text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against Metaphysical Solipsism is Most Likely True because Thanks to my real, existing, sentient opponent Envisage. I would like to remind everyone there is no matrix and to obey their government. Epistemologically Preferred Position Here Pro is arguing because we cannot know there is an external world outside our perception that via Occam’s Razor we should reject such a thing. We may prima facie be able to see only our private mental events, but does this really make less assumptions than thinking there exists an external reality? It seems it doesn’t. It seems reasonable to think we are beings inside a world instead of the authors of it. When our apparent eyes are damaged, so is our qualia. When our ears are damaged, so too is the qualia and so on. Solipsism would hold this is an illusion, but now we see solipsism is making the bigger assumptions here. Solipsism would hold fundamentally what happens to the eyes has nothing to do with sight which flies in the face of our reasonable assumption. So too does solipsism have no reason for the apparent existence of the brain. There isn’t anything about the brain that has any relevance to the mind, even though it appears to be some type of CPU of the mind. Solipsism has to assume our everyday views of cause and effect in respect to our bodies are all wrong along with the radical change of how we think about our brains. Argument From Idealism Pro presents an argument for idealism then an argument for solipsism based on idealism. I will focus on attacking his argument for idealism. His defense of it stems from the modal argument. Basically he says if mind=physical then solipsism should be impossible, but solipsism is possible therefore mind isn’t fundamentally physical (or non mind). A huge problem is that this argument only works within the realm of Kripkeian modal metaphysics. There are alternatives that seem much better, such as David Lewis' counterpart theory. This theory denies transworld identity. Which is the idea that when we're speaking about possibilities we're speaking about the object's identity preserved into the realm of possibility. In other words, its identity is the same throughout possible worlds [1]. However, Lewis' theory “identifies possibly being F with having a counterpart—an appropriately similar object in another possible world” [2]. This model hurts the modal argument because it means a counterpart of the mind can exist alone, not because it's not fundamentally non-mind, but because there exists different counterparts in different contexts. As Dr. Derek Ball puts it “ ...she succeeds in generating a context in which “possibly, pain =/= c-fiber firing” is true. But this does not entail that pain =/= c-fiber firing; it only entails that pain/c-fiber firing has different counterparts according to different counterpart relations. The worlds that make an utterance of “possibly, pain =/= c-fiber firing” true are not worlds in which pain=/= c-fiber firing, since there are no such worlds; instead they are worlds according to which pain =/= c-fiber firing. So the physicalist can rest easy; the argument is invalid.” [3] We have good reason to accept this theory, one being from the problem of accidental intrinsics. I have dark hair and it is possible that I have blonde hair. If transworld identity is sound then in a possible world I am the same object, but I have blonde hair. However, since black hair is a part of me, then in order for me to be the same object I would have to also have black hair. This is a contradiction, as I cannot have both black hair and blonde hair. We have to say in this possible world, there exists my counterpart with blonde hair. Furthermore, this argument would only show the mind doesn’t reduce to non-mind. There are plenty of theories that aren’t substance dualism but still accept the irreducibility of the mind [4][5] We have good reason for adopting a counterpart theory of modal metaphysics which allows me to resist the argument for idealism. Furthermore, the argument from idealism doesn’t take into account other theories of the mind. I will now turn my attention to two arguments against the resolution Testing solipsism It seems to me that we can actually test solipsism. How? Well, if my mind creates reality then I should be able to control reality? There would exist nothing but my mind, yet there must be a restriction in place that prevents me from being omnipotent. This restriction obviously isn't conscious, nor would it seem to be mental at all. Any meaningful restriction wouldn’t seem to be mental as it must be something that governs the mental. Solipsism is incoherent Here I will be arguing that to think the thoughts “Solipsism is true” or to even read this debate you must assume solipsism is false. Without language, you wouldn’t be able to read this and wouldn’t be able think thoughts about solipsism like the ones above. If solipsism is true, then language would come about in a purely private manner. However, as Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, a private language is impossible [6]. Someone who has no language stranded on an island makes a mark “s” whenever he has a certain sensation. This however has no criteria of correctness. It has no rules governing when it’s used correctly, it can be used however one wants in an arbitrary way. Language then is used in a social context. A group of people come up with rules and correct the said behavior so others may learn the language. So in order for Pro to write an argument for solipsism, believe the statements in solipsism, and understand this debate, he must first assume solipsism is false. Now to Pro [1] Chisholm, Roderick. "Identity Through Possible Worlds: Some Questions," [2] Sider, Ted. 2006. “Beyond the Humphrey Objection” [3] Ball, Derek. 2011. “Property Identities and Modal Arguments.” [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://socrates.berkeley.edu... [6] Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974. Philosophical Investigations. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Marijuana should be legalized. because *Topic Specification* This topic needs to be clarified before either of us can debate it appropriately. There are three ways in which a drug can be legalized: 1. The drug is an unregulated substance (like most items of food). There is no substantial body responsible for the safety or production of the substance, and anyone can purchase or sell it. 2. The drug is a prescription drug, regulated by the FDA and prescribed by doctors. 3. The drug is an over-the-counter drug, regulated by the FDA and purchasable by anyone of age at any pharmacy or registered place of sale. (This is actually equivalent to the condition of cigarettes and alcohol) Red24pat12 needs to clarify which (if any of these) he means before any real debate can occur. That said, I will try to provide some general argumentation relating to this topic until red24pat12 does so. *Red24pat12's Argumentation* 1. Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. Why not? This claim has to be warranted before it is worth my time. Beyond that, the long term side-effects of marijuana may or may not be as significant as legal drugs, but this is largely irrelevant, given that legal drugs exist to treat a medical condition, and are a tool doctors can use to do so. Every legal drug is the best method of treatment for some condition under a given circumstance (that's how drugs are approved) What Red24pat12 needs to prove to solidify this argument is: A. Marijuana's side effects are less significant than other drugs which should be legal B. Marijuana is the best method for treating some condition Until he does so, it fails to be convincing. 2. Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. This argument is entirely defensive, and even if Red24pat12 wins this, it will not help his case. The fact that a given bad thing will not occur if the government does something is not a reason to for the government to do it. Otherwise, I could argue that the United States should nuke New York City because if we did, Marijuana use in teenagers would not increase. Even given that, this argument is not convincing. As the availability of a given drug goes up, general use (including teenage use) goes up. Take Ritalin, for example. Presumably, if Ritalin were illegal, it would be harder for teenagers to access it. There is always the possibility of the drug being mishandled or misused by minors, so the reduction of accessibility is generally a good thing. 3. Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals. It is highly unclear why this should be the case. Gangs exist to distribute illegal drugs. When one drug goes off the market - for whatever reason - the gang population will shift to distribute another drug. The only thing legalizing marijuana would do would be to shift dangerous Marijuana drug deals to dangerous other drug deals, and I see no reason why that would be preferable. *My Argumentation* 1. Marijuana has negative external effects beyond those on the individual user. In a health care system where the many pays for the expenses of the few (i.e. health insurance or a public option), other individuals ought not be obligated to pay for the damaging effects of marijuana use on a user. The long-term health costs of more marijuana use in our society are incredibly vast. Marijuana is incredibly carcinogenic, damages brain cells, causes decreased hormone production, memory loss, interferes with the immune system... and the list goes on. Why should Average Joe fund the addiction of potheads? 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who become involved with drugs through marijuana use are highly likely to advance to more serious, more dangerous, and more harmful drugs. Banning marijuana use is a good way to prevent a larger portion of our population from becoming addicted to worse drugs. 3. Marijuana use for teenagers will increase (See my analysis above) 4. A ban on marijuana is a justified instance of paternalism. The government ought to intervene to protect a citizen from harming himself when the citizen is not acting rationally or when the citizen cannot internalize the costs of his actions. Addicts can do neither of those things. Once someone is addicted, he can no longer understand what is truly best for him, just like any temporarily insane person, and so he needs a third party (society or the government) to step in and protect him from himself. In addition, it is hard for anyone to understand the long term effects of marijuana on their brain (especially after those brain cells start dying...), so the government ought to preemptively prevent individuals from subjecting themselves to those risks. This is the same logic behind seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. Thank you for proposing this interesting debate. I look forward to your responses! Zabcheckmate <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Moral Argument is Sound because Introduction I initially offered 8 criticisms of Pro’s argument. Remember, one of these alone is enough to negate the resolution. As Pro has only really responded to 6 of them, the resolution is negated already thus far. In fact, I will show in this round that actually none of Pro’s responses to any of my criticisms are remotely effective, and that all my criticisms easily survive scrutiny. Justification for P1 Pro offered 3 justificatory remarks for P1. First, he appealed to God’s nature to ground these values, to which I gave 3 responses: Begging the Question - Pro responded to this: “The argument itself doesn't even explicitly ground morals in God, rather that's implicit in it's defense.” But this is false. Just look at what Pro said in R2: “Objective moral values are most plausibly based in a maximally great being…” If this isn’t explicit, I don’t know what is. But even if it were merely implicit, it is still fallacious. To argue that “God's nature is the highest moral value” , one has to first assume that God’s nature (and thus God) exists, which again is what the argument is supposed to prove, for if His nature didn’t exist, how could it account for anything? It is this huge assumption that clearly begs the question. Indeed, Pro’s source makes my exact point: “Now, what would you call such a thing if it existed? You would call it Him." (8) If God existed, it may well be His nature that grounded some sort of morality, but unfortunately for Pro, assuming His existence begs the question. Subjective moral values - Pro responds that he is defending God as an “objective feature of reality” , rather than a subject. Pro is just patently wrong here in what basing morality on God’s nature entails: “there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold) and divine command theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds ).” (9) In contrast, objectivism holds moral facts to be independent of persons, including God. P1 therefore is false by definition. Irrelevance - Even if God were a more plausible grounding for objective morality than AF morality (which I don’t believe), this is not the same thing as saying (as P1 does) that without God such values don’t exist. As such, it is totally irrelevant as it pertains to justifying P1. Also, arguing AF morality is less plausible is irrelevant, given that P1 claims without God, there are NO objective moral values at all. To say that objective morality is now merely less plausible without God betrays what P1 explicitly states, and I suggest Pro read it. As such, Pro commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi on both counts (10). As such, Pro’s first attempt to justify P1 still fails miserably. The second justification given for P1 by Pro was problems with AF morality. Atheist moral duties - Pro responds to my point here first by distinguishing between rational and moral oughts. However, if objective moral values exist, then my duties (what I ought to do) are to act in accordance with these values. Doing otherwise would be to partially ignore reality (the existence of these values), which would be irrational. So the rational and the moral ought converge. Such duties become even more imperative given the lack of redemption in a future life. As for Taylor and Craig, I offered reasons why atheists have moral duties in my last round, as evidenced in Pro’s above criticisms of my approach! Pro then introduces an evolutionary naturalism eroding rationality critique. First, I’m not a naturalist, so this is a red-herring. Second, the idea that survivability and a true picture of the world aren’t strongly correlated is absurd. Surviving depends on my ability to comprehend the means of achieving basic needs. Natural selection would favour rationality as it enhances survivability. Also, if theism is true, we actually would have reason to doubt our cognitive faculties. False religious experiences, the appearance of gratuitous evil and inculpable non-belief would be just such 3 cases. Then we come to the supposed dedication of atheists to affirm P1: What’s the problem - Here I made 3 points to deny Pro’s claim: A) Factually absurd - justified by Swinburne and Sinnott-Armstrong, among many others. B) Historically inaccurate - disregards thousands of years of secular morality. C) Logically unwarranted - no contradiction or even tension between moral realism and atheism. Unfortunately, Pro totally ignores B) and C) above. Extend arguments. A) Pro says that Swinburne and WSA are referring to belief in God, not His existence. This is false. Swinburne says: “ Some moral truths are clearly moral truths, whether there is a God or not . . .” (11) Clearly, he is referring to God’s existence here, not belief in God. As for Sinnott-Armstrong, this again is abundantly clear: “ atheists can coherently believe in an objective morality . . . I do.” (12) Again, this (and the quote beforehand) evidences atheists totally rejecting P1, rather than being dedicated to it, as Pro asserts. To say that atheists must deny moral realism seems factually absurd and is a claim denied by a plethora of theists and atheists alike. All Pro offers to combat this is a quote from Nietzsche, but Pro and I agree his view on denying moral facts is tantamount to denying the external world (P2), so I’m at a loss at why Pro thinks anything Nietzsche says in this area has any value at all. In any case, it certainly isn’t enough to disregard facts, history and logic. As such Pro’s second justification likewise crumbles. Pro’s last justification was that there were no obvious accounts of AF morality. Argument from Ignorance - This last justification is what I claimed was arguing from ignorance, and Pro does it repeatedly: “it's just not obvious that atheism provides as sound a foundation for objective morals” It is simply not up to the atheist to provide an account of objective moral values. Pro’s repeated insistence that I do so is arguing from ignorance by shifting the BoP, which is fallacious, as I warned in R1. But ironically I have actually done so, which Pro has yet to respond to (Moral mirror). Climbing Mount Impossible - Here, I pointed out that unless Pro could show all AF morality to be somehow impossible, he simply can’t affirm P1. Pro basically ignores my point here, instead promising to refute AMP. The problem is refuting this will do Pro little good. As Law said, the onus is on the theist, “ . . . to show that ALL such atheist-friendly accounts are wrong, even the ones we haven’t thought of yet, and don’t forget, as theists so regularly do, that they needn’t even be naturalistic. “ (13) Pro can’t respond by pointing to faults in one such account. As such, detailing criticisms of AMP, unless combined with criticisms of all other AF moral systems is simply irrelevant. Unless and until Pro can refute all such accounts, P1 is unjustified, regardless of the veracity of AMP. This is why I suspect P1 is almost certainly unjustifiable, and the argument in this form is completely useless. This completely eviscerates Pro’s last attempt to justify P1. As such, we can conclude that P1 is completely unwarranted, and given the sustained criticisms of it, almost certainly false. Justification for P2 Pro drops the moral mirror response. Extend argument. Conclusion In order to carry the resolution, Pro must defeat each and every criticism I have outlined. However, as we have seen, Pro has failed to effectively respond to any of these criticisms, in some cases completely ignoring them. In short, Pro has a huge task ahead of him. Sources 8. http://www.scribd.com... (P1230) 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. Is there a God? , P14 12. God? A debate between a Christian and an atheist , P36 13. Stephen Law vs. Bill Craig, (1:08:30) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent should go Fvck himself. because The voters should tell my opponent to go fvck herself by voting for me in this debate. The title of the debate is separate, but related to the resolution. I clarified what the resolution meant in round one, where I explicitly stated that I used a V instead of a U to get around the sites filtering method. I also clarified the resolution in round one by adding the word herself to it as well. I urge the voters to reread round one, and I urge my opponent to go fvck herself. No new arguments. Go <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution because I am aware that I will not change Pro's veiw with this approach, but those who read this debate. I am also sorry that I did not exstend my last round to it's greatest and have a hair on edge, spine tiggerling conclusion. Sorry Skeptic. Anyway alway I go. Fossils are also proof for Noah's flood and more so than evolution. No dinosaur could really climb a tree and when the flood struck the earth the creatures that were mostly mamales could climb trees with much more of a attitude compared to dinosaurs. With nible limbs and claws in such to clumb to higher spots, mamales would seem to have evolved last. Where as the dinosaurs were not agile but were fast runners and also fairly show. Take a look at the Carnotaurus, it has short arms, stronge muscular legs, grew 9m long and 3m tall, not really suitable for climbing at all. To climb anything really, a creature needs to be taller than it is longer. A cat, when standing on its back legs is just that alike with most other mamales such as dogs, bears etc... Birds can simply fly. Now you maybe wondering why some lizards which according to evolution lived around 300 million years ago? The young could climb very well up trees, away from their parents which would eat them, so why did they die in the flood? Well maybe they didn't, the Komodo dragon is very similiar, and its young once hatched climbs and even lives up in the tree tops. And once when they are large enough the lizards will return to solid ground. You did not reply that well back to my bones analogy, in that it make complete sense (some spelling) yet you did not have even a decent come back. Alot of your science is based on possibilities and probabilites, not definite facts or any believable science. And neither am I, however I take creation as a belief where as you take it as scientific. You bluntly commented back to why my philosophy on bones did not work out, I can see it understandably logical, it makes sense that if one bones is a type of creature with in a kind and one fossil is another kind that must result in a different kind from another in real life plays role as another planet. With extraterrestral life of some sort. All alien means is, foreign, from another country or land, planet or universe, whatever. The analogy works, you now need to prove alien life on another planet to suggest all the creatures on earth a related. Therefore making fossils a proven fact that evolution occurs. Unfortunately since this is the last round, you may have to reply in the comment section. I for one do not believe in alien life. In that there is intelligent beings. Since there will be no way to get any signals from unadvased organisms like kittens and puppies, the chance you will prove evolution is very, very slim. The nearest star to our sun is thought to be 5 light years away. I have talked about why carbon and radiomatric methods are untrustworthy (look back to round one, my round) Pro did not reply when I found that scientists who were evolutionists carbon dated dinosaur fossils to find out they were only 1000's of years old. So the scientists scrapped the results. - Still no word from that? I never suggested or thought that the whole feild of science is invalid in the slightest. I will not be obvious and state that I think evolution is not science. Science needs to be tested (micro evolution has) evolution has not been, that being the over millions of years evolution, were it is far too slow to really witness. You base what you find such as fossils and then you plant an imagenation around the facts to support a perfect world to be allow to commit sin in. "You have failed to give me the links for the inaccurate dating" - I do not take notice of dating methods, only when dating methods go wrong, then I use that as proof for dating methods to be untrustworthy. Here is a link so that you can see what I am speak of. http://www.godrules.net... So for example, if a scientist predicts an age for a fossil by how deep it is in the dirt, then returns it back to the lab for anaylsis. Say the fossil was prosumed to be 27 million years old, and the dating method tell the scientist the fossil is actually 9 thousand years old. Who do you trust? The scientist or the dating method? So I ignore them both and turn to the Bible where it says, in Romans 1:25, "The thruth of God will be exchanged for a lie, where people will start to worship the creatures and not the creator. The Bibel also states to turn away from what man says about the truth. You should flee, as in run and not look back, from lies and sin. Conclusion: Good debate, thank you. Evermore you failed to bring forth proof of any valid reasons but only mere suggestions in why I as a individual should believe and take evolution as science because there are fossils in the ground. Fossils (Like I said eariler) point more towards Noah's flood rather than evolution, that it makes much more sense that the less nible creature drownd first as they could not reach high ground. And small mamales which have been known to live amung dinosaurs simply drownd based purely on their size. Dinosaurs are large and were not good climbers in the least, even Scoody Doo and the Phantom Menis agrees with me. (Parshly a joke) Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with 911 inside job because How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because I realize this is just a fun debate, but right now you're just using semantics to try and clear up a contradiction. I asked you ' From where are your morals derived?' you stated 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' Whether you said believe or not is irrelevant. Morals can't be derived from God. Morals are derived from our experiences of the society we live in. Then you say: 'The only way my opponent could catch me in a contradiction is if I made proposition with no evidence behind it that the source of which was question.' This is exactly what you did. You made the proposition 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' and you made this proposition 'with no evidence behind it that the source of' which was question.' Well, anyways let's move on...Oh, and BTW the term isn't 'for all intensive purposes' which is absolutely meaningless, it's 'For all intents and purposes' LOL. Just the fact that you got the phrase wrong, and have never read it in it's proper form leads me to believe that you have no idea what you're even saying. Let's get back to the debate. Questions: 8.) Is The Bible the Word of God? 9.) Does the Bible contain contradictions? 10.) How does God demonstrate what is moral? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is dance a sport? because Scoring: The scoring in dance is based on a point system. Dancers don't compete head to head like football, tennis, or other sports. Many Olympic sports also are scored by judges. This includes gymnastics, figure skating, diving, and snowboarding. These sports all have subjective-scoring and are still considered sports. Definition: The definition of a sport according to Oxford dictionary is a physical activity involving physical exertion and skill and which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Dance is definitely a physical activity. It requires lots of skill. You have to be flexible, strong, and have endurance. You have to practice for hours a week. You have to learn to make your performances look effortless. Dance can be done individually or with a team. Dancers compete against others during competitions. They also preform for entertainment. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Social Effects of Sin in America because It seems this is beginning to degenerate into various squabbles only tangentially related to the question at hand. Whether it is the fact that I refer to the definition I am defending as "my" definition, that I presented a rationale for considering homosexuality a sin and yet do not consider it necessary to pursue this as a foundation of my position(or the position I am defending or what have you), or even a light-hearted reference to musical pop-culture to make a point; it seems difficult for my partner to stay on focus. Perhaps it would help if I made something of a condensed version of the argument. A sin is a transgression of God's law, and by its very nature takes those who commit it (by word, action or omission) further away from objective Good. This differs from "mistake" in that mistakes can and often do refer to morally neutral things, such as mistakenly putting salt rather than sugar in a yogurt. A mistake, but not a sin. (Hopefully my bias against salty yogurt is not taken as a sign of egotism) This also differs from other transgressions in that it directly offends the ultimate, objective good, while it is sometimes moral to transgress man made laws, as in the case of the Civil Rights movement's advocacy for civil disobedience of unjust laws. Truth is not indifferent to the good of society If is objectively evil, it cannot be said to be good for society. The generalized sin against human dignity of Apartheid in South Africa, or Slavery in the United States negatively affected society insofar as it led the members of those society away from the common good. Mankind is a social animal, and thus one's actions affect the general society. If I behave in an immoral way I adversely affect those around me. Therefore sin is bad for society If sin is a transgression of God's law, and negatively affects individuals who commit the sin and those around them, sin cannot be said not to affect society. This is even more strongly the case given mankind's social nature, whereby an individual's action, whether sinful or virtuous will affect the general society. In order to show that sin is not detrimental to society, one would have to show that one persons actions are indifferent to the general society. Discussions as to whether homosexuality or apostasy ought to be considered sins is moot, as we are not taking on this discussion from any particular religion's point of view, but rather considering sin more generally. In any case, contrary to what Pro may believe, those who do follow a particular religion will look to their faith tradition's source of authority (be it the Bible, the Koran or the living Church) in order to define what constitutes sin. I have yet to find a protestant who is willing to cite the Oxford Dictionary of English with the same zeal and conviction as his trusty King James Version. In matters pertaining to religion, therefore, I will trust to those authorities and sources more readily than a dictionary. As I say, however, whether truth lies in the halls of academia or the pews of the corner Baptist Church, it behooves us actively to seek it out, as the matter of truth not only affects us as individuals, but also the greater society. Whether or no it is a sin to act on romantic impulses towards those of the same sex is important, just as it is important to know if God disapproves of my Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich; because it is not indifferent to those involved and society at large one way or the other. This is the crux of the argument: the very reason people will argue so passionately on both sides of all these different issues. Whoever is right, the salvation of souls and the good of humanity are on the line; because truth matters, and because it does, so does sin. (I have not made reference to the comment about bullying and suicide because the response given last round already addresses the concerns raised this time around. I will summarize it to save the reader time in looking for it: Bullying someone into suicide is gravely sinful, and so this only serves to give more credence to the position that sin does indeed adversely affect society.) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with space exploration is not a waste of money because Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited practically every single round of this debate. He's STILL put forth no arguments and no rebuttal. Please vote Con - thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious. because It's opposite day. Vote pro. I'm not trolling. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against communism doesnt work because Well, that was a rather short argument (as well as fallacious). Let's start by establishing a few things. 1. The definition of communism: 'Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods' [1] 2. Let me explain the natural progression of society, something that Marx called historical determinism. You see; society always moves in the way that is driven by social change and class struggle. Preceding communism is socialism, which is the system that you (although poorly) described above. Everything is put into the collective; however, your assertion that the people will abuse it is preposterous. All holdings are put into the collective on the part of the state, the state collectivizes all means of production, enabling for the workers to access it. This simply means that the workers would own the means of production through the state. This simply means that everyone would own everything together. Communism is a period that is enacted after socialism has done its job (collectivizing the means of production). Communism is the final period of social liberation, the final step of historical development. In communism, the state slowly withers away as class struggles are abolished. There has never been, and there never will be, a communist state, because communism entails the absence of a state as a repressive instrument of the bourgeois. A communist state cannot exist as that is in and of itself a contradiction. There can not be a period of communism so long as there is a state. 3. Now we come to the main argument that the right-wing laissez-faire capitalists like you tend to make: 'Everyone receives the same salary' This is absurd. Communism and socialism both entail that the means of production belong to society, not the wealthy bourgeois. Now, I agree, since private property is abolished so is the chance of making extraordinary amounts of wealth. But those amounts are not needed in communist society: in communist society, there is not currency. What you are referring to is socialism. The resolution is fallacious on its own. Doctors will still make more than sanitation workers; Why? Because they put more into the collective and they get more out of the collective. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, as Marx put it. That's it for the refutation, now let's get into why capitalism doesn't work and why socialism-communism is an ideal solution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The contradictions of exchange and use values. Commodities are produced for their use value and yet distributed for their exchange value. In other (simpler) words, you produce a loaf of bread for someone to buy it and then eat it. You produce it so someone will buy it and they buy it so they can eat it. 2. The law of value creates exploitation. As labour is not inherently worth anything on its own, it must go into the production of commodities, which are worthless without labour. Labour's worth adheres to the worth of commodities and vice versa. Human labour has no value on its own. I hope you can refute this argument. Judging from your first argument I assume you're new. Allow me to guide you through this miraculous world that is DDO. Best regards References: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The most random movie line because Post a video on what you think is the most random movie line. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with White Nationalism is not inherently racist because I am a little troubled in the focus on the semantics of the definition of "white nationalist." In the PM that we shared prior to actually debating, it appeared that a definition was agreed upon. "an ideaology that supports having a nation be known as a "white" nation. Much like Isreal is known as a Jewish nation (nation and state can be used interchangably), even though it is not 100% Jewish and being non-Jewish is not a crime." Of which you responded, "Sounds good man." This should show that to be a "white" nation, 100% white population is not needed, merely recognition and policies to maintain that recognition (part of which is cultural identity, as has been argued). To clarify, my link to stormfront was because there are so many threads in there which show that many white nationalists are not racist and do focus on their white culture. "The main purpose of these threads is to be educative, to spread a positive outlook on these places and cultures, so effectively countering anti-White bias that often present White cultures in a negative light." [1] There are plenty more threads that provide all the info that you need. [2][3][4] "There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." [5] The KKK has actually been spending most of its resources on moving past its extremely ugly past and attempt to distance itself from other openly hateful groups [6][7]. And we can find more cases of typical white nationalism that does not espouse white superiority. [8] We can also go to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which is known worldwide for being anti-racist and anti-hate for pretty much all kinds, to see that in their definition of "white nationalist," that racism is not a requirement. "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites...These groups range from those that use racial slurs and issue calls for violence to others that present themselves as serious, non-violent organizations and employ the language of academia." [9] Meaning that white nationalists are often racists, but they do not have to be in order to be white nationalists. Kind of like saying, "men are often attracted to women" (statistically accurate), but you don't have to be in order to be a man, that is not one of the core principles. Of course, you can find plenty of cases of obvious racism from them as well, but the point is, that racism is an option, not a root trait. As for prominent people that are "white nationalists" Lydia Chassaniol from Mississippi is a more recent one (member of the CCC, a white nationalist organization) and Charles Bishop. Both were political leaders in state governments. Moving on from the real world examples and getting back into the philosophical debate that this was meant to be (though is likely too late to correct, now that we are in the final round). "Pro continues to paint a benign image of white nationalism that is at odds with reality, claiming that white nationalists don't want to make anyone leave their proposed white nation, people are merely "free to leave" if they don't follow "the rules". The problem is that the rules of a white nation inherently involve being white, which is of course racist". While limiting the rules to being white is a possible option for white nationalism, it is not needed. White nationalism can support immigration restrictions, which are not racist, but viewed as important restraints to protect the native culture and economy. One of which is to adapt and embrace the new culture rather than to bring their old culture with them (in other words, anti-multiculturalism). This is common with White Separatists that want to have portions of Idaho and eastern Washington (like Spokane) to become an independent nation (after all, are they not being ruled by a federal government, thousands of miles away?). They already have a vast majority of a white population, so no attack on current individuals would be needed (as opposed to something trying to form in New Mexico or somewhere). This completely fits with the "Let me have my house and you can have your house" approach. Of which my opponent has only been able to argue that it is racist if it "evicts" people because of race (though no "eviction" is taking place). Under the culture and race section of my opponent's, he is missing one simple thing in the comparison. He says "the idea that anyone who is white and nationalist is "a white nationalist" is clearly erroneous and mere semantic shenanigans, a white person who is patriotic about their multi-cultural nation clearly doesn't fit into the definition of white nationalism we began the debate with." I never made that claim. Just like someone who is Jewish and a nationalist is not a "jewish nationalist" by default. We are only addressing those that are already prescribing their nationalism to their culture and/or race. So still, if jewish can count as "white" (which it doesn't in the sense of culture, but can in the sense of white race and jewish religion), than jewish nationalism can count as white nationalism. Going back to the superiority and exclusion section, that doesn't really apply under the definitions. The claim that they want, at their core, to live in a purely white nation is unfounded. If anything, it could be claimed as "culturist" (that some cultures are better than others), however, that still doesn't apply due to the "my house, your house" argument. White separatists have no problem with other nations having whatever culture they want. But, even those that do, the resolution is about racism, not culturalism. For Culture and Race, my opponent say, ""White" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race." However, just like "Asian" and "Mexican" it is actually both. "White" can refer to either a culture or a race, it is not just limited to race. The last point is Independence. Where my opponent says the acceptance of immigrants who adapt to the new culture is in stark contrast to the opening definition. But if we look at the opening definition again, or if we look at the definition that my opponent and I agreed on in the PM before starting this debate, it does not go against either or them at all. All in all, given the definitions that were first provided and agreed upon before the debate. It has only been shown that racism is very common in white nationalism, but it has also been shown that it is not an inherent to white nationalism. I'd like voters to remember that inherent =/= common or the majority. Now I'm out of space, sorry if anything didn't get fully answered. [1] http://www.stormfront.org... [2] http://www.stormfront.org... [3] http://www.stormfront.org... [4] http://www.stormfront.org... [5] http://www.kkk.com... [6] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com... [7] http://i.imgur.com... [8] http://www.whitenationalism.com... [9] http://www.splcenter.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses because Thanks to LarztheLoser for accepting the debate and I look forward to an enjoyable and educational debate. Resolution Introductory college courses in Computer Science should teach the Java programming language as opposed to Javascript. Definitions Java : Java is a general purpose object oriented programming language details of which are shown in this link [1]. Javascript : Javascript is an interpreted computer programming language originally implemented as part of web browsers more details of which are provided in the link[2]. Burden Of Proof BOP is shared. Con must argue that JavaScript should be taught in introductory college courses as opposed to Java, not just that both are equally good. Background Introductory college courses are generally those taught in the first semester or quarter of an undergraduate course and sometimes spilling into the second semester or quarter. Ideally, students will learn many different programming languages and most students learn more programming languages through their college years. However, most colleges introduce students to programming by teaching one language in an Intro to Computer Science course after which students will likely learn others. In this debate, I argue that Java must be used to introduce students to computer programming. Rules 1) All arguments must be made in the debate. 2) No semantics. In case of conflict on undefined terms, the most general and relevant definition of the word should be considered. 3) Round 1 is for acceptance only. Any clarifications about rules or topic must be made in the comments section prior to acceptance. 5) No new arguments from either side in round 4. No new sources from Con in round 4. Sources I will number sources sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference without also referencing the round number. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javascript_(programming_language) [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Communism: Are you for it? because Here I shall prove that Capitalism is the better than Communism. Economically Although some capitalism elements are present in other economic systems through history, it only truly developed itself in with the industrial era. With industries, millions of people could stop working for their Lords in Europe(specially in Britain) to work on factories. In the beginning there was some exploitations, but with the increasing amount of enterprises and the market being more and more competitive, wages started going up and working hours down! In Britain, estimates that salaries rose 15% to 150% between 1780 and 1850. And all without unions or labor rights.(1) In Brazil, where I live, when industrial capitalism truly came during the 70's, our life improvement never rose so much. In countries where the economy was basically rural, the industries provided jobs with bigger salaries than in the agriculture and were able to produce goods in mass, thus making prices fall and giving the possibility to more people to acquire it.(2) Socially Capitalism improved people standards of living.(3) When agriculture became mechanized, more food was produced, thus their prices fell and made it affordable for poor people and hence improved their health, as they could eat more. The rise of wages (which I explained in my previous argument) enabled people to pay for better health care, afford medicine, school, books and goods that make our lives comfortable, such as televisions or Iphones. It gives the opportunity for people who were born nobodies to become famous liders or entrepeneurs, such as Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama or S.B. Fuller. Politically Capitalism gives political liberty. With better wages provided by free-market, more people can afford reading books and studying on free time, giving them some political knowledge and the possibility to form their political opinion. The better wages also gives people political power against a tyrannical State which would take their money away and give them to other people. Yes, there will always be poor people, but capitalism gave them higher standards of living. More people with more money stop the state from getting too big. Only a big state creates and perpetuate the poverty and take away people's freedom. Capitalism provides people the possibility of choice. They can choose to like the government, to vote, not to vote, candidate themselves and even criticising capitalism! No other system can provide this. Morally People are free, not equal. As I stated before, capitalism provides freedom, which is natural to every human being. But equality no. We are naturally unequal. If we have different colors, ages, tastes and opinions, Way should we live in a socioeconomic system where everyone is the same? In capitalism you can choose not to like capitalism, but in socialist countries you can't chose to dislike socialist/communist tyrannical government. Even the differences between poors and riches are moral. If I was smarter than everybody else on having an idea that would benefit a lot of people, why shouldn't I receive a lot of money from this people? Of course, the poors should be helped, but in true capitalism they are helped by selflessness charity. The destruction of capitalism A lot of people have been working on the destruction of free-market economy and true capitalism. This is causing more poverty, more wars and more tyrants. If capitalism ends, we will live under oppressive socialist governments, like the Cuban or North Korean. The growing power of governments and the destruction of capitalism comes from the freedom capitalism gives people. A lot of people don't choose to know how the system work, just to enjoy it's benefits and live their lives, while fanatic left-wingers slowly increase the government power over the economy and destroys this beautiful system. 1 http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk... 2 http://mises.org... 3 idem I'd like to ask Pro for one more round for new arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kids Should School Start Earlier in the Morning and not Later because Yes you might think that but if they have to go to school earlier they will go to bed earlier so they wont be tired <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Messi is the best footballer in the world. because Messi has won more trophies than ronaldo and holds more records than Ronaldo. He also is better at dribbling than ronaldo and as of 2012 his score ratio is 1.02 to the amount of games he has played. Vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hulk Vs Spiderman (Hulk wins) because === CONTENTION #1 (rebuttals) === 1) In response to me pointing out that Spider-Man would simply have to calm the Hulk down in order to secure victory, PRO cites the fact that the Sentry was unable to calm the Hulk down during the World War Hulk story arc (who was one of the Hulk's closest friends), however, what my opponent conveniently leaves out of his rebuttal is the fact that the Hulk was depicted as being angrier than he had ever been during the midst of this arc due to previous events. In other words, we're not taking into consideration a base level Hulk when referring to this event. Essentially, PRO citing any performance by an already pre-anger hence amped up Hulk is just like me citing Spider-Man with prep time or suggesting he has access to his cosmic powers. If PRO wishes to take this debate to that route, I'll gladly explain why a cosmic powered Spider-Man could easily dispatch the Hulk. Basically though . . . any anger past base level which neither Spider-Man or the Hulk has caused is to be considered outside help (as no outside help and no prep time were the parameters which PRO himself had set at the end of his round 1). Now, if for some reason I end up agreeing that Spider-man would cause the Hulk to get as angry as he had gotten during the World War Hulk arc, my opponent's reasoning shall be valid. 2) My opponent attempts to point out that the Hulk at his weakest is still 10 times stronger than Spider-Man. Ladies and gentlemen, this is merely my opponent insinuating the myth that Spider-Man merely has a strength limit of ten tons. However, based on the scans posted in my evidence thread ( http://www.debate.org... ), Spider-Man is not in the ten ton league. If anything (with him supporting an entire building), one could reasonably claim that a SERIOUS Spider-Man is stronger or equal to a calm downed Hulk in terms of physical prowess. 3) PRO goes on to state that even some of the brightest minds in the Marvel have tried to come up with ways to calm the Hulk down, only to fail . . . however, as revealed during CX, this is false as PRO points out that both Reed Richards and Bruce Banner have succeeded (keep this in mind as we'll come back to it in a little bit). Not to mention that Spider-Man himself triggered the Hulk to change into Bruce Banner when he had first attempted to join the Avengers (note that getting in required he capture the Hulk. Also, observe this panel: http://img443.imageshack.us... ). This tells us that Spider-Man would have knowledge of how to quickly change the Hulk into Banner during battle without prior preparation. As for the Hulk trusting no one and that someone such as Spider-Man wouldn't get anywhere through talking to the Hulk, observe the following panel: http://img515.imageshack.us... This took place after a brief tangle between the two characters. The Hulk was quickly willing stop fighting Spider-man as well as to even confide in him. 4) Doesn't matter if Spider-Man has fought on the Hulk on several occasions. Spider-Man has fought mostly every hero on several occasions, yet this still hasn't prevented teamwork. Not to mention that Spider-Man has worked with the Hulk on FAR more occasions than he has actually fought him, due to being an Avenger. As long as Spider-Man does not attempt to fight the Hulk or anger him in any way, we are guaranteed no direct confrontation, hence making a comparison between the two characters' super powers irrelevant. === CONTENTION #2 (rebuttals) === 1) PRO points out that it is possible that the means at which Spider-Man could defeat the Hulk would require preparation. If we are to consider this possibility, it would make no difference in terms of the outcome of this battle. Given that I've already established that Spider-Man could very well refuse to fight the Hulk and allow him to calm down on his own, what would stop Spider-Man from using this time to create the device in question? This doesn't require preparing before the fight. Rather, it simply requires that Spider-Man having time after the match has started to create his device. This can be done through deceiving the Hulk (which is not difficult to do) into believing that the two have no need to fight and perhaps even tell him to wait at a certain location or Spidey could simply plant a spider tracer on the Hulk's back, prepare the device and then come back to use it on the Hulk. Both of these methods involve Spider-Man doing nothing to agitate the Hulk. As far as this being a notion never tested by Peter Parker, this is merely conjecture on the instigator's part as there is no place in that course of dialogue which goes to suggest that Peter never really gave this matter any real study. In addition, being a man of science, it is most doubtful that he'd make such empty that do not in any way adhere to the scientific method. 2) Next, PRO attempts to counter my claims concerning Firelord by pointing out that Spidey's success was merely PIS. For those who don't know, PIS is often something which is tossed around in comic book versus debates. It is used for the purpose of ignoring evidence which individual fans deem outrageous. That said, although one might adhere to this on a comic book forum, I'm afraid I see no logical reason to do the same here on a debate website. Firstly, we're talking about fictional characters who have super powers and exist in a world where Norse gods and all sorts of magical creatures exist. Secondly, PIS is subjective. Thirdly, the opinion of a mere fan is not to be considered authoritative testimony. Unless the actual authors themselves insist to recant what has happened, my opponents criticisms are to be dismissed without hesitation. As for his 3 additional points here: a. Pre-Cognition (spider-sense) enables Spider-Man to anticipate what his foes will do before they've done it. When this is combined with already super human dexterity, such speed advantages are irrelevant. Just think of how Batman dodges bullets. He watches where the gun is being fired from and dodges before the bullet leaves the barrel. It's basically the same thing here, only far more complex. b. The off guard gas station explosion which Spidey lured Firelord into had already taken its toll on him. As we could see here, Firelord could do nothing more than block. He was too drained of power to do anything else. As for the Avengers not being able to outperform Spidey, this just goes to compliment his abilities. :D c. Firelord stated that although he could destroy the entire city, he'd fight Spider-Man directly for the purpose of honor. As for this nonsense about Spider-Man wearing his symbiote suit, observe: http://img440.imageshack.us... (the web pack on his back is used to carry clothing . . . which is unnecessary in a symbiote suit). In addition, this issue is #269. Spider-Man loses his symbiote suit in #258. Finally, since I never stated that Firelord was stronger than the Hulk (notice that I said he was in the Hulk's league), I won't bother attacking this chain of straw arguments which are based around this clam which I did not make. === RE PRO's Case === 1) The thunder clap is dependent on the Hulk's strength lvl. The less angry he is, the less effective (meaning that if Spidey engages him and takes him out quickly, this won't be a problem) 2) PRO claims that the Hulk just has to make Spider-Man tire, but from the evidence I provide, not only is Spider-Man well capable of knocking out the Hulk, but there's also the fact that he could simply avoid agitating the hulk, hence giving the Hulk no reason to get angry (hence stronger). 3) As far matching Spidey's reflexes, I would advise PRO to provide evidence of the Thor rivaling Spidey's legendary agility before we proceed with this assertion of his <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Puerto Rico should become a state because " It has been shown time and time again that allow a territory in as a state causes a period of marked economic growth." Yes because the areas we adopt have a lot of natural reasources. PR would be the least wealthy (sounds nicer) state which would drain our social programs, and raise debt. Places we have adopted example Utah have abundant reasources and other benifits, PR is a bad state as it's economy struggles. " The United States of America does NOT have an official language" I was hoping you would say this: In a new twist to the contentious immigration debate, the Senate has voted to designate English the national language of the United States, and to effectively ban federal government ordinances and services in any language other than English. [1] So yeah recently this happened. Also language can be a reason to keep them out, if lets say the congo (if their crime and economy improve) become a common wealth and then try to be a state, then we could say "how would you function? You don't speak english." It is a good reason. "That is a terrible argument" Not to be rude, but your arguments aren't better. Also it is a good argument as PR would totally effect this country, and out do our other 50 states. It would give republicans free wins (by small margins) which is good lol but isn't good as I think that if it cancels out the other 50 states, then it isn't worth it. "Opinions change over time." Yes so do cars but is it not fair to say a Jaguar Xk2 is better than a toyota prius and will be for a long time. Also so what? At the time the people said no, the elected goverment was elected to do what the voters want, so them ignoring them is bad. So at the time my argument stands. In a few years then we converse. It is a valid argument until it changes. Also you forget on the second ballot they have independant country or state. ONLY if it passes the first one, which it won't because of the poll, and IF it gets to the second and then it has a fight for independence, and the commonwealth people will go and vote independance as common wealth is more independant then state, and they would go with their 2nd best thing. So it would be unlikely that it would pass. [2] "They have a non-voting commissioner in congress. He may express what is thought could help Puerto Rico, but, he cannot vote and thus truly has no say in matters relating to Puerto Rico." Yes but why do they need to vote as the federal goverment doesn't affect puerto rico that often: do not pay federal income taxes on wages earned in Puerto Rico. [2] C1: economic detriment unemployment: 15.7 [3] In May 2007, local economists expressed serious concerns when it was revealed that the Puerto Rico public debt equaled 76% of its gross national product (GNP), making it one of the most indebted countries by percentage in the world, [4] we really don't need an extra ounce of debt C2: Language well proven. Here's how it hurts: Language is the most obvious difference between the US and Puerto Rico. That's the reason, perhaps, that both conservatives and liberals speak about the linguistic differences as the evident cultural difference between both societies. However, the problem is deeper than this. Some statehood advocates say that in a few decades, the Latin minority will dominate US society, requiring some states to have Spanish as an official language in some states. This would lead us closer to the United States. [6] C3: Politics proven that it would affect C4: already considered americans proven, but I will do more as some still probably would deny: Puerto Rico is a territory (Commonwealth) of the United States of America and Puerto Ricans have common citizenship, currency and defense. Although Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, residents of Puerto Rico pay no federal income tax, nor can they vote in presidential elections. As citizens, Puerto Ricans do not require a work visa (also known as green cards) to live and/or work in the United States. Over 2 million Puerto Ricans live in the United States, primarily in the northeast. [5] proven. C5: the people don't want it PROVEN and he conceded the poll to me. ==conclusion== My mom is from puerto rico, I am in a devils advocate, but based on the debate so far my arguments are stronger and supported with facts. Vote con! sources http://www.independent.co.uk... ;[1] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... ;[2] http://www.bls.gov... ;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... ;[4] http://www.topuertorico.org... ;[5] http://www.prosario-2000.0catch.com... ;[6] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I can post better music because Round 1: Appectance Definitions are self explanatory. Just post 1 music, any type and the voter can decide itch is better. Good luck, dude! 000000 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO because Section headings underlined, opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italics. First I shall crush Hect's case, then present my own. Rebuttals : "I have thoroughly read the DDO privacy policy and terms of use, no where does it say one cannot plagiarize" 1. Nowhere is one word. 1. Ignorance that particular intentionally unethical behavior is illegal, is no defense. 2. Failing at literacy to cause such lapse, is also no defense. The Terms of Use which Hect claims to have " thoroughly read " contains the following highlights; from the Code of Conduct " Will not impersonate any person or entity ," and from Proprietary Rights " All material you post on Debate.org, including debate arguments… becomes the property of Debate.org " [1]. Plagiarism is impersonating the author/owner of intellectual property, and here it is attempting to unlawfully cede ownership to Debate.org. "under what authority does my opponent claim to penalise people for? The answer is none." 1. Penalize is spelled with a Z. 2. Rather than listing the many qualifications, I will simply cite the official How to Vote guide's statement on conduct awards " Improper conduct includes… bad sportsmanlike behavior " [2]. Plagiarism is synonymous with such obviously bad things as piracy and theft, it is most clearly bad sportsmanlike behavior , perhaps more than any other action one can take within a debate. 3. Just to hammer it in a little more, Airmax1227, the official moderator for the site has openly stated " Voters should acknowledge [plagiarism] and the person responsible for it should lose the debate " [3]. "thought provoking challenging debates" 1. I never knew copy/pasting was a challenge, or indeed thought provoking. 2. The implied danger is invalid, as no one has been shown to be making up their own rules. 3. The site would however become a nightmare if instead of people trying to come up with new arguments, they defaulted to plagiarizing winning arguments never to actually put forward their own thoughts again. "I felt needed no reference as it was not an argument that asserted any facts it only required one to think about what I was saying." Were it actually your words that would be the case, however instead you decided to copy/paste what someone else wrote. "Should everyone who has used the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument cite Bobby Henderson" 1. Please denote questions with question marks. 2. If by argument you mean not writing their own text, but just copy/pasting from Bobby Henderson, than a firm yes. 3. Also yes to the remaining questions on if people should cite quotations, as opposed to claiming authorship. Argument : In short this is an intellectual site for a mental sport. Were this boxing and you forfeited fights only to send someone else in to take your place, you would be the laughing stock of the sport if you claimed those victories. If the point of a debate is to win, than it is with the restrictions of winning by your own merits, not someone elses, and not by cheating. Were we to switch to a standard of plagiarism being acceptable, why think when you can just copy/paste an already winning argument from say Mikal [4], at which point why should anyone vote on the debate, when such already happened when the argument was originally put forward? In fact why bother with a user base, when the Debate.org computers can generate unique numbers to the Mikal debates and repost them again and again, and even copy the vote RFDs previously cast. Rather than going down that dark road, we have the conduct penalty to assign as a simple way to discourage such obvious bad behavior as plagiarism. It's common sense. To any argument against penalizing conduct over it due to it not being spelled out clearly enough in the Terms of Service, well forfeiting isn't either we still punish that. Sources : [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation because Science: The Banū Mūsā brothers ("Sons of Moses"), namely Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (before 803 – 873),Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (803 – 873) and Al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (810 – 873), were three 9th-century Persian scholars of Baghdad who are known for their Book of Ingenious Devices on automata (automatic machines) and mechanical devices. Most notable among their achievements is their work in the field of automation, which they utilized in toys and other entertaining creations. They have shown important advances over those of their Greek predecessors.[1] Their Book of Ingenious Devices describes 100 such inventions; the ones which have been reconstructed work as designed. While designed primarily for amusement purposes, they employ innovative engineering technologies such as one-way and two-way valves able to open and close by themselves, mechanical memories, devices to respond to feedback, and delays. Most of these devices were operated by water pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org... The non-manual crank appears in several of the hydraulic devices described by the Banū Mūsā brothers in their Book of Ingenious Devices predates its appearance in Europe by over 5 centuries. They are credited with “the first known use of conical valves as automatic controllers. ^ a b c Donald Routledge Hill, "Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May 1991, pp. 64–69. (cf. Donald Routledge Hill, Mechanical Engineering) The double-concentric siphon and the funnel with bent end for pouring in different liquids, neither of which appear in any earlier Greek works, were also original inventions by the Banu Musa brothers. Banu Musa (authors), Donald Routledge Hill (translator) (1979), The book of ingenious devices (Kitāb al-ḥiyal), Springer, p. 21, ISBN 9027708339 In 1206, Al-Jazari's Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices described many hydraulic machines. Of particular importance were his water-raisingpumps. The first known use of a crankshaft in a chain pump was in one of al-Jazari's saqiya machines. The concept of minimizing intermittent working is also first implied in one of al-Jazari's saqiya chain pumps, which was for the purpose of maximising the efficiency of the saqiya chain pump.[12] Al-Jazari also invented a twin-cylinder reciprocating piston suction pump, which included the first suction pipes, suction pumping, double-action pumping, and made early uses of valves and acrankshaft-connecting rod mechanism. This pump is remarkable for three reasons: the first known use of a true suction pipe (which sucks fluids into a partialvacuum) in a pump, the first application of the double-acting principle, and the conversion of rotary to reciprocating motion, via the crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism. 1. ^ Donald Routledge Hill, "Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May 1991, pp. 64–9 (cf. Donald Routledge Hill, Mechanical Engineering) 2. ^ Ahmad Y Hassan. "The Origin of the Suction Pump: Al-Jazari 1206 A.D.". Retrieved 2008-07-16. 3. ^ Donald Routledge Hill (1996), A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times, Routledge, pp. 143 & 150–2 Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809–873) was one of the most important translators of the ancient Greek works into Arabic. He was also a physician and a writer on medical subjects. His translations interpreted, corrected and extended the ancient works. Some of his translations of medical works were used in Europe for centuries. He also wrote on medical subjects, particularly on the human eye. His book Ten Treatises on the Eye was influential in the West until the 17th century. ^ Masood, Ehsan (2009). Science and Islam A History. Icon Books Ltd. pp. 47–48, 59, 96–97, 171–172. Agriculture: Harsh desert climate and availability of resources has allowed the Mid-East to experiment with different agricultural techniques. Saudi Arabia is experimenting with aeroponic farms. These are farms which use no soil, no pesticides and no sunlight. Even though the majority of scientific data regarding aero-farms is not of Islamic origin, the research into these farms is possible due to viability in Saudi Arabia. http://inhabitat.com... Muslims have also contributed to the field of translation. Science is defined as: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... My opponent claims Sharia forbade science, I await a substantiation of the same. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective. because I know this makes me looks stupid, I guess I was just confused by the title. Again, Im sorry. You may have been surprised I was debating PRO when I had a picture of Rush Limbaugh. lol. I definitely agree with you and you made some really good points. Its good to see that there are people that think the same as me on certain situations and are strong conservatives. But you totally debate someone else on this topic (that actually disagrees with you) I'm sure you would win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent should go Fvck himself. because For men masterbation helps to prevent cancer, boosts a person's mood and helps them keep erections better as they age. http://www.menshealth.com... Women also get many health benefits from masterbating. Masterbation reduces menstraul cramps, increase your ability to reach orgasm easier and helps with sleep. http://www.wewomen.com... con is eithe male or female. Resolution affirmed <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. because So it seems that my opponent either drops, or agrees with the clarifications I gave toward his points about my opening argument, with arguments such as "since the right doesn't currently exist, you can't take it away." He has also seemed to dropped his slippery slope argument, so may the audience keep this in mind. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Process of a bill becoming a law I fail to see the weight in my opponent's argument concerning how a bill becomes a law. I am well aware of the process, but this fails to show for my opponent why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. It basically amounts to that since gay marriage hasn't been made legal by the federal government, it shouldn't be legal. Is it just me or is that just absolutely redundant!? Also, I did not explicitly state whether the state or federal government should legalize gay marriage, but only that it should be legalized. The role of who should legalize it is of no concern in this debate. 2. 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage As I've stated before, just because a slight majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, this shows nothing on whether or not gay marriage should be legal, only that Americans oppose it. I respect their opinions, but this doesn't mean I agree with their opinions. Do note that a well 3/4 of America is Christian [1], and thus many would oppose gay marriage based solely on religious purposes. About 20% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth [2], but does that give even an inkling on the merit of that claim? 3. Comment about "Yeah, screw democracy" First of all, I agreed with that statement in a partially sarcastic manner, though it probably wasn't clear. However, this is once again a FAILED argument. Not only should the comment section be out of the context of this debate, but whether or not I support democracy (which I do) has no merit on the legality of gay marriage. "Homosexual Americans have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexual Americans, no less and no more. Both groups of people are permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex." --> EXCEPT MARRIAGE. Which is exactly the point of this debate. The point is, homosexual people want to marry, uh duh, the same gender! Not allowing them this option is taking away a right that is theirs. ~Conclusion~ In the progression of this brief debate, my opponent has given no substantial argument against gay marriage. The only feasible argument was his slippery slope argument, but he has failed to bring it back up. I tackled that argument in a new way, by asking him why polygamy, bestiality, or incest should be illegal if they all involve consenting adults. His recurring point is about 55% of Americans being opposed to gay marriage, but I clearly showed that to be a fallacious argument. For all the reasons I have shown, and for all the points I have refuted, vote for Pro. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.smirkingchimp.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against soda is bad for you because I thank my opponent for his argument. Definitions Since my opponent did not provide definitions, I will. soda: "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol"[1] bad for you: unhealthy Argument My opponent's argument, in syllogism form, is the following: 1. Soda is highly addictive 2. Soda is high in acidity 3. Therefore, soda is bad for you If I can show that statements 1 and 2 are false, then statement 3 is false. This is becase the converse of a statement is not necessarily true. For instance, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, and thus, one cannot say a rectangle is a square. So if I can prove that not all sodas (rectangles) are squares (bad for you), then one cannot say soda is bad for you. Highly addictive Not all sodas are "highly addictive" (which, none are really highly addictive, in comparison to other substances, but I will let this slide). My opponent is referring to the caffeine present in many sodas when he states they are highly addictive. However, there are several sodas which do not contain caffeine; for example, Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola and Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi do not contain caffeine. These sodas do not contain caffeine, and therefore they are not addictive in that regard -- and even if there were other substances in these products, you must prove they are "highly addictive" -- which to call caffeine "highly addictive" is already a stretch compared to other substances. High in acidity Not all sodas are "high in acidity." For instance, Creeper Cola[2], Zevia[3] and most root beers do not contain phosphoric acid, the chief acid in soda. Therefore, not all sodas are extremely acidic. Conclusion Because I have proven that not all sodas are highly addictive, and not all sodas are high in acidity, one cannot vaguely say "soda is bad for you" without any conditions. I look forward to my opponent's response Sources 1. www.bettycjung.net/201/Wsreports/Soda.pdf 2. http://www.bongwatersoda.com... 3. http://www.zevia.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Short Story Challenge (2) because removed <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Socialism because I forgot to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I think that we're having a good time. There are many problems with my opponents definition. However even my opponent defines socialism as "An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. " Note the term, "or collective." Worker cooperatives collectively own and control the means of production. Hence the system which I described fits within this definition. There are other parts of this definition which must be jettisoned if we want to talk about socialism in the traditional sense of the word. "It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to healthcare." That only applies to a system of public ownership and control, not a system of collective ownership and control. Therefore, my opponent's definition is contradicting itself. Furthermore, there are many different types of socialists. Granted, many socialists have wanted to expand the state, but many socialists have wanted to dismantle the state. I'm not arguing for either alternative. I'm merely arguing for collective, or cooperative ownership of the means of production, and democratic control. "China, Vietnam, and Cuba... Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and the U.S.S.R." The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as Republican as it was Socialist. The names are deceptive. The U.S.S.R. should have been called the Empire of Statist Dictatorships. You see, during the Russian Revolution in 1917, there was, at first, a potential for the development of true socialism. Worker's Councils were enabling Russian workers to democratically own and control the means of production. As I pointed out in round 1, worker ownership and control of the means of production is what socialists have traditionally advocated. However, by 1921, Lenin dismantled the worker's councils. Lenin himself said that Russia was not ready for socialism. The Bolshevik Party would keep the country ready for socialism, waiting until revolutions in more advanced societies. The Soviet model was not socialist since it didn't have worker's control of the means of production. The same could be said of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. None of these countries were ever socialist. It is easy for my opponent to argue against a straw man and to list all of the countries which called themselves socialist without actually being socialist. However, I think it would be far more productive for my opponent to argue against socialism as I defined it. This is, after all, a more traditional conception of socialism. Worker control and ownership is advocated by a wide range of Socialists, from Democratic Socialists to Anarchists to Council Communists/ Left-Marxists. Even if we go with my opponent's definition, the words "collective ownership" allow for an economy of worker cooperatives. I didn't have any space to present my contentions in Round 1. Now I do have space. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to put this in the first round, but since we aren't in the last round, it's okay to present contentions. Contention 1: Capitalism exploits workers; Socialism pays workers fairly. In order to make a profit, a Capitalist firm must spend less money than it makes. Moreover, the cost of producing and selling a product must be lower than the price of that product. I think we can all agree with that. This means that the people who produce and sell a product must be paid less money than the revenue which they generate through their labor. In other words, workers must be exploited if corporations are going to make any profit. This is basic logic, but maybe you still aren't convinced. If not, then I implore you to look at the numbers. Since 1948 average American pay went up 113% which sounds great until you learn that average productivity went up 254%. People are being paid less than half of what they produce. Socialism is more fair because when a worker cooperative spends less money than it makes, the profit goes back to the people who produced it -- the workers. Not only are wages voted on, but the excess revenue people produce goes to the people who produce it. Contention 2: Capitalism undermines democracy; Socialism strengthens democracy. In our Capitalist society, corporations and the individuals who get rich thanks to corporations have such a disproportionate amount of wealth that they can buy disproportionate amounts of political power. A Princeton study shows how damaging this is for democracy. "A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time." Under the type of Socialism I describe, democratic institutions are not only left in place, they are strengthened because you no longer have economic elites dominating Washington D.C. Sources for stats in round 3. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con) because Why does your arguments only state one side of the casualties which if I'm correct are only Turkmenistan. Can you state Ukrainian casualties? Some music I think is appropriate for this situation. https://www.youtube.com... July 4 While American celebrant independence day Ukraine decides they must stop Turkmenistan soldiers before they reach Mariupol. By satelite at it shows there are only 4,000 soldiers. Ukraine acts quickly and places 10,000 of its soldiers outside the city along with a small minefield. Initial the fighting is fierce, but it ends swiftly. The Turkmenistan soldiers are defeated and are forced to retreat. The defense Of Ukraine Ukraine Casualties: 945 Tanks: 7 Turkmenistan Casualties: 1,926 July 5 To stop them from retreating back to Debaltseve, 10,000 Ukrainian still in Ukraine recaptures the city and moves to get ready to attack the Turkmenistan. In the mean time, the Ukrainian not killed or wounded at the Defense of Ukraine pursue them. They are at the outskirts of Donetsk when they are attacked. There was no hope for the Turkmenistan soldiers there. The battle of Donetsk Ukraine casualties: 587 Turkmenistan casualties: 1,952 captured: 122 July 10 The remaining Turkmenistan soldiers in Ukraine have been mopped up while Ukraine received little casualties in comparison. July 15 They see the Ukrainian soldiers need help before they are beaten when Turkmenistan gets reinforcements. They get all there transport planes accompanied with fighter aircraft to be guarded. The planes will either land or paratroop the supplies or soldiers. July 20 The Ukrainian soldiers now have there numbers back to 20,000. They then begin a counter attack. With air support they are able to win a major victory. Ukraine casualties: 3,572 tanks: 12 SPG: 5 mobile artillery: 7 aircraft: 4 Turkmenistan casualties: 10,576 tanks: 15 SPG: 5 mobile artillery: 8 July 23 Unwilling to let the enemy escape, the Ukrainian forces attack in pursuit. Along with that, Ukraine launches another cyber attack on the helpless Turkmenistan cyberspace which effectively cripples anything with power besides a flashlight or something like that. The internet is disabled also along with factories. The Ukrainian forces fight a fierce battle which is named the battle of Balkanabat since that city was close by. Ukraine: Casualties: 4,782 tanks: 34 AFVs: 86 Artillery: 16 aircraft: 14 Turkmenistan tanks: 123 AFVs: 246 Artillery: 26 Aircraft: 21 July 29 Ukraine then moves on and capture Serdar with limited casualties. Baharly is also bombed by aircraft. in the process of all this Ukraine gets a steady stream of reinforcements and other supplies August 12 Ukrainian forces are now back up to 20,000 again. After a series of dogfights, the Turkmenistan air force if in bad shape while the Ukrainian airforce is still strong. Located at Gokdepe, they are close to the capital of Turkmenistan. While Turkmenistan may have numbers, Ukraine has quality and more tanks, AFVs, etc. located outside the city. Along with that Turkmenistan cyber space is crippled and Ukraine still has a strong airforce. Soldiers lay a mine field to their east and North to prevent Turkmenistan from attacking without receiving costly casualties. There is a trench line to protect soldiers from direct fire in case Turkmenistan attacks them. They will also receive a steady stream of reinforcements from supply planes. Now you have 4 choices. 1. Let your capital fall along with your government. 2. Position you army to try to defend it. 3. Attack my army. 4. Look for peace. 5. Retreat your government officials away from the capital where my forces will inevitably follow. Tanks for the debate so far!(pun intended) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler because I would like to say, initially, that, while it won't benefit my part of the debate any longer, my opponent may wish to establish God's holiness by some account of the Bible. It is being used only as an account on God's character based on events: "God did this, God did that." Not adjectives like "God is great, God is good." That's what's being established in the debate, so if you want to make a case with God's holiness as evidence, you must first prove God's holiness. The Garden of Eden I am not sure that I do misunderstand the point of free will, nor that my opponent understands it. I think I have already proven with an earlier syllogism why Biblical free will is only a paper moon. I have yet to see any address of my syllogism at all, so as of now it stands. Yet a continuation of the Lego analogy. I am not sure I even follow the logic in this analogy; somehow leaving Legos in the floor where an equal entity might accidentally step on them does not seem to me to be comparable to an ultimate entity who knows exactly everything that ever will and could happen creating something that would hurt others. You see, an all-knowing God would know who would step on the Legos before leaving them in the floor, or indeed before they were manufactured, and, accordingly, if he did not wish ill of the person to step on them, elect not to leave them in such a way that they would be stepped on. Free will is not a factor, since, were God to know the Legos would be stepped on, he could simply avert the opportunity. On a lighter yet very relevant note, I would like to see your weird friend step on a Lego that's glued to the ceiling. As of now, I have not seen a competent refutation of my free will rebuttal, and thus my original comparison of God to Hitler based on his behavior regarding Eden remains untouched. Noah's Ark Your analogy seems great, except that it implies that these people that God 'fired' were ever hired to begin with. Another mistake that my opponent seems to be making is interpreting my mention of Noah persuading God to mean Noah begging God. No, persuasion and begging are different. For instance, what I am doing now is persuading the voters that my stance on the resolution is stronger than yours, and you are likewise persuading them that yours is stronger. Neither of us is begging. When I say Noah persuaded God, I mean he had a chat with him, changed his mind. Irregardless, that doesn't actually matter. Thanks, for these various versions that I asked for. It does little to affect the point, however. Let me see if I follow the logic of my opponent's sign argument. God knew that nobody would listen to his warning, so instead of offering a warning people would listen to, he offered a warning he knew they would not listen to, for the sake of allowing them to choose or not choose to heed it? But if he knew they wouldn't heed it, he's not giving them that opportunity. Allow me to speak your language of analogies: Say I design a computer program that responds with a numerical value that directly correlates to a value I give it. If I know that it will return a negative number if I give it a positive one, I am not giving it the opportunity to choose a positive number, because the input I am giving it is one that I know, beforehand, will return a negative number. I fail to see any logical progression at all in my opponent's conclusion that Hitler and God cannot be compared simply because God's printed doctrine says God's motives are pure and righteous. Hitler's propaganda said Hitler's motives were pure and righteous. That it says so in print does not mean it is reliable. My opponent has yet to establish that God's motives and intentions in his actions were any purer or more righteous than Hitler's. He accuses Hitler's of being uglier, but offers no support. If the number of people killed in the Great Flood is not included, Hitler did kill more, at about 11 million people, with God at only some two million. Some sources speculate the number of people supposedly alive at the time of the Flood to be in the millions, so that's several million added to God's kill count, leaving the genocide numbers for each figure about even (remember, however, that God directly carried out much of his killing, while Hitler merely ordered his). I have established that both committed genocide for the sake of racial purity. As of now, this argument stands like a gleaming obelisk, untopplable by the strongest sandstorm. Job If God created Lucifer in such a way that he knew Lucifer would betray him, then God did not give Lucifer the fair choice of accepting him. What you're reiterating doesn't logistically add up. I graciously accept your apology, though you never really offended me. Once again, we are not on the grounds of the Bible being accurate, but of it hypothetically describing God via the events within, such as Noah's Ark , Joshua and Jericho , David and Goliath , Solomon , etc. As such, we are using it as evidence, not proof. Were I to read descriptions of Der Fuhrer from his propaganda, you would probably disagree with it because of many of the things he did that contradicted those descriptions, some of it even outlined in said propaganda. As of now, I have not seen a successful rebuttal of my original point that God's sanctioning of Satan's cruel experiment on Job was very much akin to Hitler's sanctioning of cruel experiments on his 'undesirable' subjects. My point stands. Sodom and Gomorrah It does not matter whether or not my stance on the demand for sex was sound, that one band of men wanted to rape, or greet with sex, however you put it, Lot's guests does not justify exterminating every life within two cities. There are rape gangs all over India. Perhaps you would approve of God gassing India? I think not. India is full of innocent children, innocent adults, many innocent people who are not rapists, yet would still probably not leave India simply because missionaries from one religion instructed them to do so. By any moral standard with which I'm familiar, destroying India based on such principles would be unspeakably evil, yet that is essentially what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. (Disclaimer: I do not think India is really very comparable to the Biblical description of Sodom and Gomorrah) Saying that we can trust God's judgement to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah is equivalent to saying we can trust Hitler's judgement to destroy Belgium and France. According to Hitler, they might very well have been obviously out of line. I'm familiar with Abraham's bargain with God, reducing the number of innocents necessary to spare the cities down quite significantly. I do not see God's persuadability in the issue as relevant whatsoever. As of now, God's genocide at Sodom and Gomorrah stands as a firm point; God acted mercilessly and bloodthirstily. Conclusion Yes, history is written by the victors. Were we to assume, again hypothetically, that God did vicariously write the Bible, it is very natural that he would portray himself in the manner that he wanted, just as Hitler, in writing his brochures and his famous Mein Kampf , portrayed himself the way he wished. If I start from the assumption that God is as he is portrayed fin the Bible without making the entire assumption hypothetical, I go mad with fear or something at the world's worst catch 22, and I still don't see God's actions as justified. It does not matter how frequently God describes himself as righteous, his actions speak plainly to the contrary. Once more, my opponent has tried to make distinction between God and Hitler based on reason for genocide. Need I remind anyone that Hitler didn't claim to hate the Jews because they were Jewish (not a race, a religion), he claimed to hate them because of a long list of immoral actions and characteristics he assigned to them, just as God justified his actions with his reasons of 'morality.' My points all stand firmly unrefuted by my opponent's straw men. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ross is the Main Character on Friends because I will continue to use the previously established debate format for ease of reading. Affirmative Case The Everyman & The Damsel in Distress Con doubts Ross’ characterization as an Everyman because he is intelligent and has shown bouts of emotion in the past. To start, intellect is not sufficient grounds for disqualification in this respect. Of the examples of famous Everyman characters I provided previously, which Con did not dispute, Leonard (The Big Bang Theory) has a genius level IQ and Ted (How I Met Your Mother) is an architect. The key to preserving the audience-character connection in these cases involves regularly mocking or downplaying the intelligence while providing the protagonists with struggles that their smarts alone cannot solve. These both obviously occur with Ross; Con admits that Ross’ education is met with annoyance from his friends and no amount of paleontological knowledge ever seems to save his relationships. As for Ross’ bouts of emotion, Con does not explain why they should be an issue. Remember, Everyman characters are meant to be personally unremarkable to an extent that the audience may easily identify with their actions in the storyline. Con’s emotion examples - anger at losing a job, jealousy at a romantic rival, depression at the end of a marriage - are each extremely relatable and do nothing to disconnect Ross from the viewers. When it comes to Rachel, Con states that Rachel is something called a Mary Sue, which he describes as “the farthest thing from the normal” and “impossible unrealistic amazing fantasies.” At this point, I ask the audience to take a quick plausibility check. I argued Rachel is not the protagonist because, like Penny from Big Bang and Diane from Cheers, her quirky traits and often naive behavior make her a caricature to play off our more normal hero, Ross. Con argued that Rachel is the protagonist because, like Goku, Batman, and James Bond, she is so incredibly unbelievable and extraordinary that she defies all expectations and will “astonish and amaze at every turn.” Remember, this is Rachel we’re talking about. From Friends. Jokes aside, Con’s representation of this argument is actually entirely incorrect. Mary Sue is a fan fiction term referring to characters meant to represent the author [ http://tinyurl.com... ]. They are a means of wish fulfillment for the writer, not the viewer, so all of Con’s statements about Rachel being the protagonist because she’s living out all these incredible dreams for the audience is completely wrong. If anything, I’m guessing the audience would rather be a soap opera star (Joey) or sleep with Tom Selleck (Monica) than just change jobs or run out on their wedding. As a side note, the term Mary Sue originated in Star Trek fan fiction, which may explain Con’s dubious comparison of Rachel to Captain Kirk. A Hero’s Journey Con completely ignores this argument. Please consider it a point in my favor. The Pursuer vs the Pursued In response to my argument that Ross was more active than Rachel throughout their relationship, Con states that I am viewing romance from a male perspective. Aside from being baseless, his rebuttal ignores the role of a protagonist in a narrative. The main character differs from secondary characters in that the story is based on and propelled by their actions and choices. In conceding that Rachel is passive in her relationship with Ross, which is undoubtedly the primary storyline of the entire series, Con essentially concedes any possibility of her being the protagonist. As for Con’s claim that “The Girl Hero is always pursued,” I can think of a few female protagonists who might disagree: Carrie of Sex and the City, Buffy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dharma of Dharma & Greg, Christine of New Adventures of Old Christine, etc. Gunther as the Antagonist This point was originally a rebuttal of one of Con’s arguments, but my analysis revealed that Gunther acts as the antagonist to Ross’ protagonist. Con completely ignores this argument. Please consider it a point in my favor. Rebuttals The show begins & ends with Rachel Con completely drops this argument. Please consider it defeated. Rachel’s career improves Con completely drops this argument. Please consider it defeated. Rachel’s relationships Con continues to mention Rachel’s dating history throughout his round, but fails to address my counter-argument that the intertwined nature of Ross and Rachel’s relationship makes this contention meaningless. Please consider it defeated. Rachel lives with the cast The only one of Con’s original arguments that made it to Round 2 involves Rachel living with the cast, though he does tweak it a bit. Considering both Ross and Rachel lived with all the other friends at some point, Con now claims that the important aspect is that only Rachel lived in every apartment. Again, why does this matter? As I said last round, Daphne from the show Frasier lived with every main character on the show at some point and she wasn’t the protagonist. An entire episode of The Big Bang Theory involved Sheldon living with (and being subsequently thrown out by) each main character, but that doesn’t make him the protagonist. Unless Con can explain how a character’s residence rather than their personality, struggles, or story arcs makes them the protagonist, this point is moot. Closing At this point, Con is in a precarious position. As the rules dictate that he must skip Round 4, this next speech is his last and no new arguments can be introduced. However, he has already dropped two of my affirmative arguments and three of his own. All that remains in defense of Rachel as the protagonist is the fact that she's lived in different apartments and may or may not be like Goku. As it stands, I believe I have shown the flaws in these arguments and explained why Ross' characteristics and plot points make him the far more fitting choice as protagonist. I look forward to the final round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation because I did realize that the main sticking point would be whether or not science is forbidden by Islam. I still have to complete my brief of showing contribution of Muslims. People can contribute to the society in a variety of ways; I have chosen to limit the scope of this debate to science, agriculture and translation (of literature). I have already mentioned contributions; my opponent must demonstrate that these contributions violate the principles of Islam. I will now attempt to demonstrate that these contributions do not violate the principles of Islam (sharing of burden of proof). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some information related to this debate, the reader should read the un-italicised part even if they are familiar with the italisized part. Wiki: Sharia, shariah, sharīʿah or shariat[1] (Arabic: شريعة šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the code of conduct or religious law of Islam. Most Muslims believe sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in theQuran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh jurisprudence interprets and extends the application of sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists prefer to apply reasoning ('aql) rather than analogy in order to address difficult questions. http://en.wikipedia.org... Legal scholar L. Ali Khan claims that "the concept of sharia has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature. For some Muslims, sharia consists of the Quran and Sunnah. For others, it also includes classical fiqh. Most encyclopedias define sharia as law based upon the Quran, the Sunnah, and classical fiqh derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas). This definition of sharia lumps together the revealed with the unrevealed. This blending of sources has created a muddled assumption that scholarly interpretations are as sacred and beyond revision as are the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran and the Sunnah constitute the immutable Basic Code, which should be kept separate from ever-evolving interpretive law (fiqh). This analytical separation between the Basic Code and fiqh is necessary to dissipate confusion around the term sharia." ^ "The Second Era of Ijtihad". 1 St. Thomas University Law Review. 341. Fiqh: Fiqh (Arabic: فقه [fiqh]) is Islamic jurisprudence. Fiqh is an expansion of the code of conduct (Sharia) expounded in the Quran, often supplemented by tradition (Sunnah) and implemented by the rulings and interpretations of Islamic jurists. http://en.wikipedia.org... What applies within one school of Sharia law does not necessarily apply in the other schools. For example, the Maliki Law School accepts evidence of pregnancy as proof that an unmarried woman has either committed adultery or been raped. The other schools "... do not recognize evidence of pregnancy as proof of Zina [Adultery]." http://www.religioustolerance.org... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The basic point is that we need to restrict ourselves to the basic immutable code as laid down in the Koran and Sunnah. That being said, I will now proceed to analyze your argument. If you notice, the examples given by me did not fall into any of the categories of unlawful “knowledge”. I do not see how Sharia forbids all forms of science. The Banu Musa also worked in astronomical observations established in Baghdad by the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun. The Abbasid Caliphate or, more simply, the Abbasids (Arabic: العبّاسيّون / ISO 233: al-‘abbāsīyūn), was the third of the Islamic caliphates. The term caliphate "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (community). http://en.wikipedia.org... The banu musa brothers worked in astronomical observations established by an Islamic system of government, is it not reasonable to assume that they would have to work within the framework established by the third Islamic caliphate (around 200 years after the death of the prophet)? If not, I await you to prove otherwise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent needs to point out the exact violation of each of the examples provided by me (you can start with the double concentric siphon and agriculture, if you prove that, we can move onto translation). Kindly post in a format like this: Double concentric siphon- <insert violated principle here> - <insert relevant text from Koran> -<insert source here> <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The world is doomed because The relatively low BoP is on pro. I wish pro had answered any of the questions in the comment section, and hope that he will not try for semantics [1]. I assume The World means either the earth, or humanity, or our modern world we live in (in which case us not living to see its end, would mean it is not doomed in any practical way to be measured as a fact). Without a clarified definition of The World, I cannot build an opening case and can only refute his claim. If The World turns out to be a definition without relevance, I encourage a strong vote against pro. As "only facts count as arguments," I hope for a clean fact for why the world is doomed, that does not fall back on mere theories or religion. Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: Baptism is not a requirement for Salvation. because OPPONENT's CASE REVIEW: 1. You're in the ballpark. Clarifying water baptism which comes from the Greek baptizo mean submerged. (Mounce's Expository Greek) Spiritual baptism along with indwelling and sealing are works of the Holy Spirit at the time of Salvation (Systematic Theology, Henry Thiessen; doctrines of pneumatology & soteriology) 2. Referring to John 14:2 & 6, but not relevant to the topic. "1. recover an acceptable number of souls; 2. for baptized souls to be saved without visiting the Father; 3. having Jesus as a personal savior is not necessary to salvation"? What Bible are you reading? Definitely need to provide source for these statements. While you are correct that no one cometh unto the Father but by Jesus, that isn't the topic of discussion. Gotta stay with the program. OBSERVATIONS: A. My opponent hasn't presented any information to confirm that water baptism is required for salvation. B. My opponent has numerous grammatical errors. C. My opponent has paraphrased the words of Jesus, but has not cited any sources. MY CASE: A. I have cited scripture indicating the requirements for salvation, of which water baptism is not stated. B. 2 Timothy 3: 16 proves the legitimacy of scripture. C. While on the cross along side the two thieves, Jesus forgave the one who believed. Since he did not have the opportunity to get baptized did that negate the promise of salvation made by Jesus himself? I think not. VOTE PRO <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because 1: Waterboarding is used to collect life-saving information All of my opponents arguments are claims that without absolute certainty, no harsh interrogation is justified. Certainty is never used as a legal standard, because certainty is never attainable. As one academic put it, "The [highest] standard of proof is "absolute certainty." Although the law recognizes this standard of proof, it explicitly never requires it, because the law considers absolutism unworkable (i.e., no criminal would be convicted if 100% proof were required)." [10. http://karws.gso.uri.edu... ] Evidence that may provide adequate foundation for a warrant includes: claims of knowledge made by the terrorist himself, documents or computer files showing substantial involvement in terrorist acts, testimony from undercover agents or witnesses as to the nature and extent of terrorist involvement, physical evidence like DNA on bomb-making components, intercepted phone or computer communication showing general involvement in a terrorist plot, or other evidence of participation. 2. Safeguards In the proposed safeguards, either the President or a judge must determine that there is both probable cause that the captured terrorist has critical information and that lives are at stake. Currently, the President authorizes drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists without any certification of probable cause, although it's likely the President maintains reasonable standards. Without the option of waterboarding, two options available are death by drone strikes or rendition to another country. Neither require any judicial review or formal certification of probable cause. I posed the argument that it is immoral to let many people die in order to spare a terrorist from waterboarding. The quotation from Dershowitz serves to phrase the argument and to show that a liberal jurist believes it true. Con did not respond to the moral argument. con must assert that if the President believes thousands of lives can be saved by waterboarding a terrorist, then morality lies with sparing the terrorist and letting the people die. Con must give his reasoning behind that moral dictate. My reasoning is that the potential harm to the terrorist is low and that the value of saving thousands of innocent lives is high, so morality demands that water boarding proceed. 3. Waterboarding is effective My case for the effectiveness of waterboarding comprises specific examples and expert opinion. Con did not deny any of the examples in which waterboarding saved lives. We have therefore established that waterboarding saves some lives. All that is left at issue is how many. I claim that saving innocent lives in any number is a positive balance when weighed against the duress endured by the terrorists. Expert opinion is valid evidence. The question is whether the person cited is qualified as an expert. The FBI is forbidden by law from engaging in harsh interrogation techniques, because they are a domestic agency. The U.S. military is forbidden by law from using harsh interrogation. Only the CIA has experience with the methods, and they are best qualified to judge the results. The CIA seeks intelligence data, and they use escalating measures to obtain the vital information. Of the 1500 or so detainees at Gitmo, only three were waterboarded. The rest yielded less extreme methods. The CIA is therefore best qualified to judge effectiveness of different techniques, and Rodriquez opinion is therefore valid. 4. The alternative to waterboarding is rendition I claimed that no moral person would spare a terrorist if it meant the death of innocent civilians. The Clinton Administration relied upon handing over terrorists to other nations so the terrorists could be subjected to unlimited torture, and that the Obama Administration has kept the policy of rendition. Con has not responded. C1 . Con argues that waterboarding has long term negative psychological impacts. Con cites an web post that claims a type of waterboarding dramatically different from that used by the CIA. In the waterboarding cited, interrogators "Pour water onto the inclined face so that the water runs into the upturned mouth and nose. The water stays in the head, filling the throat, mouth, and sinuses with water." In the waterboarding used by the CIA, water is prevented from entering the mouth and throat of the detainee. In the CIA method "the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths." [1] There is a psychological impact from the sensation of drowning, but it is far short of the trauma studied. The source for the long term effects was a professor of political science at Reed College who studied unspecified historical accounts of waterboarding. It seems unlikely that in historical use that interrogators would carefully limit exposure so as to not cause harm; in all likelihood more severe methods were used along with waterboarding as well. Terrorists are conditioned to expect waterboarding, as are U.S. special forces and CIA agents who are subjected to waterboarding as practice. There is no evidence that a single terrorist or U.S. operative has suffered any of the traumatic effects claimed. Journalists have volunteered to be waterboarded so they could write about it. None have reported suffering any permanent mental or physical harm. Are we in any case really worried that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, having masterminded the killing of 3000 innocent people will " have a long-lasting inability to develop close and intimate relationships?" If he escapes execution, he will remain in prison for the rest of his life. C2. Con conceded that sometimes it does work, and I concede that sometimes it does not work. Thus there is a possibility of saving innocent lives, but not a guarantee. Morality lies on exercising the possibility of saving lives rather than sparing the terrorist discomfort. Con argues that a person will confess to anything. In the proposed constraints on waterboarding, confessions are never sought, only verifiable intelligence information. Terrorists provide false information whether they are waterboarded or not. Intelligence agents always have to verify the information. KSM gave up the identity of a man plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and agents acting on that information discovered documents proving the plan. C3. Con argues that " the enemy is more likely to react more harshly, escalating violence." So, without waterboarding, terrorists kill 3000 innocent people and cut off the head of journalist on television but if waterboarded they might escalate the violence. What is left? Is there any doubt that if they had a nuclear weapon they would use it? The resolution is affirmed. Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid sheik Mohammed admits he personally murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, according to an updated version of his confession released today by the Pentagon. "I decapitated with blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed said in a written declaration submitted to a military tribunal at Guantanamo last weekend. … "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," KSM said in his statement. US officials had told ABC News that identifying marks on the hand of the masked man holding Pearl’s head matched those of KSM. http://abcnews.go.com... Terrorists can choose to avoid waterboarding by simply signing on to the Geneva Conventions or negotiating a mutual ban with the U.S. They refuse to do so. If waterboarding is legal, as it now is, the President is allowed to make the judgement as to whether the risk of inflaming enemy forces outweighs the potential benefit of averting terrorist mass killing. That option should be left with the President, who has the best ability to appraise the situation. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Bradley Manning. Traitor. because I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for accepting my challenge and I wish the best of luck to her as well. This will be my first debate so here's hoping to a good one. The first thing that I would like to bring up is that the law is the law. Whether you agree with said law or not it does not change that fact. Bradley Manning is a member of the Armed Forces of these United States and as such is subject both by law and by oath to obey the laws and regulations of the Armed Forces set forth by the Military and the Federal Government. With that said, Bradley Manning did intentionally and premeditatedly choose of his own free will to break the laws of the Armed Forces and Federal Government by releasing classified Government documents and information. Said information held secrets that had the potential and very well may have caused direct harm to national security, the war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the lives of both fellow service members and allies alike. By this sole reason alone Bradley Manning is a traitor to his country, the Armed forces of the United States, and his fellow service men and women. Regardless of whether or not you feel what he did was right or no, regardless of his reasons for why he did it. You can not change the fact that he broke the law and thus deserves to be punished according to said law. Example. If a man raps and kills a little girl is captured by a police officer but rather then take him into custody as required the officer chooses to shoot and kill the sick freak, is the officer not then going to also be punished for breaking the law? The second thing I would like to point out is what it was exactly that Manning released. Bradley Manning is credited for releasing the following but not necessarily limited to; the video commonly known as "collateral murder", information on the Granai Air strike, and the large amount of data referred to as the "Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Logs". I would like to point out that the legitimacy of each of these items are arguable and rate their own separate debate all together. Had these items been the only things Bradley had released, I myself might see his case such as you do, though he would still be guilty of breaking the law. However. This is not the case. He also released hundreds of thousands of government cables and documents ranging from Embassy emails to troop movements and enemy assessments and Intel to the names of Afghani and Iraqi informants and the locations of safe houses. If he was trying to "lift the veil off of the blind American people to the horrors that our nation has done to the poor people of the Mid East" why did he also release these hundreds of thousands of cables that in no way were malicious or cause for starting a "debate amongst Americans on the legitimacy of the US foreign policy"? Why did he not filter out these documents from the ones that could hurt the US Governments image from those that could hurt the US? Instead of doing that he simply garbed this huge pile of classified information and dumped it into the public lab. Including the laps of our enemy's. There is no excuse whatsoever for the leaking of this information and is one of the primary reasons for the just argument that he is in fact, a traitor. My third and final argument for this round is about who he released this information to. Bradley Manning is an American soldier. He supposedly released this American information to awaken the American people for the benefit of the American people. Why then did he release this information to a foreign entity? An entity that is known to have an Anti-American agenda and is known to bend the truth in order to aid their agenda. He gave these hundreds of thousands of cables of information to a foreign entity who then indiscriminately released said information to the entire world regardless of who it might harm, so long as it harmed America. Had Bradley gave this information to an American group like Info Wars or Truth.org I assure you I would not be as critical on him as I am and the charges against him would not be as severe. The mere fact that he gave the Intel to a foreign entity is my second primary reason he is indisputably a traitor. If you could explain to me how that isn't treason I would love to hear it. This concludes my opening arguments in the first round of this debate. I humbly await my opponents opening argument and once again wish her the best of luck. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rape and Abortion because I'm going to start this round by answering some of the questions in my opponent's introduction. As I originally argued, it doesn't matter how we determine personhood or the right to life. We will come to the conclusion either that the fetus has a right to life or that it does not. In either case, rape does not affect the conclusion that it is or is not wrong to kill the fetus. That being said, I will move on the address my opponent's statements and explain why they do not uphold the resolution. :Personhood isn't all or nothing: Even if personhood isn't all or nothing, but the right to life is all or nothing. A being either has the right to life or it does not. Since there is no such thing as partial killing or partial life, I don't see how the right to life can be extended partially or gradually. In any case, I will contend that personhood IS all or nothing. In order to do this, I will appeal to Mary Ann Warren's five criteria for determining personhood: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and the presence of self concepts. The combination of these five criteria give a being a stake in its own existence and give it a meaningful value. Any being without all five would be too deficient in this regard to be considered a person. A few of these traits do not make a partial person, they make a being on the way to personhood that is still not a person at all. It is not necessary to regard animals and the mentally disabled as "a worthless hunk of meat" in order to understand that they are not people. Likewise, though they are not extended the right to life it does not necessarily mean that killing them at our first convenience is necessarily the right thing to do. Note, furthermore, that a fetus in the beginning stages of development, conceived by any means, is significantly less mentally advanced then the animals and people my opponent is referring to. In any case, I do not see where this is going toward supporting the resolution. This attempted argument does not show that rape is relevant to ethical considerations with abortion. If this in an attempt to find a third possibility between having the right to life and not having the right to life, no attempt has been made to show this. As stated before, even if it could be shown that personhood is gradual the right to life could not be gradual. :The fetus: I'm not addressing any of this specifically because it is a list of facts that are of no relevance to the resolution. The stages and process of fetal development are considered fairly basic knowledge for an abortion debate and I see no reason why this needed to be explained. The fetus does indeed grow continuously but the state of personhood and the right to life do not. "The final stage: As I said before, the fetus's right to life cannot grow. The right is life, as was originally expressed by John Locke and is commonly understood, is that a negative right is bestow on an individual against being killed. That is, no one may ethically kill a being with the right to life. Killing tends to be a pretty all or nothing affair; either someone is killed or they are not. A right, in the traditional sense of what rights are, cannot be weighted to a varied extent. If a right exists then it is absolute. What my opponent intends to argue is that the fetus has a sufficient right to life that it cannot be killed for no reason, but it can be killed if conceived by rape. It seems both difficult and absurd to define and justify the traits an individual would have such that it has a right to life in some situations or not others. Why would the mental strain on the mother because of rape be the exact cut off at which we determine the right to life is "not weighty enough?" Could that point not also occur when the fetus becomes an inconvenience or interferes with the mother's lifestyle choices? I ask my opponent to justify, for one, why the right to life should not be absolute when it deals with a perfectly absolute act and more importantly why he makes the exact distinction that he does. There is absolutely no reason besides whim to declare that psychological trauma is sufficiently unpleasant to outweigh the life of the fetus but the significant difficulties of pregnancy are not. The right to life, as I have defined it, is based on the capacity to have a stake in one's own existence and is purely absolute. My opponent's attempt at defining the right to life is for one thing subjective and for another arbitrary. It seems we are at a profound philosophical disagreement. This ornery stemmed fruit will rest its case for this round and resume its ideological tirade in a more organized format in the next round once my opponent's viewpoint has been exampled and can be better understood. Sources: Warren: http://en.wikipedia.org... Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org... The Locke article is not particularly elaborative but there are links to other articles, such as those on right and Locke's political theory that may better explain what I mean by certain terms/phrases. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should Light Yagami have killed criminals differently than the way he did in the manga/anime? because Ladies and gentleman (well, the modicum of people who may actually be inclined to read the debate), if you'll read my opponent's R2 closely, you'll notice that he has essentially changed his advocacy. In the first round as well as what we can see from the resolution, it was pretty clear that my job in this debate was simply to prove that Light Yagami should not have killed criminals differently than the way he did in the manga/anime. In R2, my opponent has shifted gears to claiming that Light Yagami has made mistakes in general while having agreed with me on the one argument that is relevant to the topic. This is a highly abusive debate technique and essentially a conclusive reason for one not to vote in favor of the PRO ballot. With that said, to pacify my opponent, I shall refute his irrelevant arguments anyway: RE: Light should not have contacted Misa and should have allowed her to run wild: This couldn't be any more fallacious: 1) Light wasn't the one to contact Misa. Misa contacted Light. 2) Misa posed as a serious threat to Light: http://www.onemanga.com... She was being an idiot through revealing secrets and not being smart enough to realize that the police force had her played. 3)L had no intention of appearing on TV as we can see by this page: http://www.onemanga.com... RE: Light should have killed off the rest of the kira case officers: 1) No, this would only make him suspicious. If Light were the only one on the investigation team to have survived, it would become strange as to why he was the only person to have survived. This would attract suspicion from those who were aware of the team's existence. Kira had not yet attained enough world influence to get around this. In addition, Light wished to control the police force as controlling the police force meant he had control over the kira investigation, hence could insure that he wouldn't get caught. 2) As for keeping his killings restricted to Japan, Light wanted to become of the god of the WORLD, not just Japan, so this would have gone against his plan in the first place. 3) If Mikami had some extra death note pages, Near would not have planned to simply swap note books with Mikami. Rather, he would have been far more cautious than he already was. In addition, Light had no reason to believe Mikami would behave out of character and question his orders contrary to his behavior at every point in the storyline until then. Light's defeat was in result of pure luck; he wasn't outsmarted. RE: But the FBI should have been briefed on the fact that Kira thinks at least 4 steps ahead of his opponent. What evidence was there for the FBI to conclude this? In addition, Ray Penbar was a moron when in comparison to L. He wasn't smart enough to even come close to figuring out Light's plans (something which L was capable of doing). Thus, I hardly think he is too credible on the matter of intelligence. And that'll do it for now. Later. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy IV: WTC 7 because WTC 7 was, in fact, demolished and did not collapse due to damage from the other buildings. As point of fact, this demolition was not nepharious in nature. The building was empty and the demolition occured to free up room and visiblitiy (the smoke from WTC 7) for the rescue workers. The reason the government didn't just admit they did this, which wouldn't have been a big deal, is because they didn't want rumors to spread that they demolished the north and south tower, which I believe they did not. Evidence: 1. In a PBS documentary Larry Silverstein admitted that he and the New York Fire Department made the decision to demolish the building. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." http://whatreallyhappened.com... Jon Miller admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was a good thing for the rescue workers. 9/11/2001 ABC News broadcast: John Miller: "If there can be any good news about a day like today the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, the building they were so worried about injuring rescue workers, has freed up rescue workers to go into the area and they are now moving in in groups of 20 and 50 as their teams are designated..." Peter Jennings: "So the principal danger to the rescue teams has been eliminated..." John Miller: "The biggest danger has literally removed itself." 2. Fires have never before lead to the collapse of a steel building, until WTC 7 (if you believe it wasn't a controlled demolition) and the collapse of the building was very consistant with controlled demolitions. I'm sorry, I don't know how to place videos on here, but this link takes you to a youtube video of both the west broadway and CBS shots of the collapse of WTC 7. These videos show a fall that is very consistant with controlled domotitions. Here is another video, which shows the damage from WTC's 4, 5, 6 as well as the demolition of WTC 7. It is clear that the damage to WTC's 4, 5 and 6 were all worse then WTC 7 and yet, although they all were destroyed, the bases of all their buildings remained intact, not so with WTC 7. I will save the rest of my arguments for the later rounds. For now I will say thank you to Pro for a very stimulating and interesting debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Society is getting worse. because 1. Rudeness You mentioned that often you cannot find what YOU deem to be a well-mannered casheir when you've traveled to other states (completely ignoring the fact that different parts of the country/world have separate cultures, up-bringings and values). My point was to demonstrate how that has been your own personal experience, and provides no insight into the mannerisms of society as a whole. I mentioned that my friends and I are polite, and most of us have been casheirs at some point. If we had serviced you instead of those other individuals, then you would have had a positive experience with out-of-state casheirs and not been able to list this example as "proof" of your point. 2. Decreasing Manners A. Again I would like to disregard the relevance of your grandfather's experience -- I'm not even sure what your point was? You mentioned that a casheir ran after him to let him know that he had forgotten his coat. Um, so? I have had patrons at restaurants (let alone casheirs) run after me when I have forgotten things at the table; just the other day an honest waiter reminded me that I had accidentally left my new Coach watch behind. B. I would also like to disagree that people's manners began to decline after the 1950s. Like I mentioned, back then people would still openly refer to a black individual as a nigger or a coon in everyday conversation. These were and are derogatory terms that were socially accepted back then, but would not be tolerated today depending on the company that you keep. And that's exactly my point. Rude people existed in 1958, and polite people exist in 2008. 3. Political Correctness A. You mentioned that being PC has gone too far. Maybe it has - you have a right to hold that opinion. But another person has that same right to be offended in a particular situation where you might not be. A perfect example comes from your own contention that you would find it rude if someone told you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Well I might find it rude if someone merely assumed that I celebrated Christmas. It's all a matter of perspective, and honestly, I don't think this has much to do with your argument, but rather you are just reaching here... B. Again, your argument about your black friend really has very little to do with this debate. Also, what is PC changes all the time -- currently the term "black" is considered more PC than the term African American, so again there is really no reason for this commentary. C. No, I am not kidding you when I say that there is more censorship today than before. However, I did specify that I was referring to PC terminology - not the media in general. In fact, I noted the opposite when I discussed how movies today contain LESS censorship than those from the 1930s, which allows artists and filmmakers to expand on their creativity and content. However, I maintain that certain things are considered downright unacceptable today, whereas in years prior it was okay. Examples include using the word nigger in everyday conversation, and not hiring somebody based on their religious affiliaton. D. To take it a step further, society is making great strides in the PC department thanks to relatively new concepts such as women in the workforce. More and more women are becoming powerful outside of the home, and are able to balance both work and family life whereas previously women were restricted to no-income jobs such as homemaking. My opponent himself can not and does not disagree that we are making leaps and bounds (slowly but surely) in terms of equality, tolerance and acceptance. Think of it this way: there is a strong possibility that either a black man or a white woman will be the President of the United States in the year 2008. That would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. 4. Entertainment A. My opponent mentioned that cartoons and reality TV shows are ridiculous in comparison with past critisized past-times, such as baseball or bike riding. However again my opponent is being close-minded in terms of his examples. Have you ever thought of the perks of reality TV? I'm sure sociologists have a great time oberserving that peculiar human behavior. Plus, consider a reality TV show like The Bachelorette. It's a silly premise - I'll admit - but Bachelorette Trista met her husband and now baby's daddy, Ryan Sutter, thanks to the show's existance. Similarly, winners of Survivor have won a lot of money, and American Idol's like Kenny Clarkson have reality TV to thank for her career. So do her fans. So you see, you can't just focus on the negative and ignore the benefits. I'm sure a busy mother of 2 is thanking the creators of Sponge Bob everyday for entertaining her kids while she works. Plus, my opponent failed to respond to my point that there is not only mindless TV out there, but interesting and intelligent programming as well. Plus, consider the Ancient Romans and what THEY did for entertainment... B. Next my opponent attacks today's movies, and mentions that good films used to be a dime a dozen whereas now there are fewer and fewer every year. I whole-heartedly disagree. That is based solely on his opinion and does not reflect the current views of society. If people still appreciated the content and delivery of movie plot lines from the past, similar movies would still exist today (and they do in the form of romantic comedies, for example). However things change, and like I've mentioned, filmmaking like other art has evolved to include new techniques and ideas. Again my opponent is manipulating the facts; he asks who will replace Jack Nicholson, Sean Connery, Bob Hope and Lucille Ball - Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan? No. Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert DiNiro and Meryl Streep - that's who. New and talented artists emerge constantly. Just because they might be different does NOT make them inferior. 5. Technology A. Straw-man alert! I never said that dependency on technology was a good thing. I said that people were so attached to their cell phones because of their many uses and incredible convenience. And replacing personal interaction with text messaging? That's an option but definitely not always the case. I know a lot of people who prefer talking to writing; the message is more clear that way. Plus, again my opponent is being very limiting - he says that we are dependant on technology because we are becoming lazy. What an over-statement! If I move to Jersey and all of my friends are back in NY, I'm going to call them on the phone to communicate with them because talking is more personal than writing a letter - not because I'm lazy. B. Con points to nukes, TV, the internet and digital cameras as examples of how technology is contributing to the downfall of society. I vehemently disagree with this ideology. He says that these things lead to death & destruction, obesity, cheating, porn and blackmail. Like I said, these things should be attributed to human nature in general - not the changing times. War existed long before Nukes did; there were fat people prior to TV; porn existed in the form of magazines before the internet was ever invented, etc. Just as these things can be instruments used for bad, they can also be (and are promoted to be) tools for good. 6. Human Capital A. You will never be able to police everybody and prevent people from using technology for evil, just as you couldn't police everyone and everything from the past. We are looking at this debate in terms of things as a WHOLE and what they are meant to be used for - not how some people abuse them (technology). B. Ridiculous point. I've already discussed how racism/sexism is definitely DECREASING, though some form of prejudice will always exist. C. I never said that teen drinking (etc) was down from 2000. I quoted an article from the year 2000. D. No more characters, but... for the record we are not all becoming evil and corrupt. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation. because I believe that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a cancer on our society, and is most certainly damaging our Nation. The reason for this is that while hiding behind the pretense of an organization that defends the civil liberties of ALL Americans, they have shown that they are actually a far left group with a strong liberal agenda, that seeks to use its power to lead a battle against the liberties of those with whom they disagree, (typically conservatives and traditionalists). In my arguments I will use cases that the ACLU has taken an cases that they have ignored as examples of their not so hidden agenda. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Bradley Manning. Traitor. because Well Id like to start off that my opponent didn't even attempt to dispute any of my arguments in the last round nor acknowledge them. Next Id like to point out that my opponent only brought up two different subjects in the last round other then the one that has no relevance in this argument which was who our enemy is. But lets move on from that. First. That wikileaks and Bradley Manning didn't just dump all the data they stole out to the world but that they sorted through them and with held things they thought might be dangerous. wikileaks very well may have done so but they are not the ones on trial here nor the topic of this debate and furthermore no proof whatsoever says that Manning sorted trough the documents prior to sending them to wikileaks. There were over a quarter of a million cables of data, literally hundreds of thousands of hours of information, to sort through. Are you really going to try and tell me that ONE single, Bradley Manning, was able to go through all of this and insure nothing was national security risking in the short time he had between stealing said information and handing it over to wikileaks? And although this debate is not about wikileaks I would like to point out since my opponent has already posted it that the source she used saying wikileaks sorted through the data did not state that wikileaks did so but that the individual news organizations that they gave it to did as well as them not giving it to any nation demand hostile. ie ones ruled by warlords or dictators. And wikileaks has full intentions of releasing the other 15,000 documents they have. They did not withhold them because they were a threat to the US. Why they have not been released yet only they know. I'm sure they have there reasons. Collateral maybe? She also says that there is no proof that they release of the data directly lead to anyone's death. Id like to say there is no possible way to determine if that is correct or not. We are fighting two wars here. Soldiers are going to be killed. We were being killed prior to the release and we are being killed after. To determine who died or who didn't die as a direct result of what Manning did would be realistically imposable. However, the death of troops was not the only harmful thing caused by Manning as I pointed out in my last round and my opponent didn't even mention those things. ie the Pakistani ISI scandal. The only other thing my opponent tried to argue in this last round was that the US is to blame for the rise in anti-American opinions and that the US is to blame for the increase in radical Islamic attacks on the world. Id like to ask what your point relevant to THIS debate is? If you'd like to have another debate or ten or twenty which is how many you are instigating here then id love the challenge however everything you said after this paragraph "Moreover, contrary to the belief that Manning and Assange arbitrarily and lazily released all classified information they received, there is also evidence that BOTH of them sorted through the documents for material that could threaten national security, holding back more than 15,000 documents for this reason. They reportedly even asked the White House itself for assistance vetting prior to releasing any documents, but received no response [3]" has absolutely no relevance to this debate. you may or may not be right. Heck you probably are. But the US, the US government and the US military are not the ones on trial here, they are not the ones who released hundreds of thousands of classified government cables and they are not they subject of this debate. Bradley Manning is. You started going in to how much death and destruction the US has caused and how it was for bad or wrong reasons well once again you are arguing the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan wars and as I have said those are entirely separate debates. If the US has committed any crimes it does not change the fact that Bradley Manning broke the law. And an increase in radical Muslim activity has nothing to do with that. As I said we are at war. This is unfortunately the reality of war and this is what happens in war. TRUST ME. It SUCKS. But it does not change the fact that we have an enemy to destroy and we are damn well going to do it. And you in fact completely contradict your self and it appears that you have completely change what your original opinion was, "is Bradley Manning, by legal definition, a traitor against the United States? That depends on what you mean by "the United States""are you speaking of its military-industrial complex, or its people? Manning did indeed leak classified military documents; that much can"t be denied. He also threatened the integrity of the aforementioned MI complex." "Is Bradley Manning a traitor to the American military? Maybe. But that also makes him a champion of the American people. In a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, for the people," that makes him a hero, not a traitor". You have gone from saying that he was not a traitor to saying "well maybe" and if you look at it closely you pretty much say "yes he is". Which is a complete contradiction to what you said in your opening arguments and is admission that he is a traitor which is what this whole debate is about. "But he did it for the good of the people". His reasons are irrelevant and do not change what he is or what he did. "That depends on what you mean by "the United States""are you speaking of its military-industrial complex, or its people?" You say that as if we are two different things. Is the United States Government not elected by the people for the people? Is the US military not made up entirely by a voluntary American citizen force? Once again this is pushing borderline conspiracy intricacies and is not what this debate is meant for. But I digress. the majority of your argument in this last round seemed to me was that although yes Manning is a traitor its nothing compared to what the big bad US military industrial complex has done. Saying that "well he did break the law but someone else did worse then him so its now suddenly ok and he should be a hero" is not a very good argument. As it admits to my being correct. And to counter ahead of time in case my opponent trys to say "Contrary to what my opponent believes, I was not, in the previous round, "arguing about the legitimacy of the Iraq War." "He did so for the very taxpayers that are funding these extravagant and unfounded wars. He did so in an attempt to protect us, to show us what goes on behind closed doors, to enlighten us to the realization that it is our government and our military, not the Taliban or al-Qaeda, not Muslims, not Iraq or Afghanistan, whose actions are fueling anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world and killing Americans." Oh really? The last thing I will point out in this round is that almost all my opponents sources in this round were quite obviously completely biased to the issue and in one case was a "Free Bradley Manning" website. Obviously such sites are going to be completely one sided and not show the reader the whole of the story from a neutral point of view. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is Human-Kind Trying To Play God because First round is acceptance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Embargo with Cuba needs to be lifted. because This is only my second debate on this site, I'm glad we are both getting very helpful experience on the site. Now, onto arguments. 1st. You've split this into two separate arguments, so I will make them into subpoints. a)You state we cannot trust Mois�s Na�m as a source because he is from a communist country. I would like to know how the nationality of a person destroys the validity of their points? Plus, who better to look to for the enemy's point of view, than the enemy itself? The argument I was trying to make was that communists are effectively making the U.S. the enemy, by using the U.S. as a scapegoat for all Cuba's problems. If anything, we should take this quote into consideration MORE because of the nationality of the speaker, not less. b)In my proponent "speech" I stated that the embargo was originally put in place because of land squabbles and to inconvenience the Soviet Union. I still stand by that fact. However, this is what you said in your Round One argument. " stop trading relations with a country because of its economy (bad), government (usually communist or anti-democratic), or because of profiling (a huge problem with our government). That reasons are the well-being of the country itself, the people, the economy, and government." I was simply responding to that point. Valid or not, I had to respond to your argument, that is what debate is all about. You heavily suggested that the reason for the embargo was the communist government, and I had to respond. Now, look at what I said at the beginning of round two. "2nd The negative suggests that we refuse to trade with Cuba because of their communist government." I made if very clear that this was none of my own saying, but rather it was what you had suggested in your own argument. There are no holes in my argument, and you have therefore agreed with me on the original point of the embargo. Now that we both agree that the embargo was originally enacted for the same reasons, and we agree that it has now evolved into a punishment for communism. Since we agree, we need not discuss this point for the remainder of the debate. 2nd Are you saying we need to simply give up since there is a possibility Raul will live to an extreme age? As of now, Raul has not appointed anyone to succeed him, and the negative side cannot claim that he will do so in the near future. We have no way of knowing. What we DO know is he could die any day now. We need to get rid of this embargo so American influence can reach Cuba and assist in a transition out of tyranny. 3rd O.k…… I agree with you. Communism is the antithesis of American political goals. I think we are just restating what you said in the first point. This offers no reason to keep the embargo. You don't offer any solvency. I don't see what the point of bringing this up was. Now, since this is my last chance to sum things up, I will go ahead and do so. 1.The embargo had two original goals. One has been abandoned; and the second one succeeded but no longer pertains to the status quo (the Soviet Union). 2.The U.S. could benefit from trade with Cuba. Cuba would IMMENSLY benefit from trade with the U.S., and everyone else would benefit from the repealing of the Helms-Burton act. 3.The embargo is unpopular worldwide. This point has not been refuted by the neg and is an automatic win for the affirmative side. 4.This is the cloudiest point, so I would like to expand on it a little more. There is no guarantee that by ending the embargo will end Cuban communism. However, there IS a guarantee that keeping it is doing nothing. For the 50-some years the embargo has been in place, Cuban communism has not ended. The best option here is to end the embargo, and take down the iron curtain we have over Cuba. Diplomatic success with Cuban citizens is not achieved by ignoring them, but it will by achieved by letting our culture and ideals spill over to their island. Vote for affirmative on the following grounds: 1.Ending the embargo would assist with worldwide economies. 2.It would aid U.S.-World relations (especially with communist countries). 3.It would assist Cuba in transitioning to democracy (or some other communism alternative.) Thank you for reading, and I encourage you to vote affirmative. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. because My partner and I negate the resolution resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. We define "best interest" as an activity consistent with guidelines established in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. We specifically make reference to providing for the common defense, domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare for purposes of this resolution. Contention 1: The Afghan army is incompetent and the training them will be near impossible. President Obama may or may not realize that Generals Petraeus and McChrystal cannot fix Afghanistan. They cannot stabilize or control it. What Petraeus and McChrystal can do is further entangle the United States, its resources and its forces in an unending war inside the ungovernable wasteland that lies between Iran and India. According to Time Magazine, the centerpiece of Obama's exit strategy is the training of Afghan security forces to take responsibility for fighting the Taliban. Although the U.S. has officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there's no signs of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban. Desertion rates are high; an estimated 1 in 4 soldiers trained last year deserted the army. Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Afghanistan did not have a powerful army or strong state before the U.S. went in nor does it have the oil wealth to pay for its own armed forces. There's also the question of whether they'll be willing to fight the Taliban on behalf of a foreign-backed government. The Sunday Times reports that at any given moment, 20% to 30% of Afghani soldiers are absent without leave. Illiteracy is also high 70% of inventory receipts are signed with a thumbprint. This breeds corruption because a soldier who cannot read has no idea what he has just confirmed receipt of. The $120 paid to the lowest ranks in the army means the force attracts those who have no other possibilities and need the three meals a day that come with the job; such desperate folk rarely feel guilty demanding bribes. Meanwhile, Taliban pay is reported to be anywhere from $250 to $350 a month. Corruption is rife, and many police are addicted to drugs. There is some evidence that Hamid Karzai, the president inaugurated in 2009 amid allegations of fraud in the election and corruption in his government. Contention 2- Increasing troops in Afghanistan will distract the president from more pressing domestic and foreign policy needs. According to Stephen M. Walt professor at Harvard University, "Obama will have to devote a lot of time, a lot of time, attention, and political capital to the war in Afghanistan, an impoverished land locked country of modest strategic importance. So in addition to the human and financial cost of the decision to escalate in Afghanistan, throw in the opportunity costs. There are only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week, and a lot of important issues are going to get less attention than they deserve." According to David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Afghanistan is a costly distraction for the president, and the military. Every minute the president is focused on Afghanistan and every dollar we spend there is a withdraw from some other account, some higher priority." Rothkopf lists nine priorities that are more important than Afghanistan in the Middle East alone, including: dependence on oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction between Pakistan and India, the likelihood of a regional arms race, the growing influence of Muslim extremism is countries from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the loss of influence of Russia and China in the region, deterioration of the Israeli--Palestinian situation, failure of the American Experiment in Iraq, and consequences of economic failures in the Gulf. Not only that but sending 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan will cost many lives as well as close to an addition 10 billion dollars a year. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rawslian theory is a justified form of government. because I thank my opponent for his challenge, and accept. I'm looking forward to a great debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States because On C3, as I think the RD 5 analysis requires it: 1. Time for global economy 101: global and national labor market competition is 100% topical to this debate. The biggest reason for specialization is the outsourcing of our jobs to other nations and the flooding of unskilled laborers into US borders, legal or otherwise. Hence, specialization has become a necessity outside of the control of our education system. I didn't provide sources because I figured this was common knowledge, but I've provided [1] & [2]below. No new arguments, just sources to appease Con. We need diplomas and college degrees not just because "they caught on," as Con asserts with no warrants (ironically enough). We need them because we need training in a job that can't be outsourced to another nation or given to an employee willing to work for half our pay. Thank you, capitalism. [1] http://emlab.berkeley.edu... [2] http://actrav.itcilo.org... 2. His assumptions about parents providing necessities is totally bunk. 30.5 million kids needed free/reduced lunch. Even though 30.5 million kids is still a minority of the school population (about 40% of the total enrolled), by Con's logic, they are a foregone loss—so screw them. If 40% of the US's school children don't have parents that can provide them with a couple of dollars for school lunch every day, how many parents out there can't deal with the task of properly educating their own children? "Parents provide food to their children; we can't say all but we can assume that it's natural to do so and the majority do. Food is a need. We can assume that most will provide education as well." No, no we can't. And now, for 3 voting issues. 1. Con cannot ensure the same level of education that Pro can. -Compulsory education ensures that the standards movement is successful. As I stated previously, the standards movement was specifically designed to operate within a compulsory education system. The amount of oversight that it takes to guarantee that education continues to improve can only be done if schools are literally working as one unit. Anything less than a compulsory system cannot achieve this goal. -Furthermore, I've proved that education in the US is a worthwhile and improving endeavor. Extend all the analysis I gave on standards, cognitive thinking skills, life skills, and social skills. At this point, you can cast your vote for Pro right now, as he has not met his burden, which was to prove that compulsory education was broken enough to eliminate. I'm winning the cost/benefit analysis in other places, too, but this is probably the most important place. -Con will not achieve as many diplomas as Pro will. Though Con attempts to side step this by saying that education enrollment won't actually change and that diplomas may or may not reduce in importance if we eliminate compulsory education, both claims fall flat on their faces. I've already proven why the need for diplomas and higher education isn't going anywhere. And of course education enrollment would change! If it doesn't, then Con can't achieve any of the benefits in his case as all are contingent upon less people going to school. He can't get around the fact that people need diplomas to be successful in the US, and that I provide many, many more of those to people. 2. Despite Con claims, the state has an obligation to help its citizens succeed economically and politically. The state's job is to maximize the wellbeing of its citizenry. In fact, that's its only job. Education falls under the blanket of this job more than enough to require the state to take an active role in its administration. In the debate, I used the brief example of US and state laws to demonstrate why it is that the government makes certain acts compulsorily right and wrong. Though word count prohibited me from elaborating, I can extend this now. Why can't we murder people? Why can't companies form monopolies? Why does the government "coerce" money from every citizen each year in the form of taxes? Simple answer: the government, via the will of the people in one way or another, has mandated that these activities are all important enough to mandate in order to ensure the success of the individual and the collective. Considering that wellbeing is inextricably tied to education, as established in RD 1 via my statistics on living wage and the US labor market, I'd say I've accomplished my goal, since only I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to get more citizens diplomas that reflect a well-balanced, skillful education. Furthermore, as I will discuss in my 3rd voting issue, the Con world causes a net loss in rights protection. 3. Any compulsory system will be the best way to combat institutional discrimination. This has also been a much discussed topic within the debate. Con seems to think that we live in a society that will continue to offer social support to people even without a compulsion by mandate to do so. How exactly is it that institutional discrimination was able to take such a strong hold in the first place? Discrimination is only corrected by declaring it to be universally wrong and then mandating that it be fixed. Otherwise, we have the same problems with oversight that we have with the standards movement. Any voluntary system leaves it up to individuals to decide who deserves services. Any compulsory system doesn't allow the individual to make that choice, because everyone deserves services. Take the flaws of a voluntary military system as an example (note: this is an example: no new analysis is made here). Right now, institutional discrimination is a *huge* problem in the US military. The incentive program offers college tuition and the like to anyone who will join the military's ranks, which means that poor and minority citizens are the only ones actually being appealed to. A conscription model, on the other hand, ensures that citizens from every socioeconomic and cultural division of society are represented within the armed forces. Furthermore, my opponent essentially contradicts himself on a number of occasions when he says that society will just naturally pick up the slack and offer kids with no resources or stable home an education without it being compulsory. He's also said time and time again that society expects a certain percentage of citizens to fail miserably, and that those are just acceptable losses within a capitalist system. Well, which is it? Is society going to follow its capitalist roots and tell them all to buzz off, or is society going to betray those roots and decide to help out underserved youth? In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. With that, I sincerely thank Con for the debate, but encourage a vote in favor of Pro. (Woot! 89 characters remaining. I'm going to Disneyland!) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates. because Definitions for clarity. Expansionary monetary policy is when the Federal Reserve is using its tools to stimulate the economy. This usually means lowering the Fed Funds rate to increase the money supply. This will cause mortgage rates to decline, consumers to borrow and spend, and businesses to grow, thereby hiring more workers who will consume even more. The opposite is contractionary monetary policy. Examples: If the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates, it is engaging in expansionary monetary policy. Monetary policy is the attempt to moderate the business cycle and control inflation by changing the quantity of money in circulation to change interest rates? (McTaggart et al, 1999: 27.2). In another words, it is the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)?s attempt to change the quantity of money and interest rates so as to affect aggregate demand and, ultimately, equilibrium real GDP and the price level. McDonald defines monetary policy as the government?s policy on setting the level of the money supply (1996: 149). Through this explanation by McDonald, Expansionary Monetary Policy does lower the rates especially in our (US) Status Quo. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because There are indeed many ways at which herr Kleptin would be victorious in this battle. ============================================================================= NOOB COMBOS ============================================================================= Now although there are more advanced tactics which Kleptin could rely on, I shall first start by listing a sure way victory that involves receiving no damage. Utilizing the 30 minutes of prep time within the fighting area, Kleptin could scout the the battlefield and look for some trees which could secure him a comfortable position to sit in, while not being too high above ground. Upon finding such a tree, Kleptin could begin the battle by waiting for the blood lusted adult grizzly bear to come and attack him. The bear would attempt to climb the tree Kleptin was sitting in, but Kleptin could continually spam the bear with knife strikes each time the bear was close to climbing high enough to get a good blow. Upon striking the bear enough (preferably in it's eyes and maybe a through stabs that hit its brain, the bear's HP would eventually drop to zero and it would be dead, leaving Kleptin victorious. An alternative to this tactic would be to climb high up a a very tall tree and wait for the bear to close in on the area in question. Upon the time the bear was in range, Kleptin position his knife downwards, aim for the most feasible vital area on the bear, jump from the highest point of the tree, use gravity to his advantage and lethally wound the bear with his high quality hunting knife. Of course, if Kleptin managed to secure a few miniature boulders after having climbed up the tree in question, he could drop these upon the bear to weaken it before engaging it in close range combat. =========================================================================== Utilizing biological weaknesses =========================================================================== As can be seen on Kleptin's profile, he is majoring in pharmacy, thus there is reason to believe he has a pretty good grasp of pharmaceutical information, specifically concerning biology and what are the best remedies as well as the worst toxins and perhaps the precise areas of a body at which these substances can be rendered the most effective. Kleptin could his knowledge and understanding of biology to his advantage and find natural ingredients on the battlefield or simply tip his high quality hunting knife in snake/spider/salamander venom (in other words, similar to way this weapon has been used historically: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) and strengthen the effect of his weapon. At this point, upon coming in contact with the bear, a few simple swipe to the bear's vital areas would be sufficient enough to make the result of the battle in Kleptin's favor. Granted, this direct approach would probably result in Kleptin getting injured. Fortunately, it is established that Kleptin has extraordinary reasoning abilities (he even admits this in the comment section), thus would be more than capable of logically concluding a method which enabled him to get in a few effective swipes on the opposing bear without any serious injury. The most likely approach would be for Kleptin to design a trap of some sort which would allow him to bypass the bear's detection (so far, I shall insist that making use of his tree climbing skills and waiting for the bear to come by would be the best approach) or convince the bear into believing that he is already dead (which is a more common and effective method of eluding a bear, provided the bear is not merely searching for fear and responding defensively: http://www.nytimes.com... ). Either way, upon the bear being off guard, Kleptin can take the opportunity to latch himself onto the bears back (wrapping his arms under and over the bear's arms: Essentially, a position we see at 5:12 in the video to the right) and wraphis legs around it's waist area. While in this position, Kleptin could maneuver his high quality venom tipped knife to slice the bear's neck and procedurally infect the bear as well as deal damage to this vital area. Eventually, the bear would fall to it's knees and Kleptin would be left the victor. Due to time constraints, I am unable to list more traps designed to catch the bear off guard, but shall list additional methods in the next round should it be necessary for me to do so. However, before I leave, I will provide a few examples of individuals overcoming bears in combat while merely using hunting knifes (just to demonstrate that it is possible): http://neveryetmelted.com... http://www.freerepublic.com... http://query.nytimes.com... Granted, none of these are grizzly bear encounters (black bear encounters) . . . the fact that a humans have been empirically shown to best bears in fair (technically anyway) combat as well as the fact that Kleptin would have the advantage premeditation in this match should lend credibility to the notion that he could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear with a hunting knife and ingenuity alone given the circumstances which have been listed. And that'll do it for now. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fox News is the most bias new network because I accept the debate. FOX news is biased, but so are most other netwroks. I will prove thar FOX news is not the "most biased" network. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because Last round, Pro gave the definition of "sucks". His definition was "is really, really not so good". My definition is 1. To move mouth in a repetitive motion over a 2. To have ones life be so unbelievably shittty, that he tries to kill his or her self, but no matter how HARD HE TRIES, HE CANT. Here are my reasons why my life is more sucky than my opponents: 1. It's all a show My father, the king, hates me. In public he makes it look like I have an amazing life, so no one will suspect. It's the perfect crime. However I suffer from severe child abuse. Last night, at dinner my father slipped cyanide in my berry berry strawberrylitiouse drink. Not enough to kill me, just to hospitalize me. So anyway I take a drink of my super ungirly drink, and as I expect unconditional delitiosness to come flowing into my mouth, I instead start wrenching on the table. Foaming at the mouth, seizures, I mean the whole nine yards. And my father isn't the only one, when this happened, everyone at the table was laughing. Some of my brothers got on top of me while I was having a seizure, and pretended I was a bucking bull. Also what you said about 4 brothers is wrong. I have 17 1/2. The half was born without the lower half of his body. He drags himself every where. It's really facking scary. He looks like a fuucking zombie or something. Even he picks on me. 2. 17 1/2 Brothers one Bathroom One bathroom. One MUTHA' FUcKKINN" bath room!! We live in a 500,000 acre mansion(its big) and we have one bathroom. ONE. O. N. E. And not only do I have to share it with 17 1/2 brothers, but sometimes I'm 20 miles away from it. (My house is 500,000 acres) In which case I must walk through 20 miles of hell. However sometimes I can't hold it, so I just let one on the floor. When this happens, my father finds me, and cuts off a few of my toes. He then makes me eat them wile he watches and makes weird grunting noises. I think he get a sick turn on from me eating my own toes? 3. No AC My 500,000 acre mansion has no A.C. This means that I will be 5 miles from my room. I'll start to walk there, but it's like the Sahara f**king desert. So I pass out from the heat. When I wake up, I'm tied to a bed in a small dark room. Next thing I know, a cute little puppet with rosy cheeks asks me to cut off my leg, and then cut it open and find a key. Well, he was super cute, so I listened. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself in this debate. because 1. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. My opponent needs to clarify a democratic society, but based on my own perspective, the democracy should be allowed to end at some point if it becomes too harmful or creates a negative impact on society. Please explain your question further. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) 2. No. (omnipotent- having unlimited authority or power) Are you talking about the Christian God? 3. Sometimes. (I suppose you mean "the Bible") It may be a good basis for morality at some points, but it may not be a good basis for morality at other points. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Most of them are. Because I have a different perspective about what the BIG ISSUES are really discussing, they may not always be completely accurate regarding my actual opinions on the matter. 8. No. 9. Yes. I have respect for almost all U.S. Presidents, simply because it takes great effort to try and act as President. 10. shuttlecock- the object that is struck back and forth in badminton, consisting of a feathered cork head and a plastic crown. If this is the right definition, then I can't answer because I have never seen or played with a shuttlecock. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against .999... is exactly equal to 1 because hello, to everybody brave enough to read this argument, and thankyou to my opponent for this very entertaining topic. I about started laughing because of how interesting, and simply different of a topic this is, compared to most. I stand in negation to the topic, that .999, reccurring is exactly equal to 1 In it's own, the topic itself contradicts itself, and proves my side correct. this is a topic, that just requires common sense, and I'm positive that all of the voters have it. no matter how long you type it in, .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.......... no matter how many nines you add to it, it will infinitely be less than 1. you may round the number up to one..... But this topic says it is exactly one. I just proved this wrong, .999...... will NEVER be EXACTLY 1. Vote with me in Negation. Thankyou <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homosexual actions are immoral because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. because Gays should be allowed to marry partners of their choice just as heterosexual couples do. It is ignorant in today's world to deny such a basic right to an individual because of something that is innate. Yes, sexuality is not a choice, it is innate. For my first point, let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. Most civil unions don't have the same rights as a legal marriage has. Even if we made all civil unions exactly equal to legal marriage but called it something else, it wouldn't be enough. The concept of "separate but equal" has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? Religion isn't an answer. Religion is the excuse. Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you. How would a heterosexual couple like it if it were them in the position of such oppression? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors because Thanks BlackVoid. This shouldn't be an important point in the debate, but no one in the literature refers to private military contractors (PMC's) as mercenaries. They are used, as my opponent points out, to supplement, not replace, our own military. The United Nation's "Mercenary Convention" bans the use of mercenaries, but PMC's do not fall into this category. I look forward to a great debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny Youtube Battle because Before you watch this, you must know this: this is about pokemon at a day care. At the day care, people take care of your pokemon, and occasionally, you might see an egg. Nobody knows how the egg gets there, but the girl sees how pokemon make eggs. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against soda is bad for you because I thank my opponent for his reply and thoughtful argument. Argument I believe my opponent missed my point. He says "their [sic] is no such thing as soda being good for you." While I still disagree with even this statement, I want to point out that I am not arguing the position that soda is good for you, but rather that soda is not "bad for you." by showing that through not all sodas have the unhealthy ingredients you mention, not all sodas are bad in this sense. First, my opponent mentions the effects of sugar. Not all sodas have sugar (Diet Coca-Cola, Diet Pepsi, Diet Rite, etc.). This, combined with the fact that not all sodas have caffeine (for instance, Caffeine-Free Diet Coca-Cola), demonstrates that not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense. My opponent secondly goes on to state the effects of caffeine. However, this is almost completely irrelevant. I have already shown that not all sodas contain caffeine, therefore not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense either. Again, we must remember that you generalized "soda is bad for you" with no conditions; therefore, if not all soda is "bad for you" in the ways you mention, you cannot simply state soda is unhealthy without adding conditions. My opponent then erroneously states that every soda contains "at least sugar, caffiene, or some other leathal [sic] chemical." However, this is simply not true -- in two regards. First, there are some sodas that do not contain sugar or caffeine; for instance, Diet Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola does not contain caffeine or sugar, but rather a sugar substitute. However, even with the caffeine and sugar, a Coca-Cola does not contain a lethal ( lethal : of, pertaining to, or causing death[1]) amount of either. This argument does not stand on any point. Not only are there sodas that do not contain either, but even if they did, they would not be lethal. My opponent then states that artificial sweeteners "can cause serious health problems such as cancer." However, not all sodas contain artificial sweeteners, for instance, Zevia does not contain artificial sweeteners.[2] Conclusion I have again shown that not all soda is unhealthy. Because not all soda is unhealthy, it is incorrect to state "soda is bad for you" without making conditions, such as "caffeinated soda is bad for you," or "sugary soda is bad for you." Because soda manufacturers have found a market in health-minded consumers, not all soda is bad for you. I would also like to remind voters that by definition -- "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol" -- soda is not "bad for you." Sources 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... ; 2. http://www.zevia.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Empathy should have no role in judging appeals because I have explained how empathy should be used. Empathy can effectively be used in interpreting the law. As was shown in Brown v. Board, it sometimes takes empathy to correctly interpret the law. I showed the relevant parts of the decision. They clearly showed how empathy was used to show the inferior feelings African-Americans felt as a result of a segregated education. Empathy should be used when applicable. It should be used to inform and compliment a judge's decision. It plays an important role in interpreting not only the societal effects of a law, but the societal effects of the decision. I have already explained this, so it's kind of late to act as if I haven't said what role it should have. Studying the societal effects of a law, and studying the societal effects of a decision will ultimately render a better decision. This was shown in Brown v. Board. Now, Pro originally wrote, "We should want judges who reach decisions solely based upon the law, not feelings." He now proposes the "living Constitution" theory as an option. This comes into direct contradiction with his earlier statement. The concept of a living Constitution can be described in many ways, but it is not described as founded solely in law. It is founded more on interpretations and opinion than actual law. Pro proceeds to use a straw man argument in saying I just want the judge's personal opinion to come into play. I never said that, and your definition of empathy does not say that. A judge's personal feelings are not the same at all as the identification with others' thoughts, feelings, and states. I am not going to dignify Pro's argument that the decision will be based on the judge's feelings. His definition of empathy does not back this up. In case you forgot, he defined empathy as "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person." This is not the same as what he describes. A huge problem is that much of Pro's argument has been based on nothing. He has used words like "imply" to attack my argument because I haven't actually said what he writes. He uses "seems to assume" in this round to act as if I feel the judge will always feel the way I do. This is not true. I know several issues that judges will not agree with me on, based on their decisions in the past. I don't argue that the court should feel sorry for Savana Redding. Pro made a huge mistake in that and really hurts the legitimacy of his argument. I said the court should empathize with her and the school. Empathy is not the same as sympathy. It's just important to see the court see themselves in the same situation to see if their rights are violated. If we don't have the courts using every situation to back up our rights possible, our rights will not mean much at all. Pro's argument in this aspect is based on terrible reasoning and falsehoods. "But if a justice happened to empathize with the school administration trying to keep order in an unruly school, a notion that empathy should play a role allows any decision dictated by the jurist's feelings." Apparently, you forgot when I wrote this: "However, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to also empathize with the school and think about the security of a school." As I have shown, it is sometimes necessary to use empathy to see if someone's rights have been violated. The point of pointing out that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction was to show a false premise in your argument. No, my implication is not that judging according to law is rarely adequate. If you've read my responses in this argument, my statements have been that judging according to law is not always adequate. I also never said empathy ought to be the tipping point. Empathy can be the tipping point, though. The fact is Pro's assumption that the Arizona State Legislature would act in favor of regulation of school searches is baseless. They have not made any progress in the five years since Savana Redding was searched. It is unfair to assume the legislatures will act where the Supreme Court does not. As Pro has shown in Round 3, his argument is based largely on a lack of understanding of the word "empathy". In the first round he wrote, "Empathy is "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person."" He has proceeded to confusing empathy with feelings. Empathy is not the same as sympathy. Empathy is not the same as feelings. Much of his argument is based on this faulty premise. "Con claims that the Brown v. Board of Education was decided based upon empathy, but Con offers no evidence in support of that view." I most certainly did. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but I definitely did. Here it is again: "We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws….In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone….A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn." If you read the decision, the inherent inequality of segregation was based on the inferiority African-Americans felt as a result of their segregation. My argument is completely backed up by this sentence: "To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone" Chief Justice Warren empathized with the feelings of young African-Americans, as made apparent by that quote. The decision says "a feeling of inferiority". That is using empathy effectively along with the law. Also, I did not say Pro thought the law was black and white. I said you would like it to be. That is made apparent by your language. Also, the options you provided are not founded solely in law. The "Living Constitution" theory is not founded solely in law. Judicial precedent can sometimes be faulty. Pro failed to refute my argument regarding Brown v. Board of Education. I showed specific language from the decision that shows empathy was used to strike down segregation. It was effectively used alongside the law. As I have stated over and over again, the Constitution is not always clear. It contains broad language. We sometimes need to use empathy to see if others have to deal with injustice. This has been proven in this argument. Empathy should be continued to be used to recognize the societal implications of laws. Laws can sometimes treat certain people unfairly, violating the Equal Protection Clause. But this unfairness cannot always be seen from an objective standpoint. Sometimes it does take the intellectual identification with their feelings and thoughts. Empathy should also be used in seeing the societal implications of a decision. As we've seen, Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional because of the inherently unequal segregation policy it allowed. This was not overturned until empathy was used to overturn it. Had empathy been used in Plessy v. Ferguson, we hopefully could have progressed a lot faster than we actually did. I hope that empathy will continue to be used when the law is not enough and to back up the law. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because I SHALL join This here Debate!! Don't know why thou............I'm just gonna lose cuz no one will vote for me I look forward to this debate!! And think it will be depressing............. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Obama's policies and ideals because First I would like to thank my opponent for having such amazing conduct. Most people who know me on this site know that I use an I-phone and I-pod for most of these posts. Since I am not afforded the luxury of Microsoft when I am at work, it is an issue that I work with. I would like to point out the irony of you calling me out with grammar errors though when you seem prone to post sentence fragments. "Cons most than pros unfortunately". Even if I could guess what you were trying to say, it seems you forgot a subject and a verb. I do admit auto correct kills me, but at least I am witty enough to make a sentence look pretty. I will now break down my opponents main points again. (1) Drone strikes again, since he seems fixated on this. (2) Education (3) Healthcare (1) Since he mixes points on this first paragraph I will try to offer a rebuttal based off of what he was saying. He says "Also, he cut health benefits for soldiers and makes them pay slightly more for medical service. Of course, this affects warfare which affects drone strikes." Lets assume this is accurate for the sake of this debate. He is saying because Obama cut health benefits from soldiers, it will ultimately cause a drone strike. I am seriously hoping whoever is reading this can do basic math. Lets break this town. When you say because health care was cut(if this was true) from soldiers, we could logically assume it would affect a lot of different things. It would affect their families, it would affect the quality of work, it would affect their salaries. An argument like this could be considered a 1+1=2 argument. This is not the case though. He states because healthcare is supposedly cut from soldiers, It will somehow cause drone strikes. This is not a 1+1=2 argument it is a 1+1=3, actually its more like a 1+1=9. It is fine to play connect the dots, but you have to have all the dots in between. He merely says this, and offers a link showing how Pakistan responds to drone strikes. I will repeat what I said in my prior argument, it is impossible to debate this due to the type of information we would have to have. We would need to know the nature of why they are bombing certain groups of terrorists. I am actually quite happy they are bombing some of them, and I would imagine most people who do not want attacks to come on American soil are too. I think the most illogical part of his entire argument is this "they happen in the Middle East and sometimes US citizens are put down by the government". I think the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself. He is saying that our government is bombing terrorist while killing our citizens whom happen to be over there. Unless he is referring to us randomly bombing places, and accident killing reporters or missionaries, I have no idea how to even combat this golden piece of information. As i previously stated the absurdity of this remark is evident. (2) As for education I have shown links above to show what they are planning to do. Obama wants to make it easier for people with disabilities and that are poor to be able to go to college. I do not see why this is a problem. It is making people who can actually afford it pay to get in, and offered up pell grants and different types of loans to children who would not normally be able to afford it. The one thing I am sure that everybody knows is that it is an economic necessity for children to be able to educate themselves. He has not addressed this nor even bothered to bring it up or refute it. He merely states that they are cutting $89,000,000 dollars from education funding. I have always addressed this point in my previous argument so I will not both to repeat it again. (3) Again I have no idea how to even refute this. He merely blames Obama care for single handily causing our nations debt crisis. Once again the absurdity of this remark speaks for itself. We have been in an economic down turn long before Obama got into office. We have dubya to think for that. He also still has not addressed how Obama care would help people with pre exisitng medical conditions and terminal illness. I have shown above where they could not be turned down. He then proceeds to rant on about immigration and restates the point he made earlier without even addressing my rebuttal to it. In closing Con has not addressed 95 percent of the points I offered in rebuttals. He has not addressed any of my ideology stances in the first round. He has fought this whole entire debate with personal opinions hidden behind a wall of assumptions. I have shown you the ideology behind some of Obama's policies along with refuting all of pros claims, and have even explained the practicality of some of the current policies that are in place. While he has shown us his opinion, and provided some reasons to why he believes it, he has yet to combat any one of points that I provided. I think there is no question that Obama's policies have good ideology behind them as I have demonstrated all throughout this debate. I think we can even go as far as to say, that some of his policies that he has in place now have our best interest at heart. All throughout this debate I have shown that while they may not be perfect, the ideology behind his policies have the possibility to benefit our nation and some are doing just that. Con has not answered any of my questions so I think we can conclude that all of my points are valid and stand as is. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Somebody will accept this debate. because My name isn't Somebody, therefore you are wrong. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush because I did not realize that I was going to waste time and space correcting inaccuracies and untruths. First I started the last round by listing the situation when Clinton left office. This debate is concerning Bush and Obama, not Clinton. I clearly said "(I copied this info and I am not introducing nor supporting the suggestion presented about the participation of the political parties)." It has been widely reported (60 Minutes and other media) that the turn around and excess in the budget was created by Clinton involving, having an open door policy for and consulting Alan Greenspan. The President develops, prepares and submits the budget, not Congress. Congress approves or disapproves the budget. I am beginning to believe that the entity (Legislative Branch or Executive Branch) that is Republican is going to get the credit for all positives. Over 50 years ago when I was a preteen, my mother told me that the Democrats save money and the Republicans spend it. I am not suggesting that my mother is an expert but that sure has been the case since then. I am not here to debate parties but since that card has been played I will state this: As far as the two majors are concerned, I believe the Republicans are oblivious to individual human needs and rights and Democrats are a do nothing party. Second, I quoted Dr. Rioch of NIMH and her concept called the Messiah Complex to describe a potential reason for a situation. At no time did I call Obama a Messiah. If I describe a situation with a person as the Helsinki syndrome, I am certainly not saying that the person is from Helsinki. The twists that "my opponent" puts on my statements mirror a political ploy that I could describe but I certain will not label him a "Spin Doctor". Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economy. The interpretation of the Constitution by many seems to be that our government is an Econocracy. What does it take to become elected to an office? What does it take to get the most competent representation in the Justice System? What does it take to get adequate health care? What does it take to have food, shelter and clothing? Not equality. I in no manner suggest these things be provided for free or at the total cost of just some people. Capitalism creates a class structure. Yes anyone can become rich but not everyone. Capitalism within itself defines which class is which by the level of capital owned. The more money the more influence, When governments fear people there is liberty. When people fear governments there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson, The Federalist Papers. In 1913 a group of bankers including J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller persuaded Congress to pass the Internal Revenue Law. Yet U.S. Judicial Court Judge James C. Fox in 2003 said, "If you… examined [the 16th amendment] carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." In 1914 the same bankers manipulated Congress while they were on break and attendance was light] to pass the Federal Reserve Act which gave the bankers control. Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws. Mayer Rothschild, private banker. Freedom to Fascism – a documentary by Aaron Russo. This documentary shows there is no law that people have to pay Federal Income Tax. There are many people who do not, including several former IRS employees who were fired for asking where is the law. The heads of IRS refuse to answer. The banks control the money and we pay them for using it. Goods and profits are supposed to be taxed not services or labor. When a person gets paid for using their body and energy they are taxed. This is one of the products of capitalism. Jim Taylor of the Harrison Group says it tells us that the affluent support higher taxes on the wealthy. He says there are two reasons: First, they can afford it, since their wealth has rebounded with the stock market. And second, "the dollar value of a tax increase pales in comparison to the dollar value of assets placed in jeopardy by our government's inability to collect taxes and finance debt. In effect, a substantial investor has more to lose in the market than in their tax return." - The Wall Street Journal I will introduce more evidence later. In response to "Obamas claimed achievements": 1.Obama removed almost all of the troops. No longer is there a person from the U.S. heading their government. The strategy changed when General Petraeus took over and went personally into the towns and mixed with the people. 2.Again General Petraeus used a different strategy. 3.You are right Bush did not make a speech, Obama was very public, stopped the government from opposing same sex marriage (in fact supports it), and killed the don't ask don't tell military policy. So Bush appointed a "token" person. Those discriminated against are use to that and to people who use the token numbers to claim progress. To date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 210 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined. For names and positions go to: http://www.glli.org... 4.I seem to remember Obama in other countries with hundreds of thousands of people much less security showing; no flags burning; no negative signs held up; no booing; a lot of clapping and cheering and overwhelming clapping. The sight in Germany still is embedded. Today there are still videos of people in Libya with signs saying thank you Obama. That is respect. He represents the new American glory. 5.Only three water boarded? If you know that for a fact I think you are violating security. As a person who had a clearance in the military I know you would be told loose lips sink ships. Who is trying to be humane with terrorist? So was it better for Bush not to be able to find Ben Laden, allow him to continue to rule until he could be found and questioned, or find him and eliminate him. Obama did not hit him with a drone, he sent people to capture him. In order to insure their own safety they killed him. Oh maybe they should have ignored the possibility that he may have had a bomb under his clothes and blown everyone up. According to the round up of the latest news that is their main weapon. 6.The TARP borrowers were running wild with the money until Obama stepped in and changed the rules. For the first time in history the government made a profit under Obama. The entire collapse was under Bush. Deregulation assisted the collapse and it is hurting recovery. Halliburton and others were given no bid contracts. They charged $7.95 for a six pack of Pepsi. Enormous amounts for gas and food. When a vehicle broke down they left it and bought a new one. Soldiers were court marshaled if they washed their own clothes instead of paying the private companies. These companies said they did not have to disclose their budgets. There is no oversight. A trillion dollars came up lost in Iraq. A trillion dollars disappeared in the Pentagon. Another trillion was unaccounted for in the Department of Defense. It takes oversight and regulations to bounce back and protect. 7.Nuclear proliferation? Is that like the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had? First tell me you have proof of the proliferation. Second, tell me that the U.S. has the right to decide who can have weapons and who cannot. The only bomb ever dropped in the continental United States was dropped by the United States on its own people. 8.The hole in the ozone is still there, glaciers are still rapidly melting, Dallas and Texas broke the record for the number of heat records broken in any year and global warming crises is dead. According to Bush it never was even during the ten years you mention. In two years Obama is supposed to repair the changes. He should have caused the Polar Bears to have <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games. because I waited til the last minute to post my round, but now I have plans and won't be able to post an argument :( Hopefully I am only penalized CONDUCT points and not automatic loss of points for Arguments. I whole-heartedly apologize to my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest." because I thank my opponent for his response, but I fail to see how it has substantiated his claims. I have found it a bit difficult to understand but I will attempt to address it to the best of my ability. C1: I do not understand the overall point that is being made in the first paragraph, but I will attempt to address it. How does deploying 30,000 troops to Afghanistan help achieve the goals of the United States? I have already given my reasons for why it does not. I fail to see how surging to disengage, as you put it, is a viable strategy. You stated that, "The genius of Obama's reformulation of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is this-- Failure, if it comes, will follow a major surge of U.S. forces for about as long as it took to tame the insurgency in Iraq." Supposing the operation does end in failure, as I have proposed it will, in what way does the fact that said failure follows a major surge of troops make this an ingenious idea? This strategy will not function the same way it did in Iraq because the political climate in Afghanistan is much different. The US exerts considerable influence over the Afghan government, but it does not control it in the manner it does in Iraq. That makes this short-term support strategy far less viable. C2: Barack Obama's personal commitment to winning the war has nothing to do with the viability of his strategy. I'm sure he is very strongly committed to achieving his goals but that does not in any way mean that his plan for increasing troops is in the best interest of the American people. This fact does not support your resolution. C3: I actually did give evidence to discredit the claim about the number of people that want Barack Obama's plan to be put in to action. I do not dispute that a large number of Americans may support it. However, just because a large number of people think something does not mean it is true. I don't think I need to got into that. C4: Wikipedia has been used as a source on this site consistently, including by the site administration itself. It is exceptionally well run by the standard of wiki's. If you dispute any specific fact I have brought up and can offer a better source, than I will in turn look to a better source in my favor. However, simply citing information from Wikipedia does not in any way discredit my argument. C5: I did in fact show evidence that sending more troops to Afghanistan is not in US interests because it will be used as propaganda by al Qaeda and will create a climate of violence and tension that can be blamed on the US by its enemies. However, I will admit I focused on dismissing the benefits of the plan rather than discussing the consequences. Deploying troops is an extremely expensive endeavor and the nation is already in an economic recession with a massive federal deficit. It will also be putting these troops in danger and will certain increase the number of US casualties. Conclusion: My opponent previously concluded by stating, "also again my oppoent has not show anything saying that sending more troops over to Afghanistan is not in the united states best interest. so i hope that all who vote take that into effect as well." Though I have in fact given many reasons why this is not in the US interest, I don't believe that was even necessary. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, the burden of proof in matters of war is always on the attacker. The burden of proof is never on the pacifist to show why going to war is a bad idea since the costs of war are universally acknowledged. As I have dismissed all the possible benefits of this offensive strategy, it cannot be in the US' best interest simply by virtue of being an act of war. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This debate will not result as a tie. because My resolution is clear: I will prove that after this debate has ended, it (the debate) will not result in a tie. Anyone disagree? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because I thank Pro for her response. Pro said, "This is not a debate a about God, but a debate on politics." In Round 1 Pro said, "I am challenging you to a debate about gay marriage and if God excepts it." It seems to be in plain text that God is part of the debate. Pro said, "Why should some get the right to marriage, but not all?" I believe you should let the states decide if they want to co-exist with a policy that the majority of the people in the state feel comfortable with. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Word "Omnipotent" Can Be Shown To Be Oxymoronic because The proposition on offer is that the word omnipotent can be shown to be oxymoronic. Relevant definitions: Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. [1] Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. [1] 1 - The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ********************************************************* My opponent has claimed that the word "omnipotent" contains within itself an oxymoron because of the omnipotence paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), which follows as such, for example: God is omnipotent. God cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. However, there is no implicit contradiction within the term omnipotent. What is required to understand the notion of unlimited power/force/etc... is the understanding that omnipotence incorporates the power to do anything. However, in the case at hand concerning the rock, a rock so heavy God cannot lift it is not a thing in the very same way that a three-sided square is not a thing. The flawed reasoning in describing omnipotence as a contradictory term is in supposing that the term is inclusive of things that are logically incoherent. I suggest that my opponent deliberately engages in this faulty reasoning as part of the fallacy of begging the question to attempt to import some mystery into God's existence, when in fact, his argument is simply flawed. ***************************************************** A brief list of things an omnipotent being cannot do: Make a three-sided square Make a square circle Make a four-sided pentagon Make a five-sided hexagon (etc...) Make it the case that I have/never existed/will exist Make a rock so heavy it cannot lift **************************************************** I await rebuttal. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with COD vs Titanfall because Well it depends on who is playing the game. I would say I would rather play Titanfall, but I cant choose as many guns so that is a disadvantage. So in the end I wont a game that gives me more weapons is cheaper and gets better reviews. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax because Good question! Does GG count as FF? Or FG? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Andrew Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill. because Andrew Jackson hated central banks. He deliberately acted to destroy the Bank of the United States, the central bank at the time. He believed in the value of specie-- gold or silver money, as opposed to the fiat money represented by the twenty dollar Federal Reserve Note. Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between honest men. All putting Andrew Jackson's face on a fiat note distributed by the Federal Reserve Bank accomplishes is cheapening the value of his legacy, and showing off the government's peculiar mix of ignorance or lack of integrity, however that mix may be composed. Eliminate the 20 dollar bill (and therefore Jackson's face from it), move to a new, commodity-backed currency, then have Jackson's face on that if you want, anything else is dishonest. If you seek to keep fiat money, find someone else to idolize on it, perhaps a picture of FDR confiscating the gold of every citizen who kept it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should Donald Trump become President because I will start with some rebuttals. #1: ..."he has on many occasions complimented the accomplishments and achievements of the tyrannical leader Kim jong un." -My opponent states that Trump praises Kim Jong Un, however his line regarding him was taken out of context. He was discussing how incredible it was that Un was so quickly able to take control of the country. He then goes to state, "... we can"t play games with him. Because he really does have missiles. And he really does have nukes." This does not sound like he is praising the dictator to me. (1) #2 ...:"openly racist making claims like, " Mexicans are killers, drug dealers, and some are good." -My opponent again takes Trump's lines out of context. In his announcement speech, he explicitly refers to the COUNTRY of Mexico-- its GOVERNMENT-- sending over bad people. He is stating how some of the people Mexico sends to this country have problems that we cannot afford to deal with. He does not generalize the Mexican people, he is only referring to a small portion of the population that their government has migrate here. #3 ...:"he will only see the good and care for the betterment of white people." -Again, a baseless claim. Nowhere has Trump stated or released or thought up any plans that would only benefit one race. He has stated in many videos on his website and throughout his speeches that he wants to HELP all races by decreasing the poverty rate and bringing domestic jobs back to put unemployed people to work. Additional arguments: Trump is for medical marijuana, and having it state-regulated at that. This sets him apart from other traditional GOP candidates who have outright opposed marijuana all together. This has the potential to appeal to more moderate/young voters as this is an issue many see as important. (2) Trump wants to reform veteran healthcare. According to his plan, he wants to expedite delivery of service to patients, increase care for sufferers of PTSD, and allow their ID card to be used to obtain care wherever they choose. He also wants to increase funding for staff training so that the system can be made more efficient. He also wants to ensure that all VA care facilities permanently staff OBGYN doctors so that women veterans can receive better and more equal treatment. (3) SOURCES: (1)-- http://www.factcheck.org... (2)-- http://www.hightimes.com... (3)-- https://www.donaldjtrump.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion because :: vi_spex said, "i know the implication of sticking a knife in my leg, cause and effect.. also i have plenty of reasoning that confirm this.." Know=now=true implications of sticking knife in leg=future=belief=false :: vi_spex said, "i dont recognize it instantly, but when i do i am certain of it, and you are talking about something that is designed to trick the eyes, something that looks like something else within itself... hard to see, its not hard to see that these words on the screen" The point of it is that your perception can be incorrect. you likely miss something or see something wrong quite commonly, but you will never notice unless there is some reason for you to reevaluate it. Our brains are imperfect. :: vi_spex said, "you have memories of how cakes taste.. scientists do not tell you which cake is better do they.." :: and... "but what if you dont like the cake.." :: and... "it is as simple and positive negative and balance.. theism atheism and agnostic, 3 positions, thats it. you are hiding" Again, we cannot properly communicate without commonly defined words. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses because I am really busy with midterms and a project due this Friday (in Java interestingly enough) so I can't post my rebuttals. Sorry about the inconvenience. My opponent is free to post more arguments if he wants (I won't deny him the extra character space). Either way, I'll post my final rebuttals in my next turn and my opponent can counter in his final round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the beneficial decision to his presidency. because Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was a beneficial decision to his presidency. Let us first point out that the reason Obama was making rounds of television networks was to represent his health care plan. All networks showed his health care speech prior to his appearances on the shows to clarify parts of it, except for Fox News. Yes, there is no doubt about it -- Fox News is an incredibly biased, right-wing network that devotes itself almost entirely to discrediting liberals. Fox News is a business, like every other News broadcasting network, and it shovels it's money in only by appealing to its viewers. So, this is exactly what Fox News does. The viewers of Fox News are a majority conservative who eat up everything Fox has to offer. Fox News went so far even as to NOT show President Obama's health care plan speech because it was of "no priority." It was much more important to show Dancing With The Stars, instead. And it wasn't even Tom Delay's debut. The president's speech wasn't deemed "newsworthy." Every other News Network covered President Obama's speech. Fox News constantly slanders, miss-interprets, and down right negatively represents the President constantly. As Pr. Obama said himself, "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration... That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front." It is by far more respectable that the president display his own right to free speech and decide not to speak to the "news network" instead of having it slander his words or even cut off his mic (my opponent even stated: "they're known to take things out of context, and cut people's microphones when guests make them look silly"). It is also obvious that any speech, as my opponent suggest should be given afterword, would just not be shown to the viewers if even his important health care speech wasn't. The "unwavering" viewers of the Fox News network would be left just as blind. My opponent claims that the president should be taking steps to bridge the gap of bipartisanship. President Obama has been very GOP friendly: hosted them at the white house, visiting them on capital hill (paying more respect than their fellow republican George W. Bush), going back on his promises to the gay community on issues such as marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, nominating Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner (both positions important to the republican party; economics and defense) and nominated Republican Sen. Gregg for a Cabinet position (who unfortunately turned down the offer) - these nominations of three counter party members for cabinet is unmatched - amongst many, many things. So, no, Obama is not giving the message that he will only address liberals and their needs. He has consistently proven so far in his presidency that he is very bipartisan and takes conservatives seriously. The only thing he is doing by not participating in Fox's slander is pointing out that the truth must be told in America, not false garbage that misinforms the masses (especially the conservatives. Now wouldn't that be an aid toward conservative America; the truth?) My opponent states, "It also provided a great disservice to the American people who rely on Fox (unfortunately) for their news and information, and made other networks subsequently look bad." Obama became the first president to appear on five Sunday network shows in the same morning; an extraordinary effort to build public support for his top domestic priority. He was not trying to "exclude" anyone it quite obviously seems (he would even get late night viewers by appearing on late night talk show #1 by David Letterman). My opponent brings up that President Obama not appearing on Fox but appearing on Hispanic Univision sends the wrong message. Hispanics were a swing vote in 2008, and as a majority are very conservative voters (as they are on average very religious. It must also be noted that they were one of the George Bush sided demographics.) An appearance on Univision shows that Obama cares for this new rising majority in America, who will be one of main groups affected by his new health care plan. My opponent brings up that, "Now Fox is free to interpret his decision any way they see fit (beneficial to them and negative against him)" But Fox would have anyway, if he appeared on Fox or not. My own opponent even said, "they're known to take things out of context, and cut people's microphones when guests make them look silly." If even they did show Obama's public announcement, a public announcement that he was "misquoted" would cause just as much of an uprising. They would have said it was showing that Obama doesn't like "criticism" and has had time to be coached before he "re-answered" Fox News. That their questions were too "tough" and "different" for him. That he was being a "cry baby," as my opponent said. My opponent said that, "This makes it seem as if Obama is punishing the network for bad behavior, but really he's punishing the viewers (American voters)." No, Obama is not punishing the viewers. Obama, as I have noted, has been consistently good to conservatives. He is, in fact, punishing a network that has gone overboard with their hate for liberal politics and hate for him. What Obama has done is the moral thing to do; to reduce slander and misinformation in the media. Even if he isn't praised for it now, he will be praised for it in the future. He will not be tolerant of lies being circulated throughout the United States of America. It is to the same caliber as American News' bias against middle eastern nations in their news broadcasting. My opponent brings up that Bush appeared on news networks even though they attacked him. I'd like to ask my opponent only one question; wasn't the attacking of Bush's greatest enemy, the media, one of the big reasons his presidency failed? That would not be beneficial for a presidency. My opponent finally states, "As a result, a devaluing of these channels also decreases the likelihood that Obama will be favorably or fairly represented by Fox - with its massive audience - in the future." Fox never favorably represents President Obama; not even playing his health care plan speech on their network and always, as is the main issue, portraying Obama negatively. The Conservative powerhouse (as even my opponent has clarified) wouldn't start anytime soon. My opponent remarks that by not appearing on Fox News, Obama is essentially shunning the conservatives of America. This is not the case. By not appearing on Fox News, Obama is making the statement that a corrupt network should not have their way. Obama is making a very moral stand, and as such, should be respected - and HIS right to free speech should be respected if he didn't want to show up on a News Network that would clearly misrepresent him, and twist that misrepresentation in the future - even if a clarification speech was given (if it was even at all shown on Fox). In the future, Obama will be seen as a voice against slander, a voice against misinformation, and a just decision maker. If Fox News could not give as much respect as to show his very important health care speech (which, in turn, blinds their audience to the issues), then Obama can show just as much respect back at the organization and be the bigger man instead of bickering with a news organization that would never back down; like a rabid dog. References: http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.politifact.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against This is a Poetry Battle because I'm sorry my "opponent" has missed the other two arguments :(. But I do applaud her for an interesting debate idea. I quite enjoyed that. Falling Asleep As the silent weight of darkness falls, And the birds of night their sweet haunting calls And the leaves laugh sleepily in the nocturnal breeze, We shut our eyes and lie with ease. After a long day spent under the sun, My being calls for sleep with every ion. Whether little or much I've done in a day Attaining unconsciousness happens in much the same way. Head centered on pillow, body prostrate on bed My mind down the long tunnel of sleep is led But before I follow, I think and muse About the day's thoughts, fears, conversations, news. Finally sleep carries me gently down And thoughts leave my head as if I'm abdicating a crown. I journey through the long dark hall 'Til I hear sweet morning's loud clarion call. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Are There Problems With a Belief in an Afterlife? because My opponent has taken the view that the babies and the mentally disabled will automatically be gifted the chance for an afterlife. As already stated, I do not see this position as fair. These may have been people who would potentially have been wicked people, but because of their limited lifespans or limited brain capacity, they were not given a chance to be either righteous or wicked. Wouldn't it make more sense that if a loving God existed, He would have created everyone with equal intelligence and an equal opportunity of being old enough to evaluate morality before they died? This is not a fair system- some people have more of a chance to get to heaven depending on what conditions they are born with and how old they live. My opponent has stated that he regrets taking this debate, but he has accepted the terms, and I hope that he takes the time to think about this issue and respond with well though out arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because I will now respond to my opponent's counterpoints: 1. My opponent is arguing that my strength will be enough due to the beginning parameters. However, I point my opponent to the parameter itself. It clearly states that I am able to *bench* 180 pounds. http://wiki.answers.com... Operation of the bench press primarily exercises the chest muscles and to a much lower extent, the triceps, whereas the act of applying pressure around the trunk of a tree to climb it (the only possible way when the trunk is smooth) is primarily the use of the biceps. The 180 pound benching would be useful for something such as lifting a large piece of rock off of my shoulders, but not for climbing this particular type of tree. 2. My opponent then states that I can use my high quality hunting knife as leverage. However, this proposal is neither completely explained, nor practical. I am assuming that my opponent means that I can use the knife to puncture the tree and use it to lift myself up. The problem is that once I use the knife in such a fashion, I will indeed be able to propel myself up a little. Even if I jump and stab into the tree, I shall only be dangling a foot or so above ground. However, once I am hanging by one arm with the knife in the tree, what next? I can't climb any further because once I remove the knife from the tree, I will fall. In addition, I cannot apply my opponent's strategy by using the knife as a substitute branch because then, I will have no weapon and the bear will claw my feet off. Thus, the knife will not help either. 3. My opponent then points to the notion that I am a "master of tree climbing". I point my opponent to the wording of the parameter. It is stated that I am "well capable" of climbing a tree. Meaning, that I am simply capable of climbing trees. However, when there are physical limitations that prohibit the actual mechanism of tree climbing, then I am not liable for that. The climbing of a tree is usually done by climbing branches. My opponent, by choosing this particular battlezone, has presented me with a bunch of trees tree that cannot be climbed in that fashion. Thus, while I am capable of climbing a typical tree, this atypical situation in which tree climbing requires external tools and/or unnatural proficiency is simply not one where the stated parameter is useful. I may be well capable of climbing trees, but when the tree presented begins to deviate from the properties of a typical climbable tree, it is natural that my ability will decrease. It is my opponent who has set up a situation in which the agreed parameter does not aid me much. 4. My opponent states that I could simply ask a park guide or obtain a park map in order to find a climbable tree. However, he forgets the fourth condition that I set forth upon accepting this debate: "The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources. " My opponent has provided me with a certain number of resources set forth in his parameters 2,3,and 4. I have clearly stated that in the 30 minutes of preparation, I can rely on no other resources than those stated in 2,3, and 4. Nowhere in my opponent's parameters 2,3,and 4 did he state that I have access to a lodge, to a guide, or to a map. My opponent the ends this section by asking the audience to dismiss my notion of a bear running much faster than a human. Let me then note that I am using that as part of my argument, saying that so long as I am on the ground and defenseless, the bear will catch up to me and kill me because I cannot outrun it. My opponent has no justification for asking that this point be dismissed, because it is indeed relevent. I must also state that the stamina my opponent refers to is subject to debate as part of the conditions that I set forth. Indeed, I can run a mile in five minutes, but after that one mile, the regular Kleptin's physical limitations take over. I can barely *walk* a mile without complaining. Just to have that noted for later on. =========================================================================== Utilizing biological weaknesses =========================================================================== My opponent has conceded to one point and then refers again to the issue of rattlesnakes. By my opponent's own admission, snakes are rare to find. In addition, my opponent's proposal that I simply wait in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves violates the usage of resources other than the ones stated in the parameters. However, the notion of waiting in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves is also a violation. The very resolution states that I am given 30 minutes of preparation in order to vanwuish the bear. If I decide to wait in a lodgehouse, or otherwise to be safe for longer than a period of 30 minutes, I would then have MORE time to prepare, and that is a direct violation of the resolution. My opponents suggestion would give me far too much time for further preparation so yes, there actually *is* a time limit. In the case of vital spots of the bear, I would rule out striking the bear through the skull because first, I would not be able to reach its head. Second, I would question my own ability to puncture the skull, which is thick and made of bone, (even with the good hunting knife, for fear of it becoming lodged and losing my weapon). As for slicing at the neck, I would also shy away from the notion because a frontal attack would be too risky. If it came down to hand-to-hand combat, I would simply be too hesitant because my entire body would be telling me to run. For the argument my opponent makes for playing dead, I ask my opponent to reread the source he provided. Nowhere in the article did it say that bears are "fooled" into thinking that the target is actually dead. In fact, the source says that "playing dead" lets the bear know that you are not a threat. It is the equivalent of showing deference or inferiority. In fact, there is no source that claims that playing dead fools the bear into actually thinking that you are dead. Every source uses the same language: Playing dead leads to eliminationt he notion that you are dangerous or a threat. http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca... http://www.arcticwebsite.com... http://askville.amazon.com... In addition, all of these sources say to avoid playing dead if you are being attacked and/or stalked. Wouldn't I be a fool to do otherwise? It wouldn't be feasible for me to follow advice that I personally will believe to be detrimental to my health, even if my opponent could prove otherwise. My opponent concludes by saying that an average man's muscle bulk would not be quite as I have exaggerated. THe video provided shows a rather healthy and robust man, whereas I have very spindly and muscle-less arms. By making this argument, my opponent does his argument little good, because the issue is not how much I exaggerate, but whether or not it is feasible for me to subdue the bear in the manner that my opponent set forth, and honestly, it simply is not. My opponent has listed many scenarios, none of which are feasible so far. In addition, there are a few points in last round that my opponent did not have the time to address. I look forward to seeing them answered in the next round. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation because It looks like we will be starting the real debating in round 2. So I will use this round to narrate an interesting story. Pro is requested to ignore it for the purpose of this debate. ==The Story== This is a story which is narrated in a monumental book written by Brahmasri Melpathur Narayana Bhattari , reportedly in 1587 A.D. Hiranyakashipu was an evil demon king. He terrorized everyone. To gain power and take revenge upon Lord Vishnu for killing his evil brother, Hiranyakashipu fervently worshipped Lord Brahma . The boon he wanted was that he should become immortal. Now the rules are 1. Lord Bramha had to honor any demand made by worshipper (once he is satisfied by the worship) - no matter how evil he or she may be. 2. Lord Bramha cannot grant immortality to anyone. If anyone asks for that, he or she will be asked to choose something else. Hiranyakashipu succeeded in his penance. On realizing he cannot become immortal, he asked for following boons 1. That he may not die naturally. 2. That he may not be killed by any human or beast. 3. That he may not be killed either inside a building or outside. 4. That he may not be killed in daytime or at night. 5. That he may not be killed on land, or in air. 6. That he may not be killed by any weapons. This of course made Hiranyakashipu very powerful. As time passed, Hiranyakashipu's son, Prahlada , turned out to be a believer and devoted himself completely to worship of Lord Vishnu . After trying to force him to abandon his faith, Hiranyakashipu tried to murder Prahlada . However Lord Vishnu , being bound to protect all his devoted followers saved Prahlada's life again and again. "So where exactly does your Lord Vishnu live?" demanded Hiranyakashipu . " Lord Vishnu is everywhere, in everything. Pick up the smalles dust particle, and Lord Vishnu is present in it." Prahlada explained. "So is he there in this pillar" Hiranyakashipu laughed. "Yes, of course, he is there in that pillar." "Then I am going to smash this pillar into pieces!" And as Hiranyakashipu ripped this pillar apart, Lord Vishnu emerged from inside as Narasimhavataram , the fifth avatar of Lord Vishnu on earth! Half lion and half man (rule 2), Narsimha dragged Hiranyakashipu to the door (rule 3), placed him on his lap (rule 5), and killed him (rule 1) with his claws (rule 6) just as the sun was in the process of setting (rule 4). This story is can be accessed here. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have written it down in my own words (slightly based on my own knowledge of the story also). ========== Back to the topic. I accept my opponent’s definition and the rules. We assume that both the debaters are good and approximately equally skilled. (Of course the match will be broken if my school soccer team plays Manchester United). We assume that the rules are not abusive so that they end the purpose of the debate (as my opponent mentioned) and the topic is a debatable - preferably chosen by a third party - who is interested in good quality debate. We also assume that the win and lose decision is taken by a team of expert judges, committed to ensuring a fair decision based on the debate and not on their previously held opinion. It is time for my esteemed opponent to present the strategy which ensures that the debate is broken and does not give fair chance to either Pro or Con to win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Homework shouldn't be given because The students can review and revise work in school, if homework is given anyways they would not have time to enjoy other activities or hobbies. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christianity unintentially breeds hate. because First of all i would like to thank foresight for this debate Claim 1: A Man of religion inherently feel superior to those who do not share the same Religious beliefs as he... Counterclaim: "My opponent's argument its opinion not fact. It is true, that -- "A Man ... inherently feel superior to those who do not share the same... beliefs as he" -- but this not limited to religion, and it is opinion that, disagreement or challenging one's beliefs, can lead to hatred. my opponent states --"he feeling of superiority exists because the individual believes that no matter what, his faith in christianity is a bridge to salvation; and those who do not agree with his beliefs are damned."-- So what? His/her Beliefs are their own, why should they matter to me? " why should i allow hatred into my heart if our views disagree. Claim 2: "Christianity's position on homosexuality as a "life-style choice" creates hate toward the gay population. Evidence of this hate is the fact that the gay population lives a quality of life, to certain extent, of a lesser quality than the non-gay population." Counterclaim: My opponent states-- "Christianity's position on homosexuality as a "life-style choice" creates hate toward the gay population"-- How so? i see now evidence that leads one to hatred. Christianity does not condemn homosexuals, but states that homosexuality is a sin, thats between god and the person. Take the example of Mary Magdalen . Christianity teaches, that Christ befriended her when no one else would. Christ showed compassion to her even though her "life-style choice" was looked down upon. Claim 3: I"n Genesis, the bible lays out clear sex roles for men and women.Feminists who reject "orthodox" Female roles and seek to satisfy the bibles definition of the Males roles are outcasted and ridiculed for challenging the system." Counterclaim Where in the bible? Men would cling to the bible to assert their dominance over women, but it is really power that the men are afraid of losing, not violating religious text. Claim 4: "Individuals devout in christianity seek to expand Christianity to the entire population. When doctrines are rejected by large populations Christians become frustrated and feel contempt for those resisting. This contempt is prime fertilizer for hate to grow." Counterclaim: You could you the Crusades and Conquistadors to prove your point, except as my teacher puts it " They came with a sword in one hand and the Cross in the other". They Crusades and spanish conquest of the new world, where more about political stature, than the feud of religious dogma. These are examples of where religion is used as a cloak for territorial conquest. Of course your argument does not apply to only these situations, they could apply to the every day person. But the animosity that may arise, is not from one desires to spread religion, but the from the failures one would receive in spreading these beliefs. You might say this proves your point, but it doesn't. It is a person's ability to cope with rejection that is being observed. Hatred is a personal issue, one that we allow to enter our minds, not a third party. Additionally it seems my opponent is basing his argument on "Guilt by Association", which is a logical fallacy. (/www.nizkor.org/) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Anyone but Obama in 2012 because Since my opponent wants to argue "anyone but Obama." I will choose 2 anyones (since going over 100's would be argument abuse). The two I choose are Hitler and Stalin. My opponent must argue that both Hitler and Stalin would be better presidents. I'll let my opponent start. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Quote Debate because ok ok, my quote... "Don't let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something stand in the way of your doing it. The time will pass anyway; we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use." - Earl Nightingale <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Moral Argument is Sound because Introduction My thanks to Pro for an excellent opening round. I’ll get straight to the point. Pro’s case - Justification for P1 P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist. What reasons has Pro given us to accept P1? The first is that God is the most plausible grounding of moral values. As Pro puts it, “Objective moral values are most plausibly based in a maximally great being, for if a being is ontologically maximally great, then it intuitively follows that his moral nature is maximally great.” There are a few problems with this: Begging the Question - grounding moral values in God fairly obviously begs the question. The conclusion of the moral argument (God exists) is assumed in the justification for P1 (God’s nature is the foundation of moral values). Why? Because using God’s nature as the foundation for objective morals assumes that God exists, which is what the argument has to prove, not assume. Subjective moral values - Pro asserts that moral values come from God’s nature (Divine command theory), and any moral theory which grounds morality in the nature of a subject (God) is, well, subjective. So, if Pro derives moral ontology from God, then morality, given that it is dependent upon an agent, would be subjective. By contrast, objective moral theory crucially holds that morality is INDEPENDENT of any agent, including God, so P1 seems false by definition (1). Irrelevance - Lastly, even assuming God’s nature was the best grounding for objective morals, even this wouldn’t substantiate P1. Pro’s first premise is NOT that God is the best grounding for objective morals, but that without God, no such values would exist. These are 2 very different claims, and Pro’s justification here would simply only allow him to affirm the former, while the latter is what P1 actually claims, and cannot be justified by this approach. As such, Pro’s first justification seems fallacious, false and futile. The second reason Pro gives is to accept P1 is that moral duties and obligations are absurd, given atheism, and that consistent atheists should accept P1 as a consequence of their worldview. With respect to moral duties: Atheist moral duties - Irrespective of whether or not atheism is true, I still have moral obligations to other beings, simply because of cognitive abilities like self-reflection and moral intuitions. Thus my duties as a (somewhat) rational being is simply to act in accordance with these principles, in order to be rational. In fact, I would further claim that asking why I should be rational is a self-defeating question for obvious reasons. I see no reason whatever to think that the finitude of life dissolves such obligations. If anything, things like fairness become even more important precisely because life ends at the grave, and there will be no do-overs. Also, as we’ve seen, appealing to God begs the question anyway. As for the claim that atheists are ideologically committed to P1: What’s the problem? - I don’t know of any thing even approaching a good justification for this. Many Christian and atheist philosophers alike also recognise that the claim one cannot have justification for objective moral values without God seems totally unproven, if not outright wrong. Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne, for example, repudiates P1: “Some moral truths are clearly moral truths, whether there is a God or not: it is surely wrong to torture children for fun whether or not there is a God.” (2) Likewise, atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong seems bemused when confronted with this argument, laughing off the first premise, “ . . . In fact, many atheists are happy to embrace objective moral values. I agree with them . . . This admission implies nothing about God, unless objective moral values depend on God. But why should we believe that they do?” (3) Furthermore, secular morality of this kind has been going on for literally thousands of years, with moral philosophy full of atheist moral realists. There is certainly no logical incoherence or even a hint of tension between the belief that atheism is true, and that objective moral values exist. So I ask again, what’s the problem? Again, Pro’s second justification seems not only very probably false, but plainly absurd. Third, Pro claims that “it's just not obvious that atheism provides as sound a foundation for objective morals”. Argument from ignorance - Here, Pro falls fouls of argumentum ad ignorantiam: “It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted"… In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.” (4) As well as this, Pro also again begs the question. Also: Climbing Mount Impossible (5) - P1 states that if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. This means that Pro must affirm that there is no possible way to account for such morals without God, as this is what P1 entails. How can Pro justify such a claim, without either passing the buck, or begging the question? I have no idea. He certainly hasn’t even begun this task, let alone completed it, from what we have seen thus far. Even the possibility that atheistic moral realism might be true (given the deductive form of the argument) compels us to reject P1 as simply unproven, if not unprovable. As the philosopher Stephen Law points out, with regards to P1, the onus is on the theist “ . . . to show that ALL such atheist-friendly accounts are wrong, even the ones we haven’t thought of yet, and don’t forget, as theists so regularly do, that they needn’t even be naturalistic. (6) Therefore, unless and until Pro can give us a defeater for atheist-friendly objective moral values, his argument again falls at the first hurdle. Given Pro’s total failure to do this, we are compelled to conclude P1 is flagrantly without warrant. In conclusion, we can see P1 is clearly unjustified. Not only this, but given some of my responses, it seems P1 is almost certainly false. As such, the resolution is negated. Justification for P2 P2 - Objective moral values and duties do exist Moral mirror - The problem I have here is not with the truth of P2, but with its relationship to P1. Pro justifies P2 from an intuitive, prima facie position. The massive problem for Pro is that this itself seems like a denial of P1. Why? Because it is an AF account of morality! In fact, not only is Pro’s reasoning for P2 compatible with atheism , it is almost identical to the justification given by atheist philosopher Peter Cave, "whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound… Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop." (7) More than this, it seems ANY justification of P2 which doesn’t beg the question would have to be compatible with atheism by definition. As such, the argument seems to suffer from being either inherently unjustifiable, or necessarily false. Conclusion In my first post, I have outlined 8 criticisms of Pro's argument. In order to carry the resolution, Pro must respond adequately to each objection. Many of these, I suspect, are simply unanswerable. Sources 1. http://commonsenseatheism.com... 2. Richard Swinburne, Is there a God? , P14 3. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Bill Craig, God? Debate between a Christian and an atheist , P33 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. A play on a similarly titled book from Dawkins 6. Stephen Law vs. Bill Craig, (1:08:30) 7. Peter Cave, Humanism , p.146. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Video Rap Battle: My Ex Is Worse Than Yours because [ FIRST VERSE ] 01) My ex is a crazy Rican - a leethal combination 02) Made my life sh1tty like fecal condensation 03) She used and abused me; Stupid bit 04) Refused to stop booze and snooze cure her blues, see 05) Man that girl is a doozey, one who's fussy and choosey 06) Though not with the pvssy cuz that chick is a floosey 07) Like a store sample, there for everybody to test it 08) Your ex is a lesbian and mine is bi cuz she's desperate 09) She's older too, she's thirty, but she still needs a sitter 10) She's fat and she's dirty, a size thirty would fit her 11) A face like a gorilla with a mustasche like Hitler 12) Cops ALWAYS around; she would get pinched like a hitter 13) But no she wasn't a winner - I've done much BETTER since her 14) My new girl gets me WETTER like Mike Phelps the swimmer 15) So you compare Jess to UPS and that analogy fits her 16) But my stupid fedEX'S motto is: She "lives to deliver" 17) I mean your Mex ex working in the military sure is a joke 18) But mine is on welfare; her job is to suck di 19) See I worked to support mine too - damn, how ironic 20) But the truth is mine works to get Tails to chase her like Sonic 21) She's dumb and hooked on chronic, what she NEEDS is Hooked on Phonics 22) That bitch so histrionic only knows how to speak ebonics 23) So evil and demonic - 4 foot 11 with a complex Napoleonic 24) Clubbing it up more than music: Electronic 25) Plus the sex was sad and she tasted bad like tonic 26) Meanwhile my new girl is the bomb like atomic 27) And we're busy constructing our love so tectonic 28) Yeah she's my best friend but our bond is more than platonic 29) So yeah, where was I, oh - my ex who's surely worse than ya 30) I mean it, no lie, this witch LOOKS JUST LIKE URSELA! 31) Some kind of big sea urchant with death gripping tentacles 32) Hurt me so bad like I got punched in the testicles 33) Yet she had a hold on me and would come back with resurgency 34) Then bleed me dry and put me in a room: the Emergency 35) Man that doesn't seem like a healthy relationship, does it? 36) She owes me a ton of money too but I'm just like "Fu 37) I don't want her kicking me anything unless it's a bucket 38) I thought that bit 39) She still talks to my cousin, and tells him she loves him 40) Spitting more lies than a Fox News pundit 41) Man, easy does it; Damn, please I'm above it 42) Now she's crushing on me AND my new girl - gotta love it 43) See you say your ex is crazy but mine is literally psycho 44) Ran my other ex over with a car, try telling THAT to Geico 45) Almost got me evicted; had to use my rent money for bail 46) Always getting convicted; she couldn't keep herself outta jail 47) Now I wish I was exaggerating for the sake of this verse 48) But you met her - you know that in reality she's worse 49) Than what I could ever say on DDO and not get closed 50) So I'll sign off for now, bb, forget our X'S and hO'S [ SECOND VERSE ] Her name was Jasmine but she sure was no princess Instead a welfare queen who did less than your ex Who eventually had grown to kick her own habits When I left my ex she was still a full blown addict She swallowed more pills than previous semen she ingested Got pregnant once too; uterus pre-deviant infested And thank JESUS she got that poor FETUS aborted It WOULDA been born a crack baby: distorted I'm surprised she even got someone else to have sex with her I'd undress her and confuse her with a sumo wresteler Then I tried to cum but she couldn't get it out of me She whored but me bored thought I'd earned an award from the academy From the way that I'd fake it and make it believable Best Actress in a Comedy: Lwerd the deceivable Betrayed her with kisses so nice; I take lives like Judas Obsessed with knives, I thought that she'd stab me like Brutus You wanna talk about drinking? Well here this just in: Jasmine could out-chug even Brian_Eggleston A man, not a boy trying to play up stereotypes (Panda) Or Charlie_Danger claiming he fucks dykes named Amanda I mean this cocoa loco got me in a choke hold, you know Had me by the throat but the blow had her by the nose, so Yeah it helped her earn her degrees; she musta got them for enjoyment She couldn't keep a job; she just collected Unemployment Then a statistic sadistic she'd commit her crimes smiling Go to court looking like trash and claim "Racial Profiling" I mean how're you gonna dress like a hoe and go to your hearings? This girl was ghetto as hell; even had her name in hoop earrings But it's not hard to see through her: interior's transparent Her exterior so inferior to what I see in the mirror's apparent At 6 feet tall at least your ex is someone to look UP to I couldn't go DOWN on mine either; I would say "Fu Then she'd bit Though I never was; at first the booze just had me distracted Handy dandy beer goggles on made her look like Jordan Sparks They musta blocked out half her body with stretch marks Now you may wonder why I carry around this hostility Wondering why I didn't end this with maturing civility But let me tell you quite literally about her irresponsibility Tried to ruin my new relationship; now she's got no credibility I consider this ill-will towards me and there is no possibility Or probability of acceptability in her lack of nobility I just don't have the ability or tranquility to accept it Her utility's been tested and failed now she'll live to regret it Become BFFs and put the past behind us? Forget it The rest is history, now she can miss me and accept it Now why didn't I break up with her? I tried, but I had to Make up with her, she cried, and threatened suicide too So don't judge me in this as I'm not the one whose on trial Our exes are and I've proven that mine is more vile <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with immunizations for babies because Is this for real? Obviously vaccinations are a good thing; they save millions upon millions of lives every year - bottom line. That fact alone is enough for me to easily win this entire debate. But to elaborate (for your sake), I'd just like to remind you that you're SUPPOSED to get sick from immunizations... at least a little bit. The whole point of a vaccination is to stimulate the immune system to fight off a particular disease/ virus/ bacteria/ infection as if it were a real threat. Your body (somehow genetically, miraculously) remembers the organism and is therefore better able to fight it off more quickly and on a much larger scale should it actually become a real threat. While inside of the mother's womb, the unborn baby is protected by antibodies in the placenta to ward off any illness. If the baby is born and then breast fed, they reap the benfit of antibodies from the mother being passed through breast milk to offer further protection. However both of these things are temporary; it is important for a baby to be able to survive (i.e. overcome infection) without attachment to the mother... you can only breast feed a child for so long. And bottom line: although some vaccinations may cause minor problems, such as a small rash or mild fever, the risks of immunizations are tiny - not to mention extremely rare - in comparison to the risks of the diseases / viruses / bacteria / infections that the immunizations are supposed to protect you from. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against the 1980's pop music is best!!! 2 because Ok, I still argue that pop music from the 1960s has more meaning than pop music from the 1980s. Let's just get this over with... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against There is no way to make voting on this site fair. because Okay you conceded "in real life" but just to make it official, I will reiterate your main 3 points and the results of this debate: #1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate -- I think that's kind of di #2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site -- Again, I think that is one's right. It's di #3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves -- My solution "solved or changed" this as your Round 1 asked your opponent to do. There are also other possible solutions but for the sake of brevity I will include only one. Anyway, like I've said, with my solution there won't be less MEMBERS joining but less ACCOUNTS which will be more fair in terms of voting. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Funniest Limerick wins because The Clap There once was a girl who was easy. Everyone knew she was sleazy. She opened her trap And caught the clap. Now the smell makes everyone queasy. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will lose this debate. because I am doing this as a troll you are taking it seriously therefore you will win <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." because "My definition of outlaw was one who is "outside the law."" Errm... right. I'm not disputing that. Using your definition of outlaw, I showed quite simply that because police officers (NOT outside the law) will continue to own guns when they are outlawed, then not "ONLY outlaws will have guns" when guns are outlawed. This clearly and effectively negates the resolution. This is open and close stuff. --- "If guns are outlawed, policemen have either two choices: 1. Turn in their guns like everyone else. There is no reason for the banning of something not to include policemen. 2. Keep their guns. In this way, they and the government that operates them elevate themselves "above the law" by not following their own laws, which is what the countries described by my opponent do. And being "above the law" is "outside the law."" Both of these points are obviously garbage. Let's take Australia as a recent example of a country who has explicitly outlawed gun ownership. The police officers in Australia are still required to carry guns. [1] This gives us a recent, real-world example of the fact that when guns are outlawed in a country, it won't ONLY be outlaws who possess guns. I have negated my opponent's semantic argument by using his own simple definitions, and have also given a recent example of a country who DID outlaw guns and how that country's gun-owning populace DOESN'T consist solely of outlaws. Vote CON. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Vocaloid music because No, it will not make the "American Super-race" less "pure". In fact it adds to it. What makes America great? Diversity. Different languages and forms of entertainment, including entertainment, that is not is not in english. Aside from that, there are english vocaloids, the Japanese ones just help so you have skills later in life. It shows you don't HAVE to know exactly what is sad to get the idea of the song. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens because I appreciate Daley posting what he considers evidence for aliens visiting Earth, but I think it is a bit much to expect me to watch over 70 minutes of video and respond to every point raised, particular as most (all?) seems entirely irrelevant to the topic we are debating. Remember that this is not a debate about the existence of aliens in general, like my opponent's current debate (where he seems to have posted the exact same set of videos) is: http://www.debate.org... This debate right here is about a specific set of sightings. If daley wants me to respond to any of the info in these videos, I'd appreciate him directing me to some specific part that he feels backs up his arguments about UFOs in Belgium. "if it defies our understanding of natural phenomena, then we must look to something outside of earthly, natural explanation." Daley's professed opinions regarding evolution clearly demonstrate that he doesn't have much faith in the ability of scientists to accurately assess the workings of nature. It is therefore contradictory for him to claim that things science can't explain are automatically other-worldly. In response to my question of why, for a Christian, an act of God should not be at least as plausible an explanation for strange phenomena as aliens, Pro seems to go off on a bit of a tangent. He conflates this case with other examples of supposed alien sightings, where metallic objects were involved, before saying: "The Biblical doctrine of God is not one who flies around in space ships." Well the Biblical doctrine doesn't have much to say about aliens either, does that mean they aren't real? My opponent can't have this both ways. If the Bible can be silent about aliens without it impacting on the likelihood of their existence, why does it need to describe Jahveh's version of the Millennium Falcon in order for such to be plausible? Remember God is omnipotent, so he can surely knock out a decent spaceship without too much bother. "Nor can a spirit being such as an angel be tracked on radar" How do you know? Have there been many studies on this? Is radar mentioned in the Bible? Again, I don't feel the need to examine other UFO cases, suffice to say, none have been confirmed as aliens and most scientists do not believe that aliens regularly visit Earth. "One would also have to wonder what would be the purpose of this "miracle" if indeed it were from God" It is a well known fact that God moves in mysterious ways. Since an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being regularly allows apparently innocent people to suffer terribly, I think it's fair to say that his motives are often not comprehendible, let alone obvious. This also raises an interesting point that one would "have to wonder what would be the purpose of this" if indeed it was aliens. Are we to suppose that a bunch of alien life forms used their incredibly sophisticated technology merely to fly around above the skies of Belgium (of all places) spooking the public? Surely if they could travel so far, detect radar and manoeuvre so well at such speeds, then evading detection altogether would have been a simple task for them. Why advertise their presence in this manner, if they did not intend to conquer, to trade or even to communicate with us? "Majorities don't decide truth" However, Pro believes that since a lot of people (how many was it again? two thousand and something?) think they saw alien ships, that it must be the truth. Pro's long diatribe about science discusses at length how science can't comprehend everything in nature, this contradicts his earlier statement: "if it defies our understanding of natural phenomena, then we must look to something outside of earthly, natural explanation" "Evolution is a theory that has so many problems in it ... The odds of getting a living thing from a non-living thing by natural means..." Although it's irrelevant to the debate, I feel compelled to point out the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, merely the origin of species. "the evidence we have for aliens is exactly what we would expect" Really? I would have thought if aliens were taking the trouble to visit Earth, they would be doing something a little more significant than providing elaborately choreographed light shows. In any case, accepting something as fact because it appears to conform to one's expectations is the opposite of the scientific method and a clear example of the kind of confirmation bias I referred to in previous rounds. "What else but an intelligence can do flight maneauvers better than our planes" Light beams operated by human hand, insects, birds, fish, a leaf caught in the wind. Lots of things are more manoeuvrable than several tons of jet fuelled metal. "travel faster than anyplane we have on earth" Rockets, meteors, lightning, light beams, lasers etc. "detect when we have them locked on to fire and dart away at tremendous speeds" Imaginary things can easily be ascribed imaginary abilities. "fly in patterns of a triangle" Light beam devices, three torches, birds, fireworks etc. "If my souce isn't reliable, tell me why." Wikipedia is a pretty decent source on the whole, however it must be remembered that it only gives an overview sourced from other documents. Also, as it edited and compiled by members of the public, inevitably some bias seeps into some pages. I would imagine that a page about a UFO sighting would be taken seriously mostly by those with a belief in the alien contact hypothesis, after all who else would be interested enough to take the time to create it? Wikipedia is however a far, far better source (imo) than the new one presented by my opponent in the last round which is unashamedly biased, coming as it does from the personal website of a paranormal investigator. "Space ships were in the skies of Belgium as sure as the Titanic sank and the Twin Towers fell" This is a bare assertion that is based around completely different categories of evidence. There was physical evidence in the form of wreckage in the cases of the Titanic and 9/11, the objects clearly existed, were manufactured by people, and people were in them when those things happened. I and millions of others watched the second tower fall on live TV. Very few people would dispute that the towers fell, just as neither I, nor anyone else is disputing that there were lights in the sky and strange radar behaviour that night, or that mysterious objects are seen in the sky generally. However what are not so clear are the exact actions, motivations, individuals and sequences of events that led to the towers falling. In the case of UFO sightings without any solid evidence there is even less certainty about the causes. We must remember that UFOs are, by their very definition, unidentified. Pro has not yet succeeded in identifying these ones on an evidential basis. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against subsidies/loans instead of insurance because You clearly know nothing about economics. Our country is already in deep economic trouble, we are in a recession, crashing. We are nothing short of SCREWED. The fed keeps cutting interest, loaning money, etc etc. We cannot afford to finance expensive medical care to Americans for many reasons. 1.It would put us further in debt. We're already 9 trillion in, we need stop spending. 2.Once I had a life saving operation, the motivation to keep paying diminishes exponentially. 3.The problem exists with the insurance companies and our economy, we need to make the Insurance companies accountable for their terrible ethics. Besides, the government should not be involved at ALL! What should be done is that these insurance companies should stop being public companies and be made into private corporations who have accountability to one group, their customers, and not to both their customers AND their stockholders. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Puppies should be tortured and killed. because Salutations Tatarize. I am new to this so please, forgive my novice appearance. If I should do anything that is against the rules, feel free to correct me. As I am feeling, this is not a normal topic that is debated, but as it was up to be challenged, I decided to get my feet wet with it. I will begin by building my own argument and then attacking my opponent's case. We shall begin to notice that at first glance, this topic cannot be debated, that there are already many laws for animal rights. It would be simply illegal to torture and kill puppies. But if you look closer at the subject to be debated, you will notice that it does not specify a cause. It merely states that puppies should be tortured and killed. Under what circumstances should puppies be tortured and killed? I will put forth (for increase of a debatable topic) that puppies should be tortured and killed only if certain circumstances are met. A)You are lost with no human contact and all you have to eat are puppies. B)The puppies show signs of rabies and you have no means of curing them. C)The puppies show signs of a similar contracted disease. Now, I also stress that the puppies be killed in a humane way. But this statement disagrees with my position correct? No. It can be argued that animals have rights as well and can be treated no less than humans. Thus, I say that killing puppies using the standard method, euthanasia, without getting the puppies consent would be in fact torture. Lets say you were getting to old to live anymore and you had no ways of communicating to anyone that you did not wish to die but knew that you were going to be put down via a needle and chemicals. This would be an agonizing torture. Thus, I stand in favor of this proposition, that puppies should be tortured and killed if certain criteria are met. I will now move to attack my opponent's case. Regardless of the fact that puppies may be considered "cute" to Tatarize, this is a personal opinion that has no weight in a debate. Nor does his opinion that he likes puppies. And he supplies little evidence that people like puppies, thus this statement falls. It has not been proven that rainbows can like anything at all since optical illusions are not sentient. In the English language the word "puppies" certainly does not start with a "q." It makes no difference how many puppies Tatarize has seen now the ratio of how many of them were cute vs not cute. In most mathematical circles, the number two added with the number two equals four, not seven as my opponent suggest. I now stand down for what ever comes next… <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution because Response to R1: To keep the focus of the argument at hand, we must go back to the statment: "Obscenity Laws are against the US Constitution." Nowhere in that statement does it mention specifically freedom of speech. Obscenity comes in many forms, as the definition of obscenity relates to what is overwhelmingly offensive in the view common citizens of a given area. The bill of rights protects all forms of expression, which includes speech, written language, as well as artistic or expressive actions, as long as those expressions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Other ways of "expression" or actions that individuals do are also found to be obscene. For example, a 24-year-old Hallsville man was sentenced to six months in Smith County Jail for a misdemeanor charge of possession of obscenity after a trial that began with felony charges. In this case, the "obscenity" was child pornography, which goes far beyond calling someone a "F***" or writing cuss words in a newspaper. http://www.news-journal.com... Response to R2: The people decide what is "Obscene" and what is decent. Where a thong bikini was once considered "obscene" in American society, it now has a market, is acceptable to the public, and has a song. Though the nation is a republic, it is a DEMOCRATIC republic, which means that the views of the public shape the opinions that shape the forming of the laws of the nation. If the people do not find a behavior or speech to be obscene, it won't considered that way. And if the people did not find obscenities to be so offensive, there would be no laws against it. The people are in favor of laws that protect against obscenity, therefore the constitution supports them. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War II because [color=red][b] First, to deal with Super Vegetto. Midna can use twilight portals to warp everybody to a random location on the planet in zero time. Super Vegetto does not know where this random location is, and won't be able to find it for a short while, especially if she also warps Super Vegetto to another random location. How long would it take for Super Vegetto to scour the entire planet, paying attention to where he's going and what he's seeing? [/b][/color] 1) Again, there is nothing to suggest that anyone on my opponent's team is fast enough to do anything before someone who is fast enough to circumvent the earth dozens of times (in mere seconds) attacks/kills them all. 2) Even if this "warp" tactic succeeded, PRO forgets that Super Vegetto (being half Goku) knows instant transmission and can sense life. Thus, he could easily teleport back to Midna's location. Or heck, he could just destroy the entire planet. [color=blue][b] True. However, Midna has the power to change form. Furthermore, she was able to instantly transform into Ilia without actually ever seeing her, presumably by reading Link's mind. Her list of abilities mentions her psychokinesis. This would allow her to simply turn into Keiko and defeat Yusuke. [/b][/color] It would appear I was mistaken about Midna. Nevertheless, I'm not mistaken in regards to her not being fast enough to pull this trick off. Once again, watch the video I provided in the previous round(specifically: 2:59-3:04) and then keep in mind that Yusuke is demonstrated to have a level of power far beyond that of Super Vegetto (who has a level of power far beyond SS Gotenks). There is nothing to indicate that Midna can even process a thought as fast as either character's level of physical speed. [color=green] [b] Now, Dr. Strange can't cast spells without talking. [/b][/color] 1) PRO has conceded that only the Egyptian god cards would work for the Yugio characters and has provided us with no reason to believe that spell cards/trap cards would work without there already having been a duel a set up. Thus, the argument (Dr. Strange being buried, via spell card)) is null and void. 2) You can watch the video I provided in the previous round and observe how Strange teleports to and from the scene. Now my opponent argues that Strange made an incantation beforehand, but that still wouldn't explained how he teleported AFTER briefly talking to Spider-Man. There was no mention of any incantation, thus it is reasonable to conclude that Dr. Strange doesn't need to speak for ALL of his spells to work. The wiki artcile (a site where ANYONE can contribute to---also a site which is constantly vandalized) is proven false by my clear cut conclusive video evidence. 3) I must once more point out that Dr. Strange is more powerful than Midna in regards to magic as he is even more powerful than Ganondorf. This is someone whose magical powers alone have trounced god level adversaries (Dormamu and Mephisto). Thus, it is highly unlikely that Midna's magic would even work on Dr. Strange, must put him in such a situation. [color=purple] [b] Now, to deal with Zero. He could simply be placed in this random location that I will not disclose, facing away from everybody, with Kaiba right behind him. Kaiba could easily clonk him on the head with a duel disk, knocking him unconscious long enough for Link to slice off his head after dealing with Dr. Strange. [/b] [/color] Again, Dr. Strange can just as easily do anything Midna does . . . and better. [color=orange] [b] Reed Richardson appears a few hundred meters away from everybody else. Yugi can use the Millennium Rod to take control of him, with Dr. Strange already dead and unable to help him. Reed Richardson then is able to use the Ultimate Nullifier to destroy Super Vegetto, wherever he may be. [/b] [/color] See above (concerning Dr. Strange as well as all I've said regarding speed blitzing). [b]Now, what would Super Vegetto find if he managed to locate my team? He'd find the three Egyptian Gods surrounding them, all ready to destroy Super Vegetto. They'd stall him long enough for Reed Richards to use the Ultimate Nullifier.[/b] Considering that none of the Egyptian gods are even strong enough to destroy a planet, much less move as fast as Super Vegetto, it's highly unlikely that the situation would result like this. Not to mention that Super Vegetto could simply teleport to Yugi or Kaiba's location and kill them. With that said, my team's plan is simple. Super Vegetto (who can easily destroy planets or circle the earth dozens of times in mere seconds) kills everyone on my opponent's team before they are even able to utter a thought. Even if PRO's strategy commenced, the plan relies entirely on getting rid of Dr. Strange so that he can't cancel out anything Midna does. However, PRO's reason for getting rid of Dr. Strange is erroneous as not only do spell cards and trap cards not work without there being a duel in place, but Dr. Strange has shown himself able to teleport without an incantation. Finally, I would like to once more point out that Yusuke can annihilate the entire planet easily just be using a small percentage of his power and quite quickly at that. In the end. PRO's team doesn't stand a chance . . . thus I insist that you vote CON. Thanks for the debate. :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with if america switched to a 1$ coin we would save money because first round acceptance only. I argue for coins. SOrry for the lack of specification You argue that bills save money, I argue that if we switch to coins we save money. Deal? You provide definitions, must be valid ones (like dictionary or something like that) but If you wish I will do it next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate because Argument 1: 98% of scholars agree Jesus existed Currently, 98-99% of scholars agree that A man by the name of Christ, who led a group called the christians, was trialed by a man named Pontitus Pilate. Many atheist scholars have been vocal, that they can not respect any educated man who denies Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is just an overwhelming amount of evidence, and some scholars have even went as far as calling mythicists uneducated and ignorant. http://www.newmediaministries.org... http://www.bede.org.uk... Argument 2: We have more evidence of Jesus then..... Julius Caesar. The great general who conquered Gaul, invaded Iberia, established a dictatorship, and defeated Pompey in the Roman Civil War. Books were written about him, hell, he even made some himself. For you to argue that there is not enough evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, then you would have to deny EVERY person that is recorded less then Caesar. Which would be nearly everyone of ancient and medieval history. Argument 3: I have only included a portion of the secular authors. I have honestly only put a portion of the secular authors who recorded Jesus's existence. If I were to put the rest, and all the non-secular authors, I would have went 20 rounds. There is just to much evidence to sanely deny the man. Rebuttals Starting with your sources, Josephus according to your second source for him was alive at approximately 37 AD. However, Jesus was to be born at around scholars estimate from 7 to 2 B.C.E. I figured you would bring this up. Josephus, was in fact, quoting multiple sources in " Testimonium Flavianum" Something he was admired for. Josephus even confirmed John the Baptist, another famous man/prophet who wrote 100's of letters and records of Jesus's existence. Please read the below article regarding Josephus on Jesus: http://www.theistic-evolution.com... This is also the same case for your next source, Tacticus. He is born at around 55 C.E. (A.D. C.E. is a Christian translation of the time A.D.) and thus, he can not be accounted for a witness to the trial. (also, his birth was from the first listed source for him from Pro's argument with Tacticus, a .edu domain..) I am doubting whether or not you actually looked at the actual text. Tacitus was the most respected and generally considered the greatest Roman historian. Almost all Roman scholars agree the passage was genuine, and showed a complete knowledge of the time, and was most likely sourced from the roman achrive, as he was a high official, and had access to every single record that the scribes had ever recorded on Rome. Your next argument is not any better with Julius. He is even older than the other two. According to my opponent's encyclopedia source (Britannica), he was born at around 180 A.D. There is not any chance or way he had access to any reliable account of Jesus. I request Con to relook at the passage I provided for Sextus Julius Africanus, as he has clearly passed over the details. It is Thallus who was eyewitness to Jesus, a secular man who had lived during the crucifixion. http://christianthinktank.com... I would like to remind the audience has actually provided no sources of his own. He has only repasted my sources in a list, even though he did not dispute manyof them, or did he make solid cases regarding which, besides age. Also, if you have a request (pictures), please tell me over pm. I will stop if it bothers you, but it seems like you are attempting a conduct attack. My opponent also likes to use pictures... Really... Big... Pictures.. If he could please not do that, that would be greatly appreciated. Personally, I found it annoying when the picture was bigger than his points. That is just my opinion. He can if he feels it is necessary. I am just asking politely. (Why am I asking him via the debate and not message? So the audience knows in case if they are wondering why the pictures {rum (Pirates of the Caribbean reference)} is gone. This is a direct violation of the rules. I see in no way how attacking christianity is relevant to the debate. He accepted the debate, and I even took the time to clarify the rules for him, but he still decides to do it. He has already forfeited, but I ask the audience to take the rule violation into due consideration, and discredit all arguments made directly related to the post above, as he has been imformed prior. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion - There is more evidence on Jesus then almost any other figure in history. - 98-99% of educated scholars believe in his existence. - 100% of my opponents argument were based on the fact that many of the people were not alive during the crucifixion, but I never had claimed they were. - There are 1000's of other records and authors who have confirmed Jesus existed. - Denying the 98% is no diffirent then denying the 98% who believe in global warming. - My opponent has violated the rules on three different occasions, even after I clarified and confirmed many. - My opponent provides no sources of his own, but has copied my sources, even though I had read through his arguments many times, and many were irrelevant to anything he said. Thank you for debating me Demonlord, and good luck in future debates. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits