot; if you want to insult this debate, especially on a topic that you created, please, feel free, but when you find some relevant arguments, please post those also. So, voters, you can vote on either my (CON's) unrefuted arguments in my last post, or you can vote on the constant personal attacks and outright insults that my opponent makes. If you need a copy of my last post for reference... "My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so." For the sake of logic, reason, and the spirit of debate, please give this round to the CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Santa Claus=God because Hello and welcome! Pro's objective: State that any relation between God and Santa Claus are coincidence. This debate may seem obvious but "what-the-heck" its Christmas. Well let us begin! We all know who Santa Claus is right? An overweight, jolly man who gives toys to all the good children around the world. Pretty simple right? Well I listened to the "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" song and noticed something. I will now quote the song. "He sees you when your sleeping" "He knows when your awake" "He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake" Now if he can see you when your sleeping, know when your awake and know if you've been "bad or good" then this would mean that Santa is an "all knowing" being. Who else is an all knowing being? I assume this would be God. I will save further arguments for the next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should Britain bring back the death penalty? because After doing a little research, I've found that a lot of families of murder victims do not see it as a deterrent. I would refer you to two websites: Murder victims' families for reconciliation (1), Californian crime victims for alternatives to the death penalty (2) and just a little video of Peter Hitchens debating the subject matter in which a murder victims mother and father appear (3). Also, the cost in the U.S. to have someone put to death is around $2,000,000 compared to life without parole $500,000 which means to put them to death is four times more expensive for the victims families and taxpayers alike than to keep them alive. Also, if we meet murder with murder would it be just to use 'eye for an eye' in other crimes? Would it be justice for a rapist to be raped? Despite them ignoring the right to live in civilised society I think not going against their basic human rights is the moral and good thing to do, and as a civilised society shouldn't we teach that taking a life is not a deterrent and that to fight fire with fire will never ultimately lead to a conclusion, and in this case justice? I think we must remember despite the heinous crime that murder is, the murderer (if executed) will also leave behind a grieving family. Would it be fair to punish them also? I agree that forensic science and DNA technology will limit mistakes to very few but that doesn't mean that there still won't be mistakes; if anything, I find that if a person is wrongfully executed in the modern day (keeping in mind the ability of forensics) that it makes the judgement far worse for the family of the wrongly accused. (1) http://www.mvfr.org... (2) http://www.californiacrimevictims.org... (3) <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits