text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with Should the U. S. Government fund rehabilitation to illegal drug abusers? because I gladly accept this challenge. Framework: In order to clarify the round, I will provide a few definitions. According to the New American Oxford Dictionary , fund is explained as to " provide with money for a particular purpose ". Therefore, as defined as such, any arguments stemming from the methods that may or may not influence the American population are considered null and void and should not be considered in today's round. Furthermore, we define illegal as " contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law ". Therefore, we must not include substances including tobacco and alcohol in today's round as well. Secondarily, the general intent of a drug rehabilitation is to enable the patient to cease substance abuse, in order to avoid the psychological, legal, financial, social, and physical consequences that can be caused, especially by extreme abuse. Therefore, if the PRO can prove that the intent of the program has been fulfilled, then the PRO must win today's round. Contention 1: The intent of the program is justifiable as addiction and consumption has risen the past few years. An estimated 20.4 million people in the United States used some kind of illicit drug in the past 30 days, according to the latest government statistics. About 8.3 percent of all persons age 12 and over are involved in use of illegal drugs or the non-medical use of prescription drugs. T here are the most commonly abused drugs: Marijuana, by 14.8 million people, or 6 percent. Cocaine, 2.4 million users. Hallucinogens, including Ecstasy, 1 million users. Methamphetamine, about 731,000 users. Prescription drugs, 7 million non-medical users. The simple fact of the matter is that the problem of illicit drug addiction has gone up in recent years to a point where millions of Americans are under the influence daily. This is simply not something the United States government can ignore. Contention 2: Each user of an illicit drug is not always at fault. When we look at the causes for illicit drug usage, we see that it is not always the person's choice to do such. A recent study by the Drugs-Violence Task Force of the National Sentencing Commission explains, reasons range from “to have a good time with my friends”—a social reason, as well as “to get high.” However, those in the heavier user groups increasingly mention psychological coping as the underlying reasons for their use—“to get through the day,” “to relieve boredom,” “to deal with anger and frustration,”. With this, we see that these users of the illicit drugs are influenced by their peers, by psychological reasons, and by the accompanying stress that may appear in their lives. The following factors may even increase your likelihood of having a drug addiction: Family members who have struggled with addiction An abusive or neglectful childhood Mental health issues, including depression The use of drugs at a relatively young age All kinds of people can struggle with addiction regardless of whether or not these risk factors are prevalent in their lives. These illicit drugs act as an outlet for them, however our rehabilitation programs will prove to them that it is not an outlet. Contention 3: Rehabilitation programs ultimately work. Many people like to promote the myth that addictions can be overcome with willpower. Sadly, this is not true. When people use drugs, particularly over stretches of time, their brain changes in response to prolonged exposure to those drugs. Their cravings tend to get stronger, and they may feel compelled to use more of the drugs. This biological reality makes quitting alone very difficult. Thanks to drug addiction programs , there is no reason to go through the recovery process in a vacuum. These programs provide addicts with the support that they need to rehabilitate. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 23.5 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol abuse problem in 2009 (9.3 percent of persons aged 12 or older). Of these, only 2.6 million—11.2 percent of those who needed treatment—received it at a specialty facility. Most all of these patients were able to leave the facility cured. Contention 4: Rehabilitation programs are cost-effective. A new study of 1992 data estimates the economic costs to society of substance abuse at $246 billion for that year, and $276 billion projected for 1995. Alcohol-related lost productivity alone accounted for two-thirds of the total alcohol cost. Drug related crime accounted for over half of the total drug costs. Workplaces take the brunt in lost/poor performance, accidents, and crime. We are losing money from those who use illicit drugs. Decreasing the problem will aid in improving the economy and gaining more funds to actually counter the problem. Additionally, as I explain my framework, the government will not only rely on taxes to fund these programs but may reallocate in order to pay for this increasing problem. We need to do something before it is too late. Therefore, you need to vote for PRO in today's round. --- Thank you, ~ThyAnchor <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions because I did have some fun video's to show my opponent why CAPS for emphasis on words is good for debate. However, I ran out of characters from showing how flawed my opponents position is. My Case CONTENTION 1: ---Can't this ‘encouragement' be fulfilled by a quota? ---Evidence? Anywhere? If you look to my poverty example however, you will see that obviously they do not have a job or a college admission, because, well they are in poverty. Furthermore, if you actually look to his definition, it just says encouragement of increased representation, but does not say that this increase is earned. He and the definition assume they are equal in qualifications, but in the end, there is no way to know this for sure. ---He makes no direct attacks on my actual arguments. At this point, flow through my arguments. Particularly the quota evidence where he claims that I don't know what affirmative action is. But at the point where one of the few evidence quotes in this debate says that affirmative action leads to quotas and that this is absurd, my arguments stand and affirmative action should not be practiced. CONTENTION 2: ---You COMPLETELY miss the point of my 2nd contention. By having legislation like hate crimes, affirmative action, special scholarship programs, etc., we actually recognize that all of us are different. However, we are all Americans with similar goals. Why then do we treat each other with different standards? CONTENTION 3: ---He does not answer my question. "When will the people taken advantage of, by affirmative action, be made up for?" Flow this through. This is unfortunately true. Minorities and women were taken advantage of in the past, but now all that we are doing is reversing this and now we are taking advantage of white males. (Cross-apply this to the Reverse-Discrimination line of arguing) CONTENTION 4: <'do both affirmative action and help the poor.' "Theres no reason why we can't just do both"> ---There is no reason that we SHOULD do both. When you look to Obama, you will see that there is absolutely no built in disadvantage for minorities and women. However, there is a built in disadvantage for people in poverty. And if you accept this resolution, there is a built in disadvantage for white males as well. We should mitigate this and recognize affirmative action as bad for America. His ‘case'… I think DEFINITION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ---In my opponent's last speech, he pulled through the definition of affirmative action. Note the contradictions however: -Affirmative Action defined: "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member" -(Round 1): "All i have to prove is that all colleges should have to do is ensure that minority groups are represented, no matter how small of representation." -(Round 3): "Just read the definition, it just ensures there is representation" ---From this, I can assume that we can drop the idea that affirmative action is simply encouragement, but rather, it actually proactively increases their representation. And by doing so, decreases the representation of non-minorities and males. ---My opponent says time and again that we are racist if we don't use affirmative action. But once again, I have no problem admitting minorities, IF IT IS EARNED (flow this through). I have shown time and again that it is actually racist to be blindly increasing representation of minorities and women just to escape racism and sexism. If you look to the definition, it would fit if there was a (white) student with a 36 ACT score vs. a (minority) student with a 12 ACT score, and we accepted the 12 score above. The definition ONLY calls for an increase, nothing more. Is it fair to have such a blind view of racism? I think not. ---Finally, this does not have to be the final definition used in this debate. Cross apply my very first contention where I say through evidence, "Allowing blacks entrance to a university to fill some quota or to enhance the "racial balance" of a campus is absurd" … what this means is that he talks about increasing minorities and women in college, but fails to see that this could very well be meeting some sort of quota. ---Your definition gives no indication, so even according to your ideas from you last speech, it doesn't matter ‘what you said'. ---Again, what if it is not earned? You give nothing to counter this. Furthermore, I urge you to flow through my Barak Obama analysis that clearly shows that we as a society have overcome the racism barrier. Does it still exist? Yes, but currently, it is only legislated against whites and males. And the racism barrier vice versa from this is minor. ---Furthermore, if a minority or a woman thinks that they have not been accepted based on race or sex, they can still sue, but yet white males can not because of affirmative action (see why new arguments in your last speech is bad? But as you say, "debate and shut up") ---But even as you admit, they are not the only ones. Furthermore, several minorities are richer than white people. Not just people like Oprah, but even just the race of Asian. Certainly this has presumptuous ideals, but so does Affirmative Action. WHY do we have to give special legislative rights to people because the pigmentation of their skin is different than mine? It is just something that we should NOT practice. ---Um… no? First of all, there is absolutely no proof to back up this point. But more importantly, look to the special scholarship programs that can be targeted at minorities. But guess what? There are absolutely NO scholarship programs that only white people can obtain. My options for colleges were extremely few and far between because I could not afford to get into the places that I actually wanted to go to. Yet minorities obtain these special scholarships all the time. In a time where our president is black, we no longer need this special legislation. ---No… RICH people have a better chance of having higher grades. This is exactly why we should target people in poverty, not people with different colors of skin. If you are a minority in poverty, then you will get this special treatment. But it would be unjust to say that a white person with the exact same disadvantage gets no special treatment whatsoever. ---A) What if this increased is not earned? Cross-apply my ACT example. ---B) It is a pure assumption that we are still in a racist world that desires this special treatment. Does racism exist? Yes. Does it mean that we have to go out of our way to become REVERSE-discriminatory? No. Why is it, that we can elect a black president ---As you say, "debate and shut up"… Besides, you've provided absolutely NO evidence this entire debate. Except perhaps a definition. In the end, we should either: A) No one should get special treatment and we should strictly work off of an equal opportunity, or B) If we are to give special treatment, it should be given to people in poverty. Either way, affirmative action should NOT be practiced in college admissions. Even though I don't like how you constantly made fun of me for the stupidest reasons. And your grammar is terrible. I still enjoyed this deba <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with A windfall tax should be levied upon publicly-financed investment banks because Everybody agrees that it is good news that a number of the investment banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer have now recovered from their positions of imminent bankruptcy and have recently reported massive profits. (1) The bad news is that they haven't learned from their mistakes. When these banks were on their knees begging the governments of UK and America to rescue them from the financial mire they had created for themselves through their collective greed and incompetence, they promised to mend their ways and no longer chase quick profits in order to pay themselves monstrously vulgar and obscenely lavish annual bonuses. So, the governments of these countries, perhaps naively, accepted that the investment banker's word was their bond and spent trillions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on re-financing the failed banks. Furthermore, they agreed to defer the introduction of any new regulations designed to prevent the future pursuits of misguided short-term investment schemes and excessive remuneration packages. (2) But, of course, while thousands of formerly profitable businesses have gone belly up and unemployment continues to soar and hundreds of thousands of decent, honest families' houses have been repossessed, the duplicitous spivs in the City and on Wall Street are once again gorging on fois gras and caviar canap�s and quaffing magnums of vintage champagne in London and New York's swankiest hotels and restaurants. What they are, in effect, doing is giving the finger the taxpayer and saying: "We've had your cash and we are now spending the proceeds of your investment on Ferraris and helicopters and mega-yachts while you, on the other hand, are living in relative poverty as the result of our profligacy and greed. What's that? You don't like it? Tough - there is nothing you can do about it because even if we do our brains again and cause another recession as a result, we know that the government considers us too big to fail and they will bail us out again. In other words, no matter what hardships scum like you have to suffer as the result of our grasping ineptitude - greedy, imprudent bankers like us will still get our feckin' bit, don't you worry about that. Now get out of my way you dreary little proles." So, isn't it time that we stood up to these bandits in bespoke business suits and forced the banks to repay their governments' generosity and trust in them by implementing a windfall tax (of 50%, applied retrospectively over 5 years) on their profits? This would enable society as a whole to benefit from the lower taxes and the higher investment in public services that this extra income would thus allow and disincentivize bankers to prioritise their own short-term personal greed over the long-term security of the banks, and by extension, therefore, the wider economy. Thank you. (1) http://money.cnn.com... (2) http://www.bloomberg.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school because Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments: 1. Cheating My opponent says that teachers can ban cell phones during tests. This is only possible if students are not allowed to use the tools on their cell phone. If students don't have another calculator other than their phone, how can teachers ban cell phones during tests? My opponent essentially agrees that it's necessary for students to purchase tools other than their phones, like dictionaries and calculators, if they want to use these during quizzes or tests. In addition, if my opponent agrees that teachers have the authority to ban cell phone use in their classrooms, how does this constitute cell phone use being "allowed" in schools. 90% of a student's day is spent inside a classroom. 2. Distraction My opponent says that students will "get their fill" while texting outside of class. My own experience denies this. When I was in high school, students would routinely get caught texting each other during class. While some "good students" would rather pay attention than miss a lesson, many "bad students" find class time boring and would rather socialize using their cell phones. Students who choose to text during class would be constantly distracted; they could also "corrupt" students who are trying to pay attention by texting them and trying to distract them with a conversation. This is particularly important for elementary school students, when most students still have the potential to learn skills and habits that will make them good students later in life. Younger children have much shorter attentions spans and would be even more prone to distraction by being allowed to use cell phones during class. If they are allowed to use cell phones at a young age, they will learn bad habits and be more prone to partial attention disorder later in life. 3. Safety My opponent says people could just fight outside school. My responses: 1) Students are less likely to fight outside school because fights are usually caused by heightened emotions as a result of close and forced proximity to someone who you don't like. Students are not forced to associate with people they don't like when they're outside of school; thus, fight are less likely to spontaneously occur. 2) Who cares? The cell phone ban policies are not designed to stop all fights. Cell phone bans in these schools are designed to protect the safety of other schoolchildren and the safety of school administrators who have to break up the fights. If a bunch of kids want to meet outside school property to fight, that's between them and the police. Tools: Encyclopedias The only free online encyclopedia is Wikipedia, and I don't think students should be citing this particular source for school projects. Voice recorders: Digital voice recorders are relatively inexpensive. A Sony model only costs $30. [1] Just like you have to buy a calculator if you want to use it in school (since you can't use your cell phone), you also need to buy a voice recorder if you want to record lectures. If you can afford a smart phone that is capable of recording a 45-minute lecture (has enough hard drive space), then you can afford a $30 digital voice recorder. Replacement: Laptops could also be allowed in schools where there is no internet access. Laptops would allow students to access tools, like encyclopedia programs, and digitally record their teacher's lectures, without the harms of distraction (since there is no internet access) and without the safety risks. Other need for cell phones: My opponent claims that students need cell phones to call their friends when they are sick. They can call their friends before or after school to socialize and ask what they missed in class. She also says that parents need to contact kids to remind them about doctors' appointments. Either a) the doctor's appointment is after school, in which case cell phone use is allowed or b) it is during school, in which case the parent must arrange beforehand with both the child and the school for an "excused absence." Parents, as adults, should be responsible enough to remind their kids before school that they need to pick them up early for a doctor's appointment. The courts have also agreed with me that cell phone bans are legitimate. [2] Since cell phones are a MAJOR distraction and can jeopardize a school's safety, I strongly urge a negation of the resolution. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Alcoholics Anonymous is NOT a cult because I have no problem using the definitions. However, I would like my opponent to look closely at the article. "Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a "cult scale" or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool."(1) Clearly the article states that although these are usually defined in dangerous cults, this is not the only criteria that should be considered when determining if someone is in a cult or not. As i have stated before, I believe there are many benign, simple, peaceful religions, that many would categorize as cults. The Raelian church was a great example. However, these are still cults nonetheless and fall under the general definition. "I am not arguing whether AA can be viewed as religious to some. People choose their own conception of a Higher Power. Even atheist and agnostics can find a definition that works for them." Really. And what sort of "Higher power" could an atheist call upon, to which they are helpless against? "The Agnostic AA meetings have their own preamble, which is:" The agnostic AA meetings are different and separate than the AA meetings. The 12 steps, the core of the AA system, is completely void from the Agnostic AA system. One could call it a different "Sect" if you will. Again, none of what you have brought deny the fact that the "Higher power" is assumed to be God, nor the fact that any other religious organization that has been deemed a cult by one person or another, does not practice the same things. Rebuttal 1. "Besides, the practices of the 12 Steps are not mandatory. Again, the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. No one makes anyone do the 12 Steps." Again, no. When i am a christian, i do not have to attend church every sunday. It is not mandatory that i do so. Rebuttal 2. Again, there is nothing within the sects of christianity, for example, that force its members not to question their beliefs. In fact, Mother Teresa was famous for having doubts about her beliefs as well(2). Rebuttal 3. Although i do not consider the Agnostic AA groups, to be the same as the AA groups, Chanting is still apart of the AA group meetings. And furthermore, again, the checklist is a specific criterion for identifying dangerous cult activities. The actual definition of what a Cult is, still allows for the AA group to go under a heading of a "Cult". Rebuttal 4. Again, a warning sign for dangerous cult activities. Congratulations, AA does not have a cult leader. Although this is not a must, for something to be a dangerous cult, it is also not a must for being a cult in general, either. Rebuttal 5. As i have stated before(3), the original manuscript of the 12 steps, contain the word "God", blatantly, by the person who founded the organization in the first place. ", but I do not believe that my answer or your question is relevant to the debate, since it has nothing to do with the definition/criteria of a cult." Actually, it does. A cult is defined as "reverence and homage to divine beings". Clearly, a higher power, that is assumed to be God, is an extremely important criteria for determining if an organization is a cult. So i ask the question again. What is the first thing that comes into your, or anyones mind, when the word "Higher power" is mentioned? "There are such conceptions as ‘Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind, or Spirit of Nature, God, and so much more." And i would consider all those to be religious. Rebuttal 8. Since my opponent agrees with me, i suppose this is a concluded point. Rebuttal 11. "Since members are not preoccupied with recruiting new members, they surely do not meet the criteria of a cult, thus AA is not a cult." Are you saying that AA is not actively seeking to help other people, via advertisement or any other public forum? In conclusion, the thorns of the rose are in the article itself. Nowhere in the original article does it state that these are the only criterions for determining if a religious organization or any organization, is a cult. Only that these are hints, and that these point to whether or not an organization could be a DANGEROUS cult. And this is the point i was trying to make. None of these criterions need not apply, for an organization to be a cult. Although my opponent was quick to avoid answering the question of "What is the first thing that comes to mind when the word "Higher power" is mentioned", possibly because he knows the answer already, my only conclusion as to why my opponent refuses to answer this question is because he knows he will have to admit that the "Higher power" is pointing to a God, thus, making AA a religious, and a cult-like group. Source: 1. http://www.csj.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.aa.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because 11. I don't quite understand what your asking. I don't know if you mean in regard to the parameters of the debate, or the matching of skill level etc. I will answer it to the best of my ability, though. In regard to parameters : yes In regard to skill set: Sometimes it cannot be helped if one debater is better than the other 12. I feel as though sometimes, during a debate, one person takes something the other one said personally, when sometimes, the debater did not intend it in a personal manner. 13. Again I feel as if this is rather vague. You can argue your position from any point you want to argue it as long as it is relevant to the rules, and the topic. 14. Yes. 15. Yes. 16. Yes. 17. I mean, people do it, if someone suddenly starts agreeing with their opponent in the middle of a debate, that's their stupidity. 18. I don't know much about the likes and and dislikes of Kim Jung Il though, I have heard that he enjoys golf, I enjoy golf as well. So I guess I agree with something Kim Jung Il likes. 19. Depends on the type of debate. Formal debate, like LD, PF, etc., yes. 20. Definitive answers to what? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed because "Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason." Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. "With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. "Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? "Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence." I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Do we tend to accept the opinions of others instead of developing our own independent ideas? because As Instigator and Pro, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution. If I can refute my opponent, I have negated the resolution. I contend that we can accept opinions and still develop our own independent ideas . For example, if someone says, "That blond girl is hot," I can accept that opinion but make my own, independent idea about the girl. If I didn't like blonds, I would still accept his opinion but make my own independent choice to find her unattractive. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Peta because ///that is all i need to prove my point/// You didn't make a point. So I guess we move on to round two with my advocating that PETA be allowed to exist. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Austerity is a poor way to help an economy. because You underestimate earnings of the poor. Most of the earnings of the poor have come from their labor, not transfer payments. Absolutely, but the poor rely on a greater number of subsidies to survive. I never meant to suggest that all or even most of lower-income money came from transfer payments, only that these are the people who are hurt when these things diminish. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is thus the total income earned by a society. Therefore, we should be focusing on how to improve productivity of a society to increase real incomes (output). Increasing marginal productivity will thus improve the incomes and therefore wealth of society. Here in many ways, is the crux of the whole discussion. Using small numbers, if you take ten people, 9 of whom are scraping by on 40,000 a year and 1 of whom makes 40 million, you get to say, "Oh look! Our GDP is 40,000,040,000! We"re winning! If you redistribute income amongst the same ten people so that one is making 20 million and the rest make varying multi-millions, yet the overall total is more like 38 million, the new GDP may be lower, but you"d be hard-pressed to argue that just because of this all the people are suffering more as a result. But that"s a huge and separate argument. For the purposes of this debate, my point is only that GDP is a false metric for the success of a system. The redistribution payments of the type we are talking about usually subsidize the incomes of the poor at the expense of the rich, the latter whom save and invest more of their income, because they have a "higher propensity to save". It"s surprisingly easy to save when you already have enough to live on and some left over, isn"t it? The problem here is a confusion of correlation and cause. Richer individuals and countries DO tend to have greater savings, but the savings are not the cause for their wealth; rather because they have abundance in productivity or income they are able to save, not the other way around. In fact hording larger and larger stockpiles of keep that money out of circulation, and with no circulation, economic stagnation sets in. The federal government pays for its programs through taxation, printing money (inflation), or borrowing (debt). Borrowing puts money in government's hands and ensures that the same money is not available for private investment. Thus investment capital is taken from the private sector to be put in the hands of government. This "crowding out" of private investment and the enlargening of the generally less efficient government thus destroys capital that could be productively put to use (business expansion for example). [4] The misconception in this perspective is rooted in the assumptions about what gets done with money otherwise. If businesses were always constantly re-investing and expanding and hiring, everything you say above would be completely true. The problem is that this is not what businesses typically do. In our current recession for example, more and more money is being pocketed as profit (itself a representation of inefficiency that isn't ending up back in the business or back into the economy as a whole) and not going into hiring or opening more domestic factories or anything else beneficial. In other words, if it's a question of taxation-stimulus-cash flow-recovery VS. Tax cuts-cash flow-recovery the latter option, lasses-faire private-sector wins out. But that isn't the reality of the situation. It is tax cuts-profit-hoarding-outsourcing with no recovery in sight. The bottom line is that Austerity does nothing to encourage or coerce businesses to do anything to hire more people or invest back in the country more in the form of infrastructure or manufacturing. Yes, in theory it gives them the option, but our economic policies have only bent over backwards to give them that option for decades and the end result has not been economic improvement. People would instead expect services such as transportation from the private sector. And as stated earlier, capital accumulation, a result of savings (which occurs when gov't stops borrowing funds) will lead to higher incomes. My above argument covers this as well. Businesses don't invest in infrastructure without short-term gain reasoning. Building or improving a road is something that WILL pay off for a company, but not in the short-term. Beholden to their stockholders who depend on reports of improvement with literally every quarter, the private sector is in no place to do anything that doesn't enhance share value within the next six months. Some things simply take longer than that. Take the depression. Conservatives frequently like to argue that New Deal policies did nothing to help the country get out of the Great Depression and that it was all World War II and the private sector that made recovery possible. But they leave out an important factor: Those businesses would have been in NO position to adroitly and rapidly manufacture tanks and planes and bombs without roads to move them on. That army would not have been in a position to contribute the manpower we did if the previous generation they recruited from had nothing to eat. And those businesses would not have had unadulterated access to foreign markets in post-war reconstruction without a government capable of stepping in and making these things possible. Long-term improvements pay off in the long term and lend greater prosperity. Short-sighted profit-seeking, while amazingly good for a very small handful of individuals who get to reap those profits, is not actually a sustainable model on which to base a national economy. If the government decides to borrow $100 billion from the nation's economy, it is taking out cash wealth and putting it back elsewhere, after administrative costs. It is like a leaky bucket and a pool. A bucket of water is taken out at one end, and poured at the other end of the pool. There is no net growth. You cannot grow an economy this way. If you take $100 billion from the private sector (debt borrowing) and spend it on say stimulus packages, and in the hypothetical scenario that the private sector gains say $90 billion after administrative costs are factored in --- there is no economic benefit. You're leaving out long-term gains. If only 90-billion comes back in the short term, but leads to a gain of 50-billion in the long term, the economy over all has in fact seen great benefit. You can only arrive at the conclusion that the money is wasted if you don't look at the long term. In closing, I would respectfully ask that my opponent address my opening examples. Right now, I feel as though I've given two real-world examples of where the opposite of what my opponent says should happen has happened, and CON has completely ignored these examples. It reminds me of the old Reagan joke (yes, levied against my way of thinking I'll grant) "An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory" Iceland works in practice on my ideas. Greece is failing in practice on my opponent's. All CON has done is discuss theory about what *should* happen, not what does. I look forward to your response. (My time is shorter than I'd like, I will try to do more sourcing in my conclusion) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places because If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.... . http://www.nytimes.com... If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue. part 2.... My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks. Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Word "Omnipotent" Can Be Shown To Be Oxymoronic because Well, since DAT is either incapable or unwilling of responding to my arguments, I'll just outline the two points that give me the easy win. 1) The contradictions arising around omnipotence have nothing to do with the term. Using the example of the rock too heavy for God to life, the contradiction that arises which my opponent takes to be oxymoronic is NOT something wrong with the terminology, but rather is contained in the logicality of what the two notions ARE. For example, given that "All rocks are green" is true, it cannot be the case that there exists a brown rock, because we have already assumed "all rocks are green" is true, and to entertain the notion of a brown rock negates what we have already taken to be true. Likewise, if we are given that "God is omnipotent" and assume it is true, then it cannot be the case that there exists a rock too heavy for him to lift. It's very simple really. 2) Omnipotent cannot be oxymoronic without a contrast. The fact of the matter is that without a contrast like "deafening silence" or "mournful optimist," the term omnipotent cannot be an oxymoron because it does not contain two opposite statements. To be an oxymoron, my opponent must show an implicit opposition in "all powerful" or "universal authority." ************************************************************************* Throughout the debate, my opponent has relied on the reader misunderstanding my argument instead of making one of his own. Readers, my argument is crystal clear. The problem with omnipotence is with the introduction of logically incoherent propositions like "square circles," "four-sided triangles," or "rocks so heavy God cannot lift" - NOT with the term "omnipotent." I'd await a rebuttal, but we all know my opponent is both unwilling and incapable of delivering one. He's more interested in trying to secure some kind of theological mystery, even if he has to deliberately misuse language to do so. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Black Rednecks and White Liberals because As you can see from the comment section, I would have posted my Round 2 argument on time had there not been a glitch on the site (it momentarily allowed me to post comments but not arguments). Regardless of whether or not you would like to hold this againt me, I'd like to point out that my opponent also forfeited his final round, thus the elimination of these 2 rounds should not be held against either one of us - we are now debating on equal playing field. With that said, let us conclude this debate. Clearly my opponent and I agree on a lot of the issues. We are both against Affirmative Action, and we believe in many of the same principles in terms of education/work ideology. I'm assuming that while posting this debate, Pro had intended to debate someone (probably a white liberal) who supported AA and "leveling the playing field" amongst blacks and whites in America. However the differentiation between our positions is this: Pro agrees with Sowell that White Liberals and Black Rednecks are to blame for society's current perception on race relations; I believe that it is solely the fault of Black Rednecks (possibly Black America in general) - NOT white liberals. Throughout United States history there has been an unfortunate abundance of racism, especially pre-Civil Rights Movement. Those who opposed the racist practices within our society - white liberals - attempted to step up and support the black community in some of their endeavors. They wanted to show them and the world that they did not agree with current politics. My opponent discusses an example: "Many people within black America have been sold on the notion that it is liberal America that has their best interests in mind ... where liberal America has stood with racist ideologues like the Black Panther Party" Okay. First, the organization was called the BLACK Panthers - not the Black and White Liberal Panthers. Second, at its inception, the BP was an organization that was established to promote civil rights and self defense (protection from racist police brutality). However, over time the objectives and philosophy of the party shifted to include more political goals. The Party's leaders were passionate socialists, and though membership was exclusive to black individuals only, the organization "instituted a variety of community programs to alleviate poverty and improve health among communities deemed most needful of aid" as cited on Wikipedia. So here's what I'm seeing. Black individuals created a group that opposed racist police brutality, white liberals supported that notion, and somehow that makes them responsible for negative race relations today? Bull. The BP was part of the counterculture of the 1960s and developed socialist ideals very similar to the hippy population at the time. They wanted the same peace and equality that white liberals stood for (remember many white protesters were beaten and thrown in jail too). To blame white liberal support of the BP movement in terms of today's racism is a fallacy. Besides, the BP ultimately agreed with my opponent and I that black nationalism = black racism. So... I just feel that white people can't win in today's very PC society. If we don't help, we're racist, and if we accomodate black America, we're holding them down. I understand where the author Sowell is coming from (I have a pretty good idea of what he's trying to get across thanks to Pro's discussion) but like I said - it's nothing new. This is what Republicans have been saying all along. My point is that this should be a fight within the black community itself and white people... liberals, conservatives, whatever... should just stay out of it. We're going to get a guilt trip regardless of what we do. I feel that the black community has failed itself. Like Pro noted, Martin Luther King had the right idea when he promoted discipline, hard work, education, and peaceful protest. Once the community rejected that ideology for that of Malcolm X, their progress towards equality went downhill. My point is that white liberals supported MLK -- they were caucasians who wanted to see equality and change. Many white liberals (such as myself) still stand for these same beliefs. Those who are silly enough to buy into things like Affirmative Action do so, I believe, through brainwashing and intimidation from the black community. You've got these far-left morons like Sharpton telling the world that we owe something to the black community. In reality, the black community owes something to itself. Let's take a brief look at an example from American History. After the Housing act of 1937, public housing apartments were erected all over the country, including on Chicago's North Side. Many poor Italian families resided in what was known as the Cabrini-Green complex. In the 1940s and 50s, an abundance of poor blacks, mainly from the south (black rednecks) swarmed Chicago to the point where they had to build a lot more housing to accomodate the poor minority. Ultimately, the black popularion in Chicago skyrocketed from 278,000 to over 800,000 in just a few short years. The result was African Americans essentially "taking over" the housing projects in the city. But what about the all-white families that had lived in these complexes before the mass arrival of poor blacks? Well they found a way to utilize the government's assistance to the point where they were able to get back on their feet and live independently. Meanwhile, those projects have been dominated by blacks for the past 50+ years. Rather than place unfair blame on the white liberals who support certain helpful policies, we should be recognizing that the black community has failed miserably at overcoming the struggle by using the liberal politics to their advantage. In other words, Affirmative Action in its truest form may not have been a bad idea. However, this policy is ineffective because the minorities it is intended to help do not take advantage of it. Thus, the problem is not in the liberal politics promoted by white liberals. The problem lies in the mindset of an oppressed community who feels that there is no way out. This in no way is the fault of those trying to help. This is the fault of those who are unaware of the possibilities, or too scared/lazy to utilize what's out there. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against animal Rights because I willallow my opponent to post his first argument before, I begin. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Vaccines should not be mandatory. because I would like to preface my argument by pointing out that the currently mandated vaccines have opt out clauses for those with religious objections or other conscientious reasons. Beyond that it's imperative for herd immunity among other variables that the majority of people be vaccinated and thus should be mandated First, What is herd immunity? the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination. Why is this important? according to vaccines.gov Germs can travel quickly through a community and make a lot of people sick. If enough people get sick, it can lead to an outbreak. But when enough people are vaccinated against a certain disease, the germs can"t travel as easily from person to person " and the entire community is less likely to get the disease. That means even people who can"t get vaccinated will have some protection from getting sick. And if a person does get sick, there"s less chance of an outbreak because it"s harder for the disease to spread. Eventually, the disease becomes rare " and sometimes, it"s wiped out altogether. Who does community immunity protect? Community immunity protects everyone. But it"s especially important because some people can"t get vaccinated for certain diseases " such as people with some serious allergies and those with weakened or failing immune systems (like people who have cancer, HIV/AIDS, type 1 diabetes, or other health conditions). Community immunity is also important for the very small group of people who don"t have a strong immune response from vaccines. Essentially, when the vast majority of people are immune to a disease, it protects those of us who can't get vaccinated. Now to address my opponent's points. He claimed that it's a waste of time and money, However, both of these are not priority issues. saving the few minutes it takes to get vaccinated cannot hold up to saving lives with herd immunity. the same can be said for saving a paltry sum of money. This is a not a priority issue at best and selfish at worst. Protect our communities, save lives. vote con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Yo mama joke off because LOL LOL A worthy foe!!:] yo mama so fat that when she went on a plane, it went DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because Mini-IVF, which is a new and dramatically lower cost option but with comparable results. Mini-IVF chooses only a few high quality eggs, reducing the number of injections, cost of medication, and avoiding hyper stimulation; also, mini-IVF has achieved high quality embryos and lead to pregnancies rather than conventional IVF. Along with taking the hormone, Clomid, not only 5 days but until the follicles show they are ready for ovulation increases a lower number of eggs that are still better quality(Silber, Sherman J. "Mini-IVF- The Infertility Center of St Louis." The Infertility Center of St Louis. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.). Since IVF uses better quality embryos it therefore doesn't need as many transferred, which decreases the chance of multiple pregnancy. Lastly, Mini-IVF is able to freeze the embryos with impunity which doesn't harm them and can transfer them later in the cycle when the uterus lining is more synchronized to the stage of embryo development than during a stimulated cycle which decrease the risk of Ectopic Pregnancy (Silber, Sherman J. "Mini-IVF- The Infertility Center of St Louis." The Infertility of St Louis. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable. because Thanks to my friend Royal for accepting. Framework We have to view the resolution from a realistic viewpoint--we live in a world of aggressive nation-states, and no wrangling about the word desirable is going to change that fact. The only issue is the real-world effects of US hegemony. My opponent will try to bring up many examples of vile or destructive things the US has done, but unless she offer some explanatory analysis on how some real-world alternative would be superior, she loses the debate. I. A change in polarity would be destructive. Multipolarity is the situation in which multiple states have nearly equal power/influence and no nation has hegemony; historical examples of this would be the Pre-WWI and Pre-WWII worlds. Currently the world is in a state of unipolarity after the collapse of the USSR with the US being the undisputed hegemon, no nation even nearing it in military spending/power or cultural influence[1][2][3], the US spending nearly 5 times more than the closest nation (China) and having a much larger GDP than everyone else. Thus, the collapse of US leaves a power vacuum, as Niall Ferguson explains[4]: "If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world—and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age." This evidence shows that without US hegemony and no one to fill in the vacuum, the world collapses into a polar nightmare--with no nation to promote its interests by ensuring regional stability, the entire world order falls apart. Indeed, the use of force by the US is often enough to quickly crush regional conflicts, the Persian Gulf war being a typical example, and we can see empirically that periods of bipolarity (such as the proxy conflicts defining the cold war) or multipolarity (like pre-WWI) are more prone to warfare, and the conflicts are of a much more elevated nature compared to periods of unipolarity (like that status quo, or Post-Napoleon to pre-WWI). Thus in the world of nation states, the empirical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that having a hegemon is desirable. Moreover, in the volatile and dangerously equipped world of today, a breakdown of the Pax-Americana would be devastating. As Alexi Arbotav[5] explains: "A multipolar world...is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly." Instability and warfare are the natural results of the breakdown of the national hierarchy. Further, there is simply no nation capable of taking the place of the United States, and thus the world would collapse into multipolarity with various great powers grappling for regional influence. Surely the uncountable dead from the World Wars, the warring states period, and the Napoleonic wars tell us that these situations are bad, and the widespread possession of nuclear weapons (especially among two of the most likely to attempt to succeed the US, China and Russia) could easily lead mankind into a nuclear holocaust. At the very least, regional conflicts will intensify--how could they do anything else? With the sudden disappearance of the US other aggressive states would seize upon their chance to gain regional hegemony and secure their interests, and warfare would ensue. To name just two examples, the collapse of US heg. would likely cause a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran[6], and without US support much of the Arab world would attack Israel, who's well trained and equipped military would be able to resist (or win) for quite some time, causing perpetual warfare in the already violent region.It has been established that a global hegemon is necessary, and that there is no country other than the US capable of taking on such a role, so you can already affirm without looking at specific US policies. To negate is to cause perpetual war and death. I already anticipate my opponent making some critiques on the status quo or the concept of the nation-state itself, but understand that until she gives an alternative that has a legitimate chance of being implemented, we stick to the status quo. II. US policies are beneficial. A. Democracy and Egalitarianism The US has been, particuraly compared to other historical examples, a benevolent power on the world stage. While there is no doubt that the US intervenes for interests other than democracy promotion, the US has a rich tradition of overthrowing dictatorships and replacing them with democracies whenever feasible (from Germany to Iraq). Moreover, the US has not ever committed genocide against weaker people during its tenure as the hegemon (compare this to other great powers which have committed genocides against their own peoples[7][8]). Much of this can be explained by the multicultural nature of the US, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman[9] writes about American culture: "This egalitarian tendency to mingle with and accept, admire, and even love another culture is an American strong-point. Because of it America was able to turn occupied Germany and Japan from defeated enemies to friends and allies." Unlike previous hegemons who ruthlessly exploited everyone else for strategic and economic advantage, the US does these things minimalistically, and when it does its policies often benefit the other country. The unique egalitarianism and multicultural state of the US prevents most Americans from looking on other nations as countries full of subhuman animals, allowing the US to transform devastated oppressive states into economic power-houses. No doubt the US is imperfect and has performed many inexcusable actions, but over all it benefits the world.Indeed, simple glances at East vs. West Germany, North vs. South Korea, or British India to Latin America provide compelling cases by themselves for US hegemony over that of other nations. B. Free Trade and peace The US has taken steps to encourage free trade. Franz-Gady explains[10]:"...the United States has been seen as a champion of free trade. In part due to its industrial supremacy and the onset of the Cold War, the U.S. government was one of the most consistent proponents of reduced tariff barriers and free trade in the last sixty years and helped to establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later, the World Trade Organization." Gady goes on to explain that free trade maximized the encouragement of peace due to larger economic interests between nations. For example, due to trade China would not want to destroy the US because doing so would ruin their foreign exchange reserves and a critical export market, and the US would not want China to collapse because then it would lose its comparative advantage and be forced to produce other goods here. Moreover, free trade is good because it allows for maximum economic exchange and hence wealth creation between countries, raising the standard of living everywhere. I seriously doubt my opponent will question the economic value of free trade given that protectionism, in the words of Murray Rothbard, is simply "dangerous nonsense". The resolution is clearly affirmed. Due to the fact that the world is, and will continue to be composed of nation states with different interests, a global hegemon is needed to keep global stability, and the US is the only nation capable of providing this. Even nonwithstanding the fact that US policies are generally benevolent, you affirm given the devastating effects of multipolarity. I greatly anticipate my opponents round. Sources: http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because "And it's just that. An opinion." Isnt this whole debate a matter of opinion? "The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e" I just about fell off my chair when I read this I was laughing that hard, I cant even make a statement about it. I even had to tell my husband! He said, "oh I guess you had to be there" "The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion." So neither of us can factually proove or disprove that your program would decrease crime rates due to these specific urges. In closing, my opponent failed to fully prove that the population would benefit from his proposed program. Quite the opposite in fact, Pro stated that funding would come out of our own taxes, as if our money doesnt go to enough rediculous causes already. The idea that Pro is defending would also do harm to our environment due to Pro's proposed plan of incenerating the used bodies. My opponent also neglected to answer my question of what would happen if a rapist, or murderer said that they wanted fairness and a chance to legally fulfill their urges as well. People should not be able to donate their bodies to this cause as it would inevitably do much more harm than good. Ill be at your BBQ, but Ill bring my own burgers, made from COWS! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing because I would like to thank my opponent for their round. I will begin by addressing concerns brought up by my opponent, then re-affirming my position. === Con's Case === 1) Protecting other businesses Con makes the case that we ought to protect the businesses that are currently selling autograph merchandise. To this, I say "why?" Those "businesses" did not produce the product, nor create the value behind the product. Absolutely all of the value of that merchandise is created by the athletes themselves. Since they created that value, they are the rightful holders of the value and ought to have the right to sell. The businesses do not create value and are, in effect, stealing that value from the students. Now, that just goes over the ethical reason for protecting those businesses. Let us now look to the practical side of the equation. Will students really corner the market? No, just like with pro NFL stars, they do not do the signings and sell the merchandise directly to the final consumer themselves. They do not have the business infrastructure, knowledge, nor time to do all that (it would require a sales team to process orders, a shipping and packaging team, accounting, and all aspects of business). They sell bulk merchandise to distributers for a flat rate or commision and the distributers then sell to the customers (they might add another line of middlemen). This is how most other businesses all around the world work. You rarely purchase anything directly from the manufaturer. It comes from a privately owned distributer or retailer. There is no reason to believe that college athletes would not do the same thing. After all, if they dedicate too much time to trying to micro manage those sales, they have less time to prepare for games and their performance will suffer. 2) Pretecting poorer schools Con suggested that poorer schools would not be able to afford to pay students. This is, of course, not an issue, since my suggested system has nothing to do with schools paying students. However, even if that was allowed, with the $60,000 a year cap, most moderate sized schools could afford to pay their entire starting line up that rate (remember, there are some coaches making over $5 million a year [1]). What we would see would actually be the opposite. This would be better for the smaller schools as skilled players could go to smaller schools where they could be a starter all four years (rather than just their last 1 or 2) and do really well (by not playing as tough of opponents). While they may not get the national attention, they will still get a significant local fan base that can support their merchandise. This will drive more skilled players to those smaller school so that they can get more local attention and thus balance out the schools more. === Pro's Case === My case still stands that the limitations on income will prevent the wealth and ego from going to their heads. My opponent also admits with their argument that it some form of payment is better then maintaining the status quo. So the status quo should be changed (that alone affirms the resolution) and nothing really challenges my case. Thank you, [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga because *sigh* Forfeits killed my father and raped my mother you know. :( <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Linux is better than Windows because Linux has several advantages. It is more secure, offers more choice, and is open source. It is more secure because it is UNIX-based. UNIX was designed with multiuser security in mind. Linux also offers more choice. For example, see the numerous desktop environments and distributions. The fact it is open source allows for further customization. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format) because It seems my opponent had a tough time following directions. "No rules, no debate. Sorry Charlie." Since there are, and were rules throughout that I FOLLOWED and YOU DIDN'T, I'm not to sorry at all. Looks like you can navigate through a website as well as you can refute an argument. Here are the EXACT LINKS TO THE RULES AND HOW TO LEARN. Read this: http://www.nflonline.org... OR THIS: http://www.nflonline.org... or contact a local NFL representative. Judges, here are the reasons you vote affirmative, AGAIN. 1) ALL affirmative arguments stand 2) Opponent presents NO ARGUMENTS (Neg Constructive and Aff rebuttal alike) 3) ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT SPEECH IS PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION (see the rules if you are confused) 4) This is an LD round. My opponent agreed to debate in LD format the moment he clicked the "Accept challenge" button, and he has not done this 5) My opponents responses (if you make the exaggeration of calling them that,) are not signposted or organized at all, which makes it impossible for me to respond to, and you (the judge) to flow. 6) My opponent has not followed the rules, but accused me of not doing so myself when the opposite is present. Thank you all for reading, and a little advice for my opponent: Don't accept ANY more LD debate topics. At least untill you read the many links I have given you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against This is not a debate. because " I mean, they LITERALLY look like little beasties." No they dont they're cool!!!!!! " They have too many legs" No trust me, having 8 legs rules. " and they're all hairy and gross." I disagree. " I had a dream when I was little that there was this tarantula, and it started out with 8 legs, but as time went by the amount of legs it had doubled, until there was nothing but a tangled mass of hairy legs. Ever since then, I acquired a hatred for tarantulas and just spiders in general." You're making tht up. "By the way, how did you come up with your username? What does "thett3" mean?" It's based off something I called myself when I was a small child. "Oh yea, I forgot about that interaction we were having that isn't a debate." Is so!! "I agree with everything my opponent said" I said earlier (R1): "This is indeed a debate. " So vote Con. ". My opponent is an astoundingly intelligent woman" I'm not a woman! I'm a guy!! I have disputed everything my Opponent has said.This is a debate. More evidence: " chesslvr is debating thett3: This is not a debate. 58 minutes ago" " chesslvr wants to debate the following topic: This is not a debate. 1 hour ago" " chesslvr's Debates" " 1 Debate" http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize because I will start by rebuffing my contentions then move to continue my rebuttal of my opponents. [A] So because other people take tests that makes it right? What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. We are talking about children here not adults. Is it really fair to put so much aexitity on them at such a young age? I'm not arguing for having NO test whatsoever; just not 1 high stake test that could change the entire outcome of someone's life. "A 2006 U.S. Department of Education-funded study conducted by the Institute of HeartMath and Claremont Graduate University with 980 10th-grade students found that 61% of all students reported being affected by test anxiety. Also, 26% experienced high levels of test anxiety often or most of the time. The study used a quasi-experimental, longitudinal field design, involving pre- and post-intervention panels of measurement within a multimethods framework. The study found a strong negative relationship between test anxiety and test performance: Students with high levels of test anxiety scored, on average, 15 points lower on standardized tests in both mathematics and English-language arts than students with low test anxiety." High stakes testing increases high stress anxiety. "If the student can never pass the test, they are not qualified." Simply not true. How does my opponent respond to the fact that there have been MANY successful people that have dropped out of high school and went on to succeed in life? Andrew Jackson, considered to be one of greatest presidents dropped out of high school. J.R Simplot is a self-made agriculture billionaire and dropped out as well. Carl Linder? Marcus Loew? All dropouts that couldn't "handle" tests. [B] I was arguing that is funnels money from other subjects. What isn't tested doesn't exist. Pro need to reread my contention. [C] The data is here. http://findarticles.com... "We use data from the 1980 through 2000 U.S. Censuses and from the 1984 through 2002 Current Population Surveys to evaluate the labor market returns to exit exams (Warren, Grodsky, and Lee 2008). Both data sources include large, nationally representative samples of American young people. We limited our focus to 20- to 23-year-olds with no college education (and along the way we found that exit exams have no bearing on 20- to 23-year-olds' chances of having attended college).Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exit exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." "If it really plausible that people who pass reasonable tests on math and reading are not more qualified than those that fail? If it ever happens, we should need to find out what was wrong with the tests." The test themselves are the wrong part. [D] Pro argues that students need to be able to read. I agree. And they do. My point is that there is a over emphases on math, reading and science. In high school people need to start exploring their passions, so they'll be ready for those employers you keep mentioning. (What is not tested does not count, and 85 percent of teachers believe that their school gives less attention to subjects that are not on the state test. One teacher had this to say about how the timing of state tests drives teaching: "At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are told not to teach social studies and science until March." As "real learning" takes a backseat to "test learning,") [2] Once again I'm not arguing against Math, Reading, and Science, but far too often it's as though other subjects don't exist and considering 6% of our employment comes from the arts it's far too important to ignore. [E] Teaching to the test is test is not repeating my point [D] which talking about the cost of testing. This point goes dropped my Pro. [F] "That is not true, if a student knows the material he will pass. If he doesn't know the material and must rely on guessing, only then is there a strong luck component, and the odds are so against the unprepared student he is very unlikely to pass. If a student was right on the borderline to the pass or fail, then the student should have prepared a little more so he would not have been on the borderline." When questions are poorly written kids have to guess. In fact one girl from Minnesota failed by 1 question. After reviewing the test (after a lawsuit) they found mistakes in 6 of the questions. There was no right answer on some of them and she was forced to guess. Luck. [G] Yes, as a matter of fact I have provided evidence that those countries outperform US students. If you had looked at my source you would see that during the PISA international exam they scored higher then the U.S. These school systems did not have standardized tests and yet still managed to score higher. If we look to the why, we can see that these systems allowed to have more freedom in the way they taught and made sure students knew info. You continue to show that asian countries preform us. On standardized tests... How does my opponent think that MORE standardized test will improve that system? Those methods been tried and have failed. We need to look to more innovative ways to teach children. Standardized testing is not the way. I will now move onto my rebuttal of my opponents points. 1. As I've said before 2/3 of students are already taking exit exams, and seeing as you said employers do not think diplomas mean anything, that would seem to support the fact that standardized testing does not mean anything. Simply put: Employers do not think diplomas mean anything. 2/3 of Students with diplomas have had to of passed a exit exam. Therefore employers do not think passing an exit exam means anything. 2. See my point [C]. "No, meeting the requirement for basic competence will be easy for some students and difficult for others." 3. I'll repeat my point [D] seeing as it applies here. "Pro argues that students need to be able to read. I agree. And they do. My point is that there is a over emphases on math, reading and science. In high school people need to start exploring their passions, so they'll be ready for those employers you keep mentioning. (What is not tested does not count, and 85 percent of teachers believe that their school gives less attention to subjects that are not on the state test. One teacher had this to say about how the timing of state tests drives teaching: "At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are told not to teach social studies and science until March." As "real learning" takes a backseat to "test learning,")[2] Once again I'm not arguing against Math, Reading, and science, but far too often it's as though other subjects don't exist and considering 6% of our employment comes from the arts it's far too important to ignore." We need to start learning again! Sources in comments!! Sources http://www.education-reform.net... http://www.education.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because The issue that arises with allowing couples to "adopt" an embryo from someone who does not want to discard is that screening allows for couples to create a designer child. They can check to see the hair color and eye color of the child and with advancements in technology soon characteristics like height for sports reasons (Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson. 6 August 2013.). Screening also allows for the ability to chose the sex of the child which could prove an issue since in the United States, it has been proven that girls are favored over boys (Amy Klein. 18 March 2014.). Technology that is currently banned in the United States but is legal in several other countries allows scientics and doctors to combine the DNA of 3 people to eliminate mutations that cause blindness and epilepsy. The United States FDA is currently re-examining the procedure for a chance to re-legalize the three parent idea. If this procedure is passed, then the door is opened for designing a child with the ideal appearance and intelligence bases on the combination of multiple parents; allowing parents to change their child throughout the IVF process. "Studies show that the child earns less, will be more likely to be bullied, or may not be asked to lead. Parents will want a taller child" said Ronald Green, a Dartmouth Professor. We cannot play God (Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson. 6 August 2013). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Witness protection should be kept private for all means because My debate is based on an incident that happenned in the 90s the "james bulgar" incident where two 10year olds kidnapped him and killed him an a train track, released out of prison in 2001 the press /media have been using there publicity and using false images to identify the two boys as now adults. Though they are both under witness protection , is it fair that these two boys were bieng publically demained all over magazines etc .? My answer NO!. Though these two boys did a undescribable despicable crime they were young came from bad backgrounds and bieng young not able to identify the differences between right & wrong. people should have left/leave them B! anyone care to debate on this? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States. because In response to my opponent's framework, I would like to offer a framework of my own. In evaluating today's round, we must weigh arguments against each other in order to decide which side wins the round. I agree with my opponents framework that the act of prohibiting alcohol is the act of eliminating all alcohol uses. My opponent states in his framework that we cannot look to the effects of drunk driving because because the actions of drunk drivers does not abide to the laws set out by the government. However, I disagree. If today's resolution were to deal with marijuana rather than alcohol, the debate would surely include the effects of the illegal uses of marijuana. Much like the marijuana debate, the debate surrounding the prohibition of alcohol must include all effects of alcohol; whether it abives to the laws set out by the government or not. Thus, all effects of alcohol must be taken into consideration in today's round. However, I would like to point out that the effects of the consumption of alcohol has the most weight in today's round. As my opponent stated in his second contention, 90% of alcohol is used in the form of drinking. Cleaning products and medical remedies for heart attacks that don't require alcohol exist; thus, these uses hold negligible weight in today's round. My opponent's first contention deals with the health benefits of alcohol. His contention evades logic twice; first of all, how many Americans drink alcohol as the solution to their heart problems? The reason we immediately assume alcohol with the abuse of alcohol is very evident; because the primary users of alcohol are also the primary abusers of alcohol. Secondly, my opponent also makes the na�ve assumption that alcohol will somehow stop 600,000 deaths from occurring. Until he finds a link between his claim and this supposed effect, we cannot consider this argument in the round. Also, I would like to ask my opponent -- alcohol is currently legal; why are these heart attacks still occurring? My opponent's second contention holds no weight in today's round. Abusers of cocaine, meth, and other hard drugs feel pleasure as they abuse drugs. Should we legalize cocaine and meth? Rapists feel pleasure as they rape their victims; should we legalize rape? By voting for the neg, you vote for your cold glass of beer. By voting for the pro, you're preventing the 18 year old who lives down your street from dying in a alcohol-related accident; whether it be a car accident or a drunken fight. Finally, my opponent states in his final paragraph that banning alcohol is diverting the will of the American people. However, like many times in the past, a majority doesn't decide right from wrong, and in today's debate, we must consider the impacts of the pro and con in evaluating the round. If this were a debate around the controversial ground zero mosque, it would not be right to oppose it simply because two-thirds of Americans oppose it. Likewise, we must consider and weigh all impacts in today's round. Back to my own case, I would like to begin by offering a correction. In Contention 3, I stated the following; "Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same." The statement I had intended to say was: "Much like how drug abuse is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same.". This statement looks holistically at the United States, keeping in mind that the percentage of Americans who regularly abuse drugs, the percentage that would likely evade the law if alcohol were prohibited, is very minimal. It does not include all drug users. Recently, in my hometown of Almaden, an 18-year-old graduate from the local high school was killed in a alcohol-related accident. The driver of the vehicle was drunk; the vehicle hit a light pole at an intersection and burst into flames. The driver somehow ran out of the vehicle, and in his drunken stupor was found by authorities hiding a few hundred yards away. The 18-year-old passenger was stuck in the car and burned to his death. Is this the price we must pay for everyday Americans to have their "cold glass of beer"? Must we resort to alcohol as a solution to heart problems when others exist? Are cleaning products a legitimate reason to legalize this dangerous drug? My opponent has yet to directly respond to any of my contentions, and thus, when we weigh the arguments on each side of today's round, it's clear that the harms alcohol inflicts on tens of thousands of lives every year far outweighs it's minimal benefits as a cleaning product. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Paramedics disposal of deceased patients because Kind regards to my opponent for this "Debate" As already stated above, there is no need for Rebuttals nor extensions as my opponent did not present a proper argument and forfeited all rounds. Thus my conclusion still stands unchallenged. Kind regards to all readers and voters, have a nice day! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Are unicorns real because There are a few reasons why unicorns are not real. First, the horn on their head would hit low hanging objects like tree limbs, which at the speeds they would be able to run, would likely knock them down and break their neck or legs. Second, having only one horn means that if it is broken somehow, then the unicorn would have no way to defend itself. Lastly, unicorns would not be bale to hide from predators or blend in with their surroundings since the horn would reveal where they are. Also if they were real then they would've got eaten by the rainbow trolls. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Haiku Battle because You think you're the best? You are sadly mistaken! I'm-a be vote-bombed! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Socialism is the best form of government overall for the United States because As promised in the comments section, I now refer to my chosen (found online) definition of "pure socialism". I note that my opponent was invited to define the term and has declined to do so. Pure socialism: Pure Socialism involves a centrally planned economic system, which requires a government controlled population of workers to operate the system. Therefore Socialism is both an economic system and a government system.... Essential elements of pure socialism: 1. production targets for different segments of the economy, 2. rationing of certain commodities to determine demand for them, 3. price and wage fixing by the state, and 4. a conscripted labor market in which workers are assigned jobs by the state. Source: http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com... I contend that the system outlined above would be impossible to achieve in practice and would not be beneficial for a country such as the USA. I believe it can be taken as common knowledge that the USA is currently one of the better-off counties in the world. It has a high GDP, a very strong military and a relatively high standard of living. I will provide specific evidence for this in my next post, if challenged to do so. Under pure socialism, the concept of free-economy is virtually non-existent. The government sets all prices, the government sets all wages, the government decides on the jobs that workers will be performing. Therefore, there is little to none incentive for a person to be more productive or to strive for excellence. In a pure socialist state people do not start their own business. Competition has no effect as prices are set by the government and are presumably equal across each industry. This would destroy the incentive to improve services provided to the customer. "The customer is always right" would cease to exist. Who would pay the price for this? The consumer. This would of course also affect export, as the quality of American goods and services would suffer. Since the government decides who will perform which job, people will be inherently unhappy as they will not have the luxury of choosing their desired career path. The very concept of socialism relies on the principle that everyone is equal. This in itself is a myth. People are not equal. That may be sad but it's true. Some are smarter than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are more prone to diseases. Some are born disabled. Some are considered more sexually appealing than others. Some are more friendly than others. Some are susceptible to addictions more than others. The very concept of attempting to equalise people is flawed. It is also inefficient. It will arugably deprive the community of economic "natural selection" where those with the highest capacity and a proven record are given the most responsible positions. One could argue that the government could take care of that. However, just how humongous would a beaurocratic machine have to be for it to be able to conduct such a massive task? It would be huge and inefficient. Government officials would be extremely prone to corruption, bribery would be rife. While government-subsidised health care is a great concept, a pure socialist system goes way beyond this. Health-care professionals who are limited by equalised, government-set wages will not seek to excel as there is simply no incentive. There is no prospect of finding a better paid job in a better health care facility. Many will simply flee the country and look for work abroad, where they feel more free and appreciated. Again, the government might be able to allow higher wages to better-performing health-care centres. And again, this would require a huge government machine, again prone to corruption and bribery. Education is perhaps the weakest point in my argument. Educators around the world are notoriously underpaid in any economic system and arguably the educational systems of existing socialist countries do rival those of capitalist nations. But what will happen with those who have attained that education? Will they stick around and work in a government-owned organisation and get paid their government-set wages? Or will they flee the USA and look for work somewhere where competition amongst employers gives rise to more attractive job offers? I believe the answer to this question is quite obvious. All this would result in an inefficient economy and a very unhappy society. This is so in particular for a country like the United States where people value their freedoms so highly, where people consider themselves something of a world-model for freedom, individualism and justice. I am not suggesting that this image is in fact correct. Nor am I suggesting that it is not. However, I do contend that these concepts are so enshrined in the American psyche that the people of the USA would never be happy in a system where they are told to all be equal, where they are deprived of their individualism, where they are deprived of any incentive to excel, where they are deprived of the right to start an enterprise, to reap the benefits of their own ideas. Given that my opponent has already forfeited a round and has given no sign of life, I will stop here. In light of all the above factors (and there are more, many more) I conclude that pure socialism could never work a country like the United States of America, if indeed it could work anywhere. I might qualify this statement by saying that in a perfect society with perfect people (who indeed are all equal in every aspect) a system of this type might in fact work. But that's pure theory, it's Utopia. Nb: some of what I have written above sounds almost patriotic. I should point out that it is not. I am not an American and I do not live in the USA. Awaiting my opponent's response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fancy Polite English Gentlemens Rap Battle because Tally-ho, my jolly good chap! I do dearly hope you enjoy my rap. I will answer your questions it is true, Then ask my own and learn more about you! My favorite dish is fish and chips, I say we eat them at a harbor, watching ships. I like to wear powdered wigs, and go fox hunting, and spend some quid. I am indeed a beloved Jew, My favorite tale is the old lady and the shoe My favorite ice-cream is tea, oh how I love my fancy tea... I'll pour you some fine Indian tea, and we can calmly discuss the keys to all the issues we face today, indeed we must discuss them, God save the queen! Oh, and please do pardon me! I have been speaking most rudely! My name is Sir Reginald of Trent and what about you, my noble bench? What is your favorite hobby, dish, and game? And dear sir, do tell me all about your family name! Your history, heritage, and origins you see, and if you wish, you can learn the same from me! So goodbye for now dear lad, but please do not be sad for I shall be coming to speak again hence and I shall bring with me a shiny sixpence! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My opponent will try to win this debate because Greetings. In this debate, my obligation is not to try to win this debate. Thus, I shall do just that. Although I want and hope to win this debate, I shall not "try", as it is ironically through not trying that will guarantee me victory. Although I could try through providing advanced argumentation that would lead to there being no conclusion on the topic, I shall not do this. Of course, PRO is more than free to argue that I am indeed 'trying.' <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious. because R1. We've already established that Judaism is a fundamental aspect of the bacon and eggs debate. Are you trying to justify the Holocaust? Hitler's bacon-driven atrocities shouldn't be brought up so carelessly! R2. Good point, I should back my dismissal up with evidence. R3. : That does not justify your claim. That is like saying my brother and I are both troublemakers just because the same mother gave birth to us. No just because she did a lousy job of raising you. : Also, eggs wont splatter all over the microwave if you cover them up while they are heating. Which kind of eggs are you talking about? Because that sounded wrong on several different levels. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am God because Hmm, it appears my opponent has quite the burden of proof on his hands. He is mistaking me needing to disprove him for himself needing to prove himself. Since your page says your an atheist, that means you do not believe such a God could exist, thus negating that you would actually believe you are God the creator of the universe. I will await your epic proof that you are God the creator of the universe. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God exists because =="Fantasies and imagination are both images or ideas that the mind creates."== All reality is ultimately subjective, because you only experience it through your personal five senses. This was the root of Descartes skepticism: what if we live in The Matrix and we don't even know it? To quote Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Descartes concluded that he had to assume that nothing was "real", because he had no way of testing it objectively. However he found one thing he could not doubt: that he himself was thinking, because he was able to declare it. "I think, therefore I am" or extrapolated, "Because I am able to perceive my own existence, even if this existence is an illusion, the fact that I am still perceiving it means that at some point I fall upon the hard truth that I (whatever "I" am) exist". God has declared existence in recorded history. All things being equal we must grant God the benefit of the doubt since He has been so direct in his proclamation, and so intentionally seems to satisfy Descartes skeptical criterion. ="Based on Descartes' maxim, I can prove to myself that I exist, but I cannot prove my existence to anyone else. God cannot prove to anyone that He exists."= You nailed it. You cannot be sure that anybody exists, except yourself. But you also give the benefit of the doubt to anybody else in your life who claims self-awareness. God has claimed this, I'm asking you (not unreasonably) to continue in your pattern and grant that God exists, at least in your mind. You accept that I exist for no other reason than I have said that I do, so accept that God exists on the same grounds. Otherwise be prepared to reject the existence of everything and everyone you know, a very lonely life. Why not just add one more person instead of deleting all people your mind perceives of? =Subjective Existence= Further via postmodernism we discover that even our objective realities are rooted in subjectivity. Time, for instance, is not something any of us can objectively point at. It is relative to the person, their galactic location, and their personal detection of its passage. Time, by your logic, can be said not to exist "for real" because it has no objective base applying to all people everywhere. But there's the rub. Time does exist, and you wouldn't be so naive to contend it doesn't, even realizing that it can only exist subjectively. There are many things such as this that exist subjectively in our reality, God is easily one of these. Also this is practical because it allows for an Atheist and Theist to shake hands on the subjective existence of God. =God is mean= Omnipotence means power to do all things possible. God cannot create a square circle, its not possible. God cannot, create good without allowing bad. He is still omnipotent. http://www.youtube.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid because My opponent has dropped his first 4 arguments. 5. My opponent is basically arguing for the second option in the trilemma. Basic laws of science prove that if an atom had existed eternally, then nothing could cause any more to come into existence. This is because matter can never be created or destroyed by physical interactions. This is called the Law of Conservation of Mass. If a single atom had existed indefinitely, then it would have had to hold all of the mass that is currently in the universe. Such an atom would have a ridiculously small half life. So, this atom would only exist for 0.00000(etc)1 seconds. This is not eternity. My opponent's argument is invalid. Further, my opponent's claim that a conscious, omnipotent God would be complex is irrelevant, as complexity can exist in reality. So, my opponent has not refuted the existence of an omnipotent God. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Capital Punishment because Opponent ready? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The U.S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia. because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Absolute morals because Let me start by giving refutations, instead of mixing it up I will make issues and address the issues in a systematic manner: this will I hope allow better clarity this time around. For those who just joined as viewers this debate is a continuation of the debate between Benjamin and I, which finished around an hour ago. That debate may be found here: http://www.debate.org... While it was about God, the contention between us is whether morals are in fact absolute (premise 2 of the first post). This debate was started also because Benjamin read my essay: https://beaconhouse.academia.edu... and would like to now move forward. I thank Benjamin for initiating this debate, and I thank every gracious member of debate.org who will invest his/her time in reading our arguments. I hope we all have a lot of fun, and of course may reach a solution. Now on the issues: 1. "Like most philosophical concepts, morality was created by man" This is a claim laid down by Benjamin, one he has not elucidated upon properly. Onus probandi: he must prove this claim. I give a counter claim: no philosophical concept, insofar as this concept is the object and not the subjective organic understanding (Benjamin did not clear the definition) then it transcends time and space. Humans cannot create anything really, they can mould different objects using the power of imagination to create new objects. (see previous discussion). My entire argument of innate dreams has been left untackled (though I will go through it below, which should provide a better refutation to this issue) 2."Why do we not see morality in nature" Actually we do see morality in nature, or so a University of Colorado's Professor argues. He states that animals indeed are hard-wired with a certain moral code which they follow. This however is still irrelevant as morality is different for animals and humans, humans are a highly evolved species (unless you do not believe in evolution, in which case you would already believe in God and this debate would be redundant, eh Benji), regardless however, they are the species with the neo-cortex part of the brain, for humans morality is much more complex. 3. "Aristotle's words" I have already requested you to not answer this way, please elucidate how it has been challenged, this quote is so out of context I really do not understand how it makes the highest good redundant. 4. "Democratic Society" I have already told you not to make the "is-ought" mistake, society does not decide what ought it decides what is. If you believe society decides what ought then this is a claim you will have to prove. Also I have already presented evidence of how morality is based on intention (I will do so again below) and how it cannot be realized by empirical means. Also law is not morality, let us understand that law depends on actus, and mens rea while morality bases itself on mens rea. Similarly I gave you the example of how if your 6 year old brother spent all day baking you a cake but burnt it, he shall be a bad cook, but not an immoral one. I told you that there is a definitive difference between goodness and morality. Where goodness is concerned with productivity, morality is concerned with intention. Not to mention you are advocating that a democratic country is always right, when in the past we have seen they can be quite idiotic e.g. Iraq War, Vietnam War, World War 1, World War 2, et cetera. 5. "Peanut Butter" [You must give me the recipe] Please tell me what bases you have to analogize morality with taste. It seems quite, Nonetheless your opinion (of morality) will not be taken as the Gospel Truth because you are not God, you are bound by time and space, and are of course of limited reasoning, such that whatever you come up with will only be a construct of innate knowledge. This innate knowledge which you possess contains the absolute morals. Now on to my positive case: 1. Firstly let us remember what we have already spoken about: the two cases of knowledge. The first is a posteriori and the second is innate. A posteriori is empirical knowledge and the conditions of this knowledge are a priori (time, space, and number). The second is innate and this transcends a priori, it is itself a priori. We do not learn the concept of time, we have it, for without it any knowledge would be redundant (empirical)(See Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant). Now I argue that morality is based on intention: my example of the nephew. For if morality was not based on intention then the concept of goodness should not need to exist. Also goodness does not promise the summum bonum: morality promises happiness out of virtue. Now if morality is based on intention then it cannot be based on empirical means, which would mean it is innate. if it is innate then it must transcend the boundaries of time and be absolute. 2. My second argument was that morals have different forms. These forms are limited: homosexuality can be considered moral, it can be considered immoral, it can be considered moral under certain circumstances. Very simply morals move up and down a finite list. An infinite regress cannot exist, therefore the list must have a top, the top would be of absolute morality, 3. The Argument from Innate Dreams made Further. Let us understand that humans cannot construct knowledge, even if morality was empirical, even though it is not, it would be absolute. For our image of aliens, or Pokemon show us that humans' highest cognition is reason, and imagination. In both of these one must start from something, and move further. Imagination is simply the decaying though of reality. Reason is restricted by time, space and number. So it is quite plausible that humans would construct foolish morals, which are bound by time and space simply so they could associate further with it. However that does not change that the morals started from one form: the true form of absolute morality, I believe this alongside my past arguments, the essay and the fact that Benjamin has not refuted my claims properly demand of the voters my win. I urge you to realize the truth in my words. Benjamin I hope you are able to systematically refute my claims this time. Good luck! Ajab PS. Here are some helpful sources: ( I am not advocating all these sources I am simply pointing out their relevance, hence the post script) http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ted.com... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Balanced Budget Amendment because Alright. Thanks for reducing the number of rounds. I don't know of any justification for the balanced budget amendment. It seems perverse, suicidal. So I'm pleased to be in this discussion where I can learn what its proponents are thinking. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay Marriage because I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for another opportunity. I shall quote my opponent and provide argumentation: "When I used my own opinion, you stated that I need FACTS and RESOURCES!" This is not true. All I stated was that my opponent needed valid argumentation and logic. I implied that my opponent should provide facts and resources to support her own arguments, but my opponent just copied exact arguments from websites. My opponent needed to back her own arguments with resources and facts, not just copy all of her arguments from websites. "I don't think retrieving facts from the internet is an issue, because everything has to come from a resource. I found the statements that I wanted and got it from the internet, you did say that I needed resources." My opponent does not understand that it is wrong to copy all of one's arguments directly from online sources, which is considered cheating/plagiarizing. My opponent failed to quote or even provide the sources of the websites she stole her information from. The fact is, it is acceptable to support your statements with evidence found online, but it is unacceptable to take all of your arguments from online without even telling the audience what you did. My opponent needed resources to provide evidence for her side of the debate, not to copy from and ultimately tarnish a possible successful debate. "Yes! I have taken it from the internet but if that an issue? You states that I needed resources, unfortuntley I forgot to put quotes." In my opponent's case, it is a big issue because she took all of her arguments directly from online sources. She did not even bother to source the sites where she got the information from. My opponent needed sources to provide support for her arguments, not to plagiarize whole chunks of paragraphs from sources that were not even mentioned until I found them. Clearly, my opponent has been caught stealing and plagiarizing from online sources. Providing little to none argumentation from her own self, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution because Pro's case Hitler's racial views My opponent has not given any reason why Hitler needed Darwin's theory in order to achieve his goals. Breeding predates Darwin's theory by thousands of years. Hitler's scientific knowledge My opponent keeps mentioning genes, but we don't know Hitler knew anything about genes. Anyway, Darwin certainly knew nothing of genes, so the association my opponent is trying to make is invalid. Hitler's knowledge of inferior specimens in breeding would have come from common knowledge of animal breeding. Something humans had been doing long before Darwin's theory. Hitler may have had an awareness of natural selection, but my opponent has not given any evidence that his actions were influenced by it. A creationist often has an awareness of natural selection but we cannot say his actions are influenced by that knowledge . Con's case 1. Hitler was a creationist My opponent's baboon quote is from the Table Talks. I mentioned right at the beginning of my previous round that the Table Talks are unreliable. The French translation, on which the English is based, omits some things from the German and adds new things.[1][2] We have an inconsistency here anyway. For, from my opponent's own source, in the Table Talks Hitler is also quoted as saying, "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place." [3] This is why I suggested we leave the Table Talks aside. My point in showing Hitler was a creationist was to show that his views are incompatible with the theory of evolution. My opponent brings up theistic evolution, but someone who believes in theistic evolution is not a creationist. The reliable source, Mein Kampf, shows that Hitler was a creationist. 2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory The resolution is that the theory of evolution influenced Hitler. What I showed in round 2 was that Hitler's views of racial breeding were contrary to the central tenets of Darwinism. Variety is crucial to the process of evolution, so how can Hitler have been influenced by the theory of evolution if his ideas were opposed to variety in the human species? I showed that Darwin said evolution does not consider human standards of perfection. So how can Hitler have been influenced by the theory of evolution if what he was trying to do was to achieve some kind of human perfection? 3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf. "I haven't even read the entire work, but have already seen it referred to as Nature's will." What does "Nature's will" have to do with the theory of evolution? The phrase doesn't appear in On the Origin of Species . Nature's will is a concept that predates Darwin by thousands of years. It is the very conception of religion. 4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities. "It's obvious that they adapted the principle of natural selection, into their policy of artificial selection. As such, it was necessary to remove literature that would tell the populace that their policies were artificial rather than natural." You do not need the principle of natural selection to remove groups of people from the population. Ethnic cleansing was not invented after Darwin's time. For example, The Book of Jin records that General Ran Min ordered the extermination of the Wu Hu during the Wei–Jie war in the fourth century AD. People with the racial characteristics of a high-bridged nose and bushy beard were killed. 200,000 were massacred in all.[4][5] My opponent's hypothesis about the banning of Darwin's book is that the leaders did not want the people to read it because they would see the killings of Jews and others in a negative light. Here he defeats his own case. If reading Darwin's book would lead people to conclude that the Holocaust was wrong, then obviously the book is not an influence on Nazi policies, but the opposite. 5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. "If there was no link between the two then it wouldn't be called Social "Darwinism"" Many of you live in the United States of Columbus, geographically known as North Columbus, part of the continent The Columbuses. The USC is named after Christopher Columbus who was the first to discover it in 1492, as you are taught in school. The President of Columbus is Barack Obama. Except, of course, for some reason the country was named after Amerigo Vespucci, who came after Columbus and only went to South America.[6] The Matthew effect was named after the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. It describes the phenomenon where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.[7][8] No-one thinks the line For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath .[9] actually has anything to do with sociology or economics. These two pages, http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... are long lists of theorems and laws named after the wrong person. I'll pick out three. Euler's number,e, is the base of the natural logarithm. It was discovered by Jacob Bernoulli. Heine–Borel theorem was proved in 1872 by Émile Borel, and not by Eduard Heine at all. Vigenère cipher was originally described by Giovan Battista Bellaso but misattributed to Blaise de Vigenère. Some more examples of misattribution: Haemophilus influenzae, a bacterium, was named because it was thought to be the cause of influenza, until the virus was discovered in the 1930s.[10] Acanthophis antarcticus (the death adder) is not from Antarctica, but Australia.[11] There are a whole load of misnamed animals here: http://www.curioustaxonomy.net... French fries probably originated in Belgium.[12][13][14] The people of Bologna do not eat spaghetti Bolognese.[15][16] Pompey's Pillar, a 27m tall column in Alexandria, was neither erected by or dedicated to Pompey.[17] The resolution is not "Hitler was influenced by Social Darwinism", that theory which inappropriately bears Darwin's name, but "Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution". Do not mistake the two because of the name. That would simply be an error. Social Darwinism is contrary to Darwin's idea of the "struggle for existence", which included co-operation. Darwin said that he meant the term in a "large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another" [18] On my opponent's Christian analogy, no-one disputes that texts can fail to influence their readers. The correct analogy between the Bible and Social Darwinism would be this: A man who is influenced by the Satanic Bible[19] is not a Christian. Just as Hitler, influenced by Social Darwinism, was not influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, so a man influenced by the Satanic Bible is not influenced by the Bible. [1] http://moourl.com... [2] http://moourl.com... [3] http://rationalwiki.org... [4] Li, Bo; Zheng Yin (Chinese) (2001) 5000 years of Chinese history, Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp [5] http://moourl.com... [6] Amerigo Vespucci by Frederick A. Ober http://moourl.com... [7] http://moourl.com... [8] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, Penguin Books. pp30 [9] Matthew 25:29, King James Version. [10] http://moourl.com... [11] http://moourl.com... [12] http://moourl.com... [13] http://moourl.com... [14] http://moourl.com... [15] http://moourl.com... [16] http://moourl.com... [17] http://moourl.com... [18] http://moourl.com... [19] http://moourl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap Battle(general) because My opponent can't comprehend My insults were meant to offend For the last time, I'm not your friend How dare you bring my mother onto this For I protect her like Superman protects Metropolis You need to be more cautious Yes, I'm starting to get nauseous Not because your flawless Your rhymes are just so thoughtless It's apparent your self-concious Seriously, these death jokes are getting old I'm the best at this game, behold You don't even have enough class to step past my threshold Throughout DDO you have trolled Making death threats to people, you ain't Bundy This sh!t isn't even funny Your so friendly I get more intimated by a bunny Honey, I'm sorry I can't give you no money You're just some robot like Sunny Using all these similes, who do you think you are? Buddy, if you think your good, trust me, you are far These claims are so bizzare I know my words have hurt, sorry about that scar You ain't no ganster, quit puttin on a front Drug-dealer, alright kick back and smoke a blunt He thinks he's a gangster, this dude is twisted He's never been in a fight, but he has been fisted "I'll kill you", he persisted You say you're gonna bang my ho? I thought you were a homosexual, bro He's desperate to flow Truth is he's just another John Doe Acting all tough, thinking he's the best Only reason he started rapping is cause he heard it'd be a sausage fest! Socialpinko's mode is off, you can say I'm camer- ON So when the voters decide to vote, I suggest you vote CON <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap vs Metal because Ooh, I'm such a sucker for these anti-rap debates, I just couldn't resist this one, even with the 24 hour rounds. Many thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate. It seems from the initial post, that the resolution Pro has in mind is: "Rap is a bigger motivator for violence, drug abuse, and sex crimes then Heavy Metal in the US." I am assuming that "rap" refers to the musical aspects of hip hop culture. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I am happy to attempt to negate this. I await some argumentation, notably Pro firstly has the burden of proving that any genre of music can be a "motivator" for such activity. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga because Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has opted to concede to the fact that both Naruto and Sakura possess romantic feelings for one another. However, he is of the mindset that this doesn't prove my case given that other mangas/animes of the same genre are revolved around fighting and thus provide no opportunity for romances to take place. However, although other mangas of the same genre have thrown around some hints of romance between both characters in question, the fact of the matter is that my opponent's objection fails in regards to the fact that these authors have admitted to having some inspiration from Akira Toriyama (the creator of Dragon Ball Z). We must keep in mind that during Dragon Ball Z, romances took place in spite of the fact that the series mostly revolved around fighting. Indeed, Goku married Chi-Chi, Bulma married Vegeta, Krillin married Android 18 and Gohan married Videl. In addition, I'd like to point out that both of the mangas/animes which my opponent is referring to are ongoing. The resolution merely promotes the idea that all evidence points to the characters in question "hooking up" by the end of the series. Neither Bleach, One Piece or Naruto have ended yet. Thus, for a brief overview of this round, CON's case fails on the grounds of the fact that the story which these very stories were inspired by was action focused yet had resolved romances and that this is debate concerns what will likely occur by the end of the storyline. Indeed, although Ichigo Kurosakai may not be paired up with Orihimi in the current arc, it is quite likely that we will see some kind of epilogue depicting the two together by the end of the manga. The same can be said for Luffy and Boa Hancock as well as Nami and Sanji. Thus, I rest my case for now. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with So not true because Let us go through our opponent"s case before making our own, shall we? "School is not meant for praying." Now, my opponent says that school is not meant for praying. Thee is no rule against it. Just like school isn't meant for buying large amounts of food, it is still allowed and still happens. "It is just plain wrong to teach a student how to pray" So this suggests that they don't want their kid indoctrinated on how to pray. Many creationists do not want evolution to be the only thing taught but it still happens. Common courtesy would suggest to let us be able to pray too. "This is a violation to the amendment #1." TO quote the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now notice this: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Prohibiting kids from praying would be against the 1st amendment, contrary to my opponents beliefs. "It is cruel for someone to harrass a poor kid who doesn't want to pray." And why would that happen? My opponent doesn't want payer in school just because it is "plain wrong." However, it is right. Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens, (1990) -- Ruled that schools must allow student groups to meet to pray and worship if other non-religious groups are also allowed to meet on school property. Kids have the RIGHT to pray, just like other kids have the right to text. Taking that away is in violation of the first amendment. Vote Pro please. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana because Steve Young is the better quarterback because he has a 96.8 QB Rating (1), whereas Joe Montana only has a 92.3 (2). Steve Young also has fewer career interceptions, more rushing touchdowns, and a higher passing completion rate than Joe Montana. After seeing both players perform in person and on television, it is clear to me that Steve Young is superior in his athletic capabilities, and his quarterbacking skills. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Homework shouldn't be given because Homework shouldn't be given in school because the students get stressed and don't have time to do other activities. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women in the Kitchen because Definitions Women: plural form of woman. Woman[1]: an adult human female. Kitchen[2]: a room or area where food is prepared and cooked. I am in favour of women being in the kitchen because there is usually nothing wrong with it. They tend to be safe, great at multitasking both cooking and cleaning and are great collaborators in teams[3] than men. Why would you be against women being in a kitchen? Is there something you have against permitting such an act? Sources: [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.sheknows.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States because My opponent assumes that mentally retarded people would always show poor judgment. In terms of driving, I can see that. They wouldn't be able to react to any danger in enough time. In voting, however, with two major political parties, they can only get it wrong half of the time. Most mentally retarded voters probably still support a political candidate. You can't count on them to make the right decision every time, but you can't count on them to always make the wrong decision, either. Additionally, what if some people decide that they want to have a platform of the desire to rid the population of all mentally retarded people? That was what Hitler did [1]. The mentally retarded people would need to vote against a president that hates them. It is for their safety that they must have voting rights. Therefore, because they need the right to protect themselves, and they would make the right decision more often than the wrong decision, the resolution is affirmed. Thank you. 1. http://www.traditionalvalues.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with All policemen should use tazers as a last resort. because I will begin by refuting my opponents case. First of all my opponent says that Llandudno, North Wales is not a real place. On the contrary, it is very beautiful, and in fact, real. http://images.google.com... He then goes on to say that, "last resort is also the name of a song". This statement is irrelevant because I have provided a definition of last resort, to which he does not argue and therefor concedes to. "First resort: When the option is the first thing that comes to mind" is another one of my opponent's arguments bent on supporting his case. However, this statement itself does not provide anything to advocate for the negation of the resolution. If, the video he posted was indeed evidence to support how first resort tazering was used, he is clearly mistaken. As was shown, the police officers took the man in their arms to escort them away from the scene. The man resisted to the point to where two police officers could not take the man into custody, thus having to taze him. Nevertheless, I have shown that the man was not tazered as a first resort. My opponent's video then has no meaning behind it because none of my opponent's case provides any detail on it. Finally my opponent states that, "So, I conclude this round by saying tasers are always needed." However that does not apply directly to the resolution. I, too, believe that tazers are always needed, but only to be used as a last resort. My opponent has not sufficiently refuted my points whereas I have countered all of his. For these reasons and more I plead an affirmative vote. I stand ready for round 3. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral because I agree with you that we are rational beings. Because we are rational, we should be able to recognize that a broken promise due to circumstances outside of our control is different than breaking a promise that we never intended to keep or are too lazy to find a way to keep. It would be immoral if we had no intention of keeping a promise, not doing everything in our power to avoid breaking one, or if we made a promise that we wouldn't have a good cance of keeping in the first place. But an accident or unforseen interference does not make us responsible for the broken promise. It is simply an unfortunate circumstance. Now if you're arguing that promises themselves are immoral because there is no guarantee that you can keep them, then that's another story and not the topic of this debate nor what you have been arguing thus far. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should College be free? because I accept this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Khan needs to be kicked off of this Website because HaHa - no worries. I don't think I've ever debated Khan or even seen any of his debates. I'm sure he is just as annoying as you say he is; however, there is no need for him to be kicked off this website... he's gone! Yaaay. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself. because None needed and none could be answered anyways. "I do feel compassion and seek justice, even though it may be vaguely defined." Justice, as defined clearly in the dictionary, clearly cannot exist if there are no moral truths to define it. Therefore, my opponent has clearly contradicted himself. Below is an objective deductive proof. 1. Justice exists (conceded by PRO). 2. Justice is "the quality of being righteous". http://www.yourdictionary.com... 3. Righteous means "morally right". http://www.yourdictionary.com... 4. Therefore, justice is the quality of being morally right. (Substitution Property of Equality, 2+3) 5. The quality of being morally right exists. (Substitution Property of Equality, 1+4) 6. Morally means "with respect to moral principles". http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 7. The quality of being right with respect to moral principles exists. (Substitution Property of Equality, 5+6) ------------------------------------------------------- 8. Moral truths do not exist. (Conceded by PRO) 9. Basic moral truths do not exist. (Composition and Substitution, 8) 10. Principles are "basic truths". http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 11. Moral principles do not exist. (Substitution, 9+10) ------------------------------------------------------- 12. The quality of being right with respect to moral principles exist. (From above) 13. Moral principles do not exist. (From above) (Clear contradiciton, as 12 relies on 13 to be false to be true.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. If the resolution is negated, then vote CON. ( http://www.debate.org... ) 2. The resolution is negated. (From above) 3. Vote CON. I thank my opponent for this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate because First I'd like to thank Truth Seeker, he's dropin' rhymes with none sleeker, He thinks he can out rap me, straight slap me, but his logic is weaker. It's errant, transparent, like a drunken college streaker. I know the scripture, the big picture, so pay attention to this speaker. Messiah is a Jewish concept, he just hasn't come yet, When he does, it will be obvious to everyone, so get set, God made it clear, he is one, Jews repeat it every day so they wont forget. You believe it means gods, but the word has less clarity, The pluralization is unique as the word has dexterity, It can be used, abused, towards even more parity, 3 parts of god? How bout 10? Let's make it about popularity. Wanna get esoteric? Ignore the generic? I'll listen to the mystics, Want to quote the Zohar? Think that will go far? So we'll ignore the linguistics. I can rant all day, it's just a matter of statistics, But we're not talking about "gods", it's about characteristics. Let me reiterate this concept of preconceived notions, It's easy, it's can prove anything that comports with emotions, It's important when you can pull from text like the oceans, But it doesn't prove anything, as I refute all your motions. You're dropping verses like you have the burden of proof, "Hear oh Israel, I am ONE", so what is the truth? Quote the obscure? Are you sure? You's swinging like Ruth, Seeking any text you can, like candy for my sweet tooth. Let's start from the beginning, you must first prove divinity, Then we can move on, and you can try to prove trinity. Want to assert this that you have such affinity? Then show why it matters, from now to infinity. I can't refute something before it's been stated, I'll wait til you bring up Jesus so that can be debated, It's not my intent for anything to be desecrated, But be sure your verses have been properly translated. I'm arguing that Jesus wasn't the messiah, he never was crowned, The "anointed one" he wasn't, not in any verse I have found, Renowned, abound, sure, his impact is profound, But not the messiah, good luck in your next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because I thank my opponent for a quick reply. 1. Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? 2. Can God create something greater than himself? 3. Can God lift himself? 4. Is God omnipresent? 5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility? 6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility? 7. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibiliy? 8. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility? 9. Does banning abusable drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health? 10. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gangster Rap should be banned because "1) Gangster Rap shouldn't be banned because of freedom of speech." It is certainly their freedom of speech, but I am stating that Gangster Rap should be banned due to its strong influence in corrupting the behaviors of teenagers. Those that watch Gangster Rap Videos for approximately minimally 14 hours a week tend to have more destructive behaviors and odds of violence, and sexual behavior become more likely such as hitting a teacher becomes 3 times more likely, getting arrested becomes 2 and half more times likely, and they would be 2 times more likely to have multiple sex partners. Should there be Gangster Rap on children's television networks to promote the artist's freedom of speech? A mother would certainly not allow such profanity to get to their children's minds but unfortunately it has spread like an infection and seeped into the streets in forms of gangs, murders, gang and drug transactions. "2) Sure it promote sex and violence but so do a lot of movies, video games, and other forms of music. How far does one must go to get rid of sex, drugs, and violence themes?" Sex, drugs, and violence themes have been here for a long while and will most likely be around longer than you are I. As Gangster rappers sing they express how hardcore they are as they deal drugs, kill others, and rob another. This tends to send a message to one's mind that it is alright to do those things because their idol sings about such things. I am not saying that I want to eliminate sex, drugs, and violence themes which of course will be an impossible feat. But I would like to eliminate gangs from causing terror and fear into the hearts of caring parents that do not want to be devastated by the fact that their son or daughter had been shot by a gang member who just chose to end their life. The same gang member whom shot the other would most certainly have listened to one of 50 Cent's songs, and possibly have an album of his. "3) Sex, drugs, and violence are realities. Music relies on themes of human reality." I do know they are realities, but wouldn't you want to eliminate any realities that are harmful to society. As the teenagers buy a Gangster Rap album and their younger sibling sees them and hears them chanting the lyrics they would of course would try and get into the genre of music due to it being violent and of course little kids love violence because they do not truly comprehend what it is like to actually kill or harm someone. So as they do this, they really get involved in the genre of music and as their mind develops in actually thinking this is okay because they are becoming feared, by which they turn out to think that being feared equals dominance and respect. They listen to the lyrics and later they act out what he/she listens to, acting out "reality" getting involved in a gang. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls because This might seem unfair at first, but this round is technical talk. I'm not really talking resolution and frame rate; I'm talking more of the fact that Majora's Mask is just reused assets from Ocarina of Time reassembled and sold at market price, while Skyrim is a groundbreaking, massive open world game that also lets the player modify the game to their own liking. The combat is more fleshed out even considering the innovation Z-targeting was, and the player is granted almost complete freedom within this open world. You might say that it's a limit of technology; I say that Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall came out two years prior and still hosts one of the largest maps in gaming, second only to Minecraft. I won't say that Ocarina of Time is a bad game. It isn't. Dark Souls could be considered the next in line with a matching style, and I love that game with a vengeance. But it is a relic of the past, and following Zelda games are just graverobbing at this point. See you next time, Duncan. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War because <"If a limit is unknown, then how can I know when you pushed him across this limit? I can't."> It was never specified that indeterminable and unknown limits could be used, so it's too bad; be more specific next time. Also, unknown =/= limitless, either. <"You claim for Mewtwo to have both Special manga abilities and his abilities from the movie. You were supposed to pick."> 1: he can do the same thing he does in the manga in the movie, and vice versa. Mewtwo fights using telekinetic waves, and such; that trait isn't exclusive to any one area; it's something which definitively applies to him/her/whatever Mewtwo is. That power remains consistent in both the manga, the movie, and even in the video games (for gameboy. Ex: red, blue, gold, yellow, etc...) 2: the blurb about the manga doesn't introduce any new abilities of Mewtwo's, which negates his point that I chose abilities from two areas. <"Doctor Manhattan has immortality and intangibility, which means that he can never be defeated."> ...uh-huh, and? That simply means it was a good pick; that's in no violation of the rules. <"How am I supposed to out-strength incalculable strength? Neezar's page is covered with "immeasurable" things. So, yeah, that's unlimited. If you don't know the limit, it doesn't have one. So, you need some real limits, or you lose."> My opponent's rebuttal is...well, lacking. I'll rebut it point-by-point: <""How am I supposed to out-strength incalculable strength?"> You can't. Hence the pick. <"Neezar's page is covered with "immeasurable" things. So, yeah, that's unlimited. If you don't know the limit, it doesn't have one."> This is just plain wrong; there's no other way to put it. The logic of "X's limits can't be substantiated; therefore, X doesn't have limits," is a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.(1) Just because something is unquantifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. And, again, indeterminable =/= unlimited. <"So, you need some real limits, or you lose."> Limits probably exist; they just aren't known, and, as stated multiple times, unknown =/= limitless. The rules can't be amended to say that limits have to be measurable and known during the debate. <"His powers include X-ray vision, Telescopic Vision, Strength, Stamina, Speed, Microscopic vision, Jump, Invulnerability, Intelligence, Hypnokinesis, Heat vision, Hearing, Healing Factor, Flight, Enhanced Senses, Energy Absorption, Durability, and Breath."> ...if Doctor Manhattan is against the rules by your logic, then so would Superman be. In the comments, my opponent stated the following: <"Does he have a limit on his time power? Does he have a limit on his matter power? Does he have a limit on his energy power?"> Does Superman have a limit on his hearing power? Does Superman have a limit on his heat vision? ...but such questions seem futile, because you cant place a limit on something in which limits can't logically apply, which means it cant be with nor without limits. it's essentially like asking if there's a limit on one's ability to walk -- sure, you can get tired, but there isn't an energy bar which runs out, rendering an individual unable to walk. It's the same thing with Manhattan's ability to manipulate time, energy, and matter -- there isn't an energy bar, which means limits don't apply. The mentioned abilities aren't really fields in which having a magnitude of power makes sense. Further, my opponent's rule states that an ability can't be unlimited; it doesn't say that limits absolutely have to apply. Now, why my team is inherently superior to my opponent's team: 1: before my opponent can even think about making a move, Doctor Manhattan's ability to see the future allows him know what pro's team will do; the simply insane intelligence of him and Nezarr the Calculator then allow them to come up with a counterattack for any possible strategy pro could use, which means there's seemingly no strategy which can be used by pro to defeat my team, because they know what will happen, and are therefore, prepared. 2: quite a few members of my team have the ability to take control over another person: Mewtwo, Nezarr the Calculator, and the Silver Surfer. That means that if pro's team were to somehow take control of a member of my team, I can take control back immediately, using any of the members I previously mentioned. Also, if pro intended to take control of one of my team members, my team would already know, and would then take control of the member of pro's team who's trying to control a member of my team before he gets a chance to even make an attempt. 3: Doctor Manhattan can simply stop time, and vanquish all of my opponent's team to the outer limits of the universe -- battle over. Or he could use his ability to manipulate matter to defeat them with spontaneous combustion (ex: the way he killed Rorschach in the movie.) 4: Doctor Manhattan can stop time, and then vanquish my opponent's team to a far away planet. Mewtwo and Nezarr the Calculator then would destroy the planet with relative ease (after Manhattan ceases his stopping of time.) 5: the members of my team who can control members of my opponent's team would simply do so, and then make them fight to the death among themselves. There are many, many scenarios I could use which are similar to the one's I've put forth. Simply put, my team cannot be defeated by my opponent's team; my team's ability to know what my opponent's team will do before they do it makes it so that they can counter anything my opponent does. <"3. Ganondorf transforms into his god form."> I mean, I'm getting criticized for using a guy who's close to being a god (Doctor Manhattan) -- but he's actually using a god? The rules my opponent has seemingly randomly attempted to apply to me mustn't apply to him -- he's clearly attempting to distort the rules to fit his side of the debate. (1) = http://mw1.m-w.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against my debate stats are highly formiddable because According to Merriam-Webster formidable means " causing fear, dread, or apprehension". For this debate I will have to be brutally honest. Your debate statistics mean none of these. This doesn't help you at all. In fact, they are practically the complete opposite. You have 220 losses 59 ties and 33 wins. Your percentile is not working for you at all. It is based only on your wins. You could have 10 billion losses and 32 wins and you would be above the 99th percentile. Your win ratio is 13.04% and your elo is 1133. People are not "scared" to debate you. People jump at the slightest chance to debate you. You have completed 312 debates, but me going against you is probably considered "noob sniping" by the majority of DDO users and I myself am probably still considered a noob. Here is a good analogy. Regular noob sniping: NBA basketball player(pro) goes 1 on 1 against a High School Basketball Player(noob). This debate: High School Basketball Player(noob) goes 1 on 1 against against a blind baby(ultra-noob). This is a new phenomenon known as Baby-sniping. I literally laughed when I saw your debate statistics. ELO is determined by a formula Ore-Ele (might have been Airmax) posted in a forum. You can search it if you want to. Basically wins help you and losses hurt you. The magnitude of the help/hurt is dependent on whether or not you instigated and the skill of your opponent. It probably takes effort to get statistics that bad. You being "laid back" is no excuse. Your statistics are still not formidable. In a normal debate I would do significant research and spend alot of time writing the debate. Your statistics are so weak I will do neither. I officially recommend that due to your poor debate statistics, which are far from formidable, that you concede right now and walk away with the only loss of dignity being that joke you call your debate statistics. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. because Cross-ex: 1. If possible, could you post links to verify your sources? 2. Without economic sanctions, how else do we achieve foreign policy objectives? - -How do these alternative methods compare to economic sanctions in their effectiveness? Their harms? - -Is it possible to use sanctions in conjunction with these alternatives? 3. Did you give any evidence that wasn't anecdotal, ie. just one specific example of one sanction? - -What part of your case proves that these harms of sanctions are systematic and not just isolated incidences? 4. Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations? - -Does this obligation supercede their obligation to protect their own citizens? 5. What are these 'foreign policy objectives' that sanctions are generally used to achieve? - -Can you give any examples, such as the foreign policy objectives for sanctioning Iraq and Burundi? 6. Why shouldn't governments be allowed to use sanctions in order to avoid full-scale conflict? - -During conflict, why can't governments use sanctions to benefit the war effort? 7. Can we effectively sanction countries without sanctioning their food/medical supplies? - -Wouldn't this make the civilian casualties of sanctions far lower? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater because Bill O'Reilly is somewhat biased, as is every other human being, there is no debating that; but that is not what this debate is about. My opponent had to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator. He has failed to do so. Therefore, vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote because I will begin with defending my case, and then move on to my opponents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NC-------------------------------- Observation 1) --> my opponent did not attack this argument, thus you can extend this through the round. America can be used Observation 2) --> The UN does in fact define a felon in its database, accessible through their website, as "a person who has been tried and found guilty of a serious criminal offense through a fair legal court and is currently serving their incarceration." The United Nations also goes on to clarify what makes an ex-felon different from a felon. An ex-felon is "one who has successfully completed their sentence and re-enters society." The negative makes no argument against ex-felons, for ex-felons are not implied or stated in the resolution. The negative argues why felons, as stated in the resolution, ought not retain the right to vote --> Not one definition online or any dictionary I have found defines the word 'retain' in the future tense. For example, merriam webster defines retain as "to keep in possession or use", therefore implying not only the present tense but the constanst keeping of a right. This, along with the wording of the resolution and my first argument with the UN, points to the conclusion of an incarcerated felon Value: Justice --> His only argument to my value is that it is 'not inherent to the resolution'. Therefore, as long as I prove that it is implied by the resolution, then my value is extended through the round. The resolution deals with how we should deal with punishment and what rights are maintained or denyed in incarceration. (Turn)--> You can actually turn this against my opponents inferior value of a democratic society, because the resolution specifically deals with the punishment of prisoners, and for a society to be truly democratic, all punishment must be fair and JUST (justice) Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness --> As I already have stated, the resolution states a felon. I have already proven why it deals with incarcerated felons, just look to my defending of my second observation. Just as the affirmative made no attempt of arguing incarcerated felons, the negative makes no attempt in arguing an ex-felon because it is not inherent to the resolution. Contentions: 1) Retribution: --> a) Because a felon, by definition, is one who is serving their incarceration, once they re-enter society and thus the contract, they are no longer a felon, thus not inherent to the resolution --> b) Taking away the right to vote and influence government is perfectly proportionate, for when one commits a felony they physically, mentally, or financially take or restrict someone else's rights, and thus inherently hurts the government. A felon hurts society, which is why society (as part of the jury) sentences a felon to imprisonment. Because a felon also hurts the government, the government has a right to restrict or take away a felon's rights, such as political rights and the freedom to vote --> c) this is simply wrong and furthermore proves my opponent's poor logical reasoning. Let's take kidnap, for example, because my opponent brought it up. The Free Dictionary defines kidnap as 'to seize and detain unlawfully'. Because the government's incentive is not to cause pain (as a kidnapers is) but rather to protect society, as well as the fact that the government is not breaking any laws ('unlawfully'), this argument is dropped. Once again, the government does not rape rapists or steal millions from people who commit fraud, because the government cannot treat a felon as a moral non-entity, and thus must treat the felon as a political non-entity (because the government still has an obligation to punish the felon) 2) Legal Consistency -->a) He says that we do not have legal consistency because of the length of incarceration, but I do not argue that. Let's take parental rights, for instance, because I argue them as an example. You do not lose your parental rights while incarcerated in Texas and retain them in New York. I am arguing that for a government to be fair and just, it must uphold legal consistency via rights during incaraceration. Because 48/50 states, or 96%, disenfranchise during imprisonment, the government should be able to disenfranchise in all states (the remaining 4%) --> b) Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are now considered an ex-felon by society, because the payment to society (imprisonment) is over and repaid. However, because a felony inherently hurts the government, the government now has an obligation to punish the felon. The government then takes away the felons say in said government. 3) Double Standard --> a) This is nothing new. The government also restricts rights of ex-felons through the violation of the right to bear arms, violation of the right to serve on a jury...(etc) Still, however, this deals with ex-felons, versus felons. My opponent essentially agrees with the negative when he says that I am "undoing the balance incarceration achieves." My opponent then in turn agrees that disenfranshisement is justified while incarcerated, and because felons are CURRENTLY serving their sentence, he agrees with the negative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AC---------------------------------- Value: Democratic Society --> As I have proven, justice is the 'higher standard'. Both are implied by the resolution, but for a society to be democratic it must uphold justice through punishment VC: Maximizing Participation --> Not inherent to the resolution. My criteria is better to uphold justice because the negative argues how a nation with less participation can be equally, if not, superior on a justice scale to a nation with more 'participation'. --> Also, letting children (who are citizens) vote would increase participation. As you can see, however, this would not increase justice or lead to a strong democracy Observations: 1) Felons and ex-felons --> a) when a felon commits a felony, the government, because the felon has not fully repaid his debt to the government (he repaid his debt to society during imprisonment) aknowledges the felon as a felon. However, the resolution implies how society should punish this criminal, and upon re-entry of society, society essentially views the felon as an ex-felon, thus anything pertaining to an ex-felon is not resolutional. -->b) All felonies are committed in the 'past tense'. For example, you would not be on trial for "is killing", but rather "have murdered". My opponent is saying that you cannot punish a felon for a past occurrence. But, because all felonies are committed in the past tense, my opponents logical reasoning is to dejustify all punishment, because all felonies have already been committed. (Turn)--> My opponent is dejustifying all punishment, and for a democratic society (his value) to exist, there must be punishment to insure the protection of said democratic society Contentions 1) Society uses disenfranshisement in order to prevent contestation of existing values --> My opponent is essentially saying that we cannot force felons to be second class citizens. This is wrong for 3 reasons: 1) Becoming a second-class citizen means losing some rights. If felons did not lose any rights in jail, then punishment could not exist. Once again, my opponent is saying that all punishment is unjust, which goes against his value 2) Felons have brought this on themselves. By comitting a felony, they treat their victim as a second class citizen. 3) (Turn) This goes against my opponents observation of felons being felons for life. If we are to not make them second class citizens upon re-entry, then we would not be treating them as felons for life <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate because I'm Don't Think there is a heritage. I looked it up though. I believe the Confederate flag SHOULD be allowed on school property to represent pride and heritage in the students. In many schools around the country kids are being suspended for waring the Confederate flag on a tee-shirt. In USCB a Black Student Bryon Thomas had the Confederate flag on his dorm window and was forced to take it down over hatred, But Thomas contends the flag isn't a racist symbol; he says it stands for Southern pride. I think that this was a stupid case, if the flag stood for hate of the blacks why did Tom own a Confederate Flag? http://www.islandpacket.com... Another problem with the Confederate flag in our School System is that people believe that Southern history is taught wrong (and ill make another debate about that) and will get shirts and make a peaceful protest. These Shirts are from Dixie Outfitters a company that express the South. Some shirt designs include: Educate Not discriminate Southern Heritage The South Will Rise over School Censorship The South was Right The schools are wrong Proud of my Confederate ancestors ashamed of my Public School censorship I Don't believe that the these type of Shirts should be forced to be taken of a child. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Creation vs. Evolution because I want to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate topic, especially when it's his first one! I'll be honored to partake in his first debate on DDO. My opponent has clearly stated in his first round that he supports Young Earth Creationism in contrast to evolution. The only source of evidence he has to support this claim is the purported idea that carbon dating is false. A reply is simple: give me a detailed reasoning why carbon dating is false, and cite the example you give (how can I identify such an experiment if I can't access it's details?). I will hold back any lengthy response until such a simple task can be fulfilled. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Defend your favorite band/artist... With songs. because Let's do some Queen love songs. "Nevermore" There's no living in my life anymore The seas have gone dry And the rain's stopped falling Please don't you cry any more Can't you see Listen to the breeze Whisper to me please Don't send me to the path of nevermore Even the valley's below Where the rays of the sun Were so warm and tender Now haven't anything to grow Can't you see? Why did you have to leave me? (nevermore) Why did you deceive me? (nevermore) You sent me to the path of nevermore When you say you didn't love me anymore Ah ah nevermore nevermore "Love Of My Life" Love of my life - you hurt me, You broken my heart and now you leave me. Love of my life can't you see, Bring it back, bring it back, Don't take it away from me, because you don't know, what it means to me. Love of my life don't leave me, You've taken my love, you now desert me, Love of my life can't you see, Bring it back, bring it back, Don't take it away from me because you don't know what it means to me. You will remember - When this is blown over And everything's all by the way - When I grow older I will be there at your side to remind you how I still love you - I still love you. Back - hurry back, Please, bring it back home to me, because you don't know what it means to me - Love of my life Love of my life... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Morality does not come from any religion. because An interesting start with canny use of extension and false syllogism, however your inference that morals cannot exist within religion is incorrect and not the intended debate. Clearly religions can have morality as part of there teachings, I would not argue this. The point I would make is that morals were adopted by religions and then claimed as coming from religious teaching when in fact they already existed as favourable behavioural traits in humanity evolved from group living. Your self set task of proving "There are morals that exist within at least one religion" will not win this round of the debate as it avoids my supposition.. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Islam is a religion of peace. because Unfortunately all you have decided to do their is post 3 comments from the Qur'an, and one research poll from an independant investigator. However, these three posts are such a minority compared to the whole Qur'an itself. The poll also had very straight forward and such a blunt question asked, that this would of influenced what they would of said compared to what would of happened if you asked different types of violence. Their research was generalised, and therefore you assume that these small segments of their holy book can therefore be generalised to all Muslims. This also links me back to my last point which has gone amis. The vast amount of Muslims (fundamentalists) who take the absolute truth are the small minority, which you have decided to generalise to ALL of them. These quotes also suggest that modern muslims do it purely as in the past other Muslims may off presenting us with tu quoque. Just as at one point in time this may of happened, does not mean its the same in modern Britain or other countires. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Republicans are good??(: because That's not true, in fact, the country originally had no parties and George Washington wanted nothing to do with them. Also the only two parties NEAR to this founding of our nation was either democratic-republican and federalists. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with physical force is a justifiable method of punishing children because Naughty cool_rad, advertising a false intention to debate. I see you're a minor. Do I need to dandle you over my knee and punish you? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Money is worthless. because My opponent brings up a good point about the barter system. However, there would be no objective method of properly comparing one thing to another, making it very difficult to do business. In addition, need for one's services is not constant. Having an intermediate is more convenient than going through multiple sources of bartering. Regardless, this point that my opponent is hanging on is in relation to whether or not money is necessary, and has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not money is worthless. My opponent has childishly decided to give up this debate, so I accept his legitimate albeit disrespectful forfeit. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Defend your favorite band/artist... With songs. because This round will be two of Queen's long, pretty experimental songs early in their careers. "March of the Black Queen" Do you mean it do you mean it do you mean it Why don't you mean it why do I follow you And where do you go? Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah You've never seen nothing like it No never in your life Like going up to heaven And then coming back alive Let me tell you all about it If the world will so allow it Oooh give me a little time to choose Water babies singing in a lily pool delight Blue powder monkeys playing in the dead of night Here comes the Black Queen poking in the pile Fie Fo the Black Queen marching single file Take this take that bring them down to size March to the Black Queen Put them in the cellar with the naughty boys Little nigger sugar then a rub-a-dub-a-baby oil Black on black on every finger nail and toe We've only begun - begun Make this make that keep making all that noise Ooh march to the Black Queen Now I've got a belly full You can be my sugar baby You can be my honey child, yes A voice from behind me reminds me Spread out your wings you are an angel Remember to deliver with the speed of light A little bit of love and joy Everything you do bears a will And a why and a wherefore A little bit of love and joy In each and every soul lies a man And very soon he'll deceive and discover But even to the end of his life He'll bring a little love Ah ah ah ah ah I reign with my left hand I rule with my right I'm lord of all darkness I'm queen of the night I've got the power Now do the march of the Black Queen My life is in your hands I'll fo and I'll fie I'll be what you make me I'll do what you like I'll be a bad boy I'll be your bad boy I'll do the march of the Black Queen Ah ah ah ah ah Walking true to style she's vulgar vuse and vile Fie fo the Black Queen tattoos all her pies She boils and she bakes And she never dots her I's La la la la la la la la la la la la La la la la la la Forget your singalongs and your lullabies Surrender to the city of the fireflies Dance with the devil in beat with the band To hell with all you hand-in-hand But now is the time to be gone - forever "The Prophet's Song" Oh oh people of the earth Listen to the warning the seer he said Beware the storm that gathers here Listen to the wise man I dreamed I saw on a moonlit stair Spreading his hand on the multitude there A man who cried for a love gone stale And ice cold hearts of charity bare I watched as fear took the old men's gaze Hopes of the young in troubled graves 'I see no day' I heard him say So grey is the face of every mortal Oh oh people of the earth! 'Listen to the warning' the prophet he said For soon the cold of night will fall Summoned by your own hand Ah ah children of the land Quicken to the new life take my hand Fly and find the new green bough Return like the white dove He told of death as a bone white haze Taking the lost and the unloved babe Late too late all the wretches run These kings of beasts now counting their days From mother's love is the son estranged Married his own his precious gain The earth will shake in two will break And death all round will be your dowry Oh oh people of the earth Listen to the warning the seer he said For those who hear and mark my words Listen to the good plan Oh oh oh oh and two by two my human zoo They'll be running for to come Running for to come out of the rain Oh flee for your life Who heed me not let all your treasure make you Oh fear for your life Deceive you not the fires of hell will take you Should death await you Ah people can you hear me? And now I know and now I know And now I know and now I know That you can hear me And now I know and now I know And now I know Now I know Now I know now I know Now I know now I know Now I know The earth will shake in two will break Death all around around around around Around around around around Now I know now I know Now I know now I know Now I know now I know Now I know now I know Now I know now I know Now I know Wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo Listen to the wise listen to the wise listen to the wise Listen to the wise listen to the wise man La la La la la la la la La la la la la la La la la la la la La la la la la la La la la la la la La la la la la la La la La la La la Come Here (I - You) Come Here (I - You) Come Here (I - You) Come Here (I - You) Ah ah ah ah ah Listen to the man listen to the man listen to the man listen to the mad man God gave you grace to purge this place And peace all around may be your fortune Oh oh children of the land Love is still the answer take my hand The vision fades a voice I hear Listen to the madman! But still I fear and still I dare not Laugh at the madman! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion Laws Should Be Legalized. because Seeing as I'm the Con Debater, I'll let my opponent, RoyLatham, start this. I thank him for accepting this debate, and hope it shall be a good one. ~ TheWheel <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. because Okay here goes, my arguments will become more clear as time goes on but I will try to make them as clear as possible at this point. Thanks for this topic, this is something I have been waiting for. First off I am attacking your rationale that leads you away from eating human meat. You tell me that they are not naturally a part of our food chain. But I find myself in a disagreement with you. I do not believe you can naturally define any animals food chain. Especially under the theory of evolution. Unless you claim a divine classification of what is natural. It is my conclusion that each animal chooses its own food chain. There are obviously factors that make eating certain things more desirable than others. For instance the eagle will search out the lazy sun bathing snake as opposed to the quick ferret. One prey is an easier catch. From this conclusion I leap to my next one. Humans no longer need to eat meat. This you admit in your final sentences when you tell me, "I do not believe that one cannot survive without meat. There are many countless vegetarians that survive to a healthy age." At one point I will agree that meat was an essential part of our diet for lack of advanced sciences or cultivation techniques. Yet I no longer believe this to be true. So now that I have established eating meat is not a necessary part of human life I will establish why it is unnecessary, immoral, and wrong. Thus with eating meat being wrong I will conclude with vegetarianism being right (being a fine alternative). First and foremost I would like to point to Darwin's theory and how we came to be. Did we not evolve from less complex and less complex creatures, organisms, cells? Keeping this in mind, ask yourself as a voter/ as my opponent why humans typically believe murder to be wrong? I can list reasons personally: It destroys an intelligent form of life, destroys potential for subjective good, destroys potential for growth. Perhaps you are one of those people that believes we should not kill humans for the mere reason that they are humans, if this be the case please tell me. I will attack such a point. Now to draw from my evolution and murder points in the last two paragraphs. What would have happened if another form of life had come along and killed one of the key creatures we had evolved from? What if something had killed that creature that had the mutation that lead to a slightly more sophisticated brain power? By the killing of such a creature the potential for the human race to not exist today dramatically increases. Therefor would we consider such a killing to be wrong? Indeed, to destroy the potential for a great intelligent race would be more than wrong (and all the subjective good / growth of life in general that goes along with such a killing). So what are we as humans doing everyday when we eat creatures? Can you prove to me that we have never eaten a creature that had a favorable gene mutation? I would contest with the amount of creatures humans have devoured that there is no chance we have not killed such a creature. To slow or even halt the intelligent development of any race is wrong. Next once again stemming from my murder point. We as humans seems to naturally define our race as superior to every other. We consider ourselves more intelligent, sophisticated, capable of greater good, and overall the dominant species. I consider such logic to be flawed. Think about every time you have considered yourself a member of a privileged sub-group. Perhaps you feel your country is superior to others, perhaps it be your ethnicity; I say you are wrong and your conclusions lead you to create greater wrongs. Look at examples of times when people have considered themselves to be greater than other forms of humans. Slavery, exploitation, abuse, sexism, racism. Look to the greatest example of man-kind thinking himself greater than others, Hitler. Is thinking our species greater any different than thinking our race greater, our country, our city? Whatever it may be. Does it not all stem from the same lack of logic? Can you prove to me that a dolphin does not have the potential to do good? Can you prove the dolphin cannot grow and teach others with it? Can you prove the dolphin is not intelligent in its own light? Does a dolphin not have the potential to evolve and become just as intelligent as human life? Is human's subjectively defining other forms of life somehow justified? I contest that any form of animal life can be just as important as any other. No perhaps not to you as a human but does that make a mice helping 5 other mice any less important? We as humans define ourselves as the center of the universe but I disagree. Humans are just another form of life. Humans are in the greater group that I refer to as "life". Any animal has the potential to benefit "life". Next. To put things in perspective. This earth has existed according to modern day scientists for billions of years. Humans? Couple thousand years. Do you realize during what insignificant portion of this earth we have existed? There were many species that came before us and doubtlessly many that will come after (providing the world is not destroyed). Are those species any less or more important because of what time they lived during? Am I more important than Socrates, Plato, Aristotle because I live now and they lived in the past? Doubtlessly not. In accordance to how long the world has existed and will exist humans are not the center of the universe. Obviously we consider ourselves to be the most important but that does not make it true. Objectively we are no more important than any other creature that has or will walk the face of this earth. I will argue that a creatures actions in my subjective view can make it important to me. For instance I would say that a lion that eats my sister is more important than the bum on the street. Or the dolphin that saves me from a shark attack more important than an acquaintance or even perhaps a good friend. However I do not consider any form of life to have a pre-defined less or more important status. Any creature can become important or unimportant through its actions. Finally if you would like to stick with the idea that man is the most important greatest form of life please note everything that man has done to this world. Please look to the fact that we have ruined so many things for so many different species and ourselves. Is that greatness? In my personal opinion I consider human actions to have on a whole hurt this earth far more than many other species could ever dream of. If you really want to define life on this earth into categories varying on how important they are then I say there is no way you could possibly put humans on the top rung. In conclusion: What I'm suggesting is that you as a human belong to a larger group called "life". Humans in the past have defined themselves into sub-groups and called themselves greater than others. What I'm asking is that you don't make the same mistake and take it a step farther. Don't just realize that we are all human beings on this earth but that we are all life on this earth. Each human being is different as each form of life is different but none is pre-determined lesser or greater than another. Therefor since murder is wrong, perhaps you don't agree in which case you can attack my point, I can see no reason why murdering one of another species is any different from murdering one of our own. Thus eating meat is wrong. Vegetarianism is the way to go! Note: This debate is taken in the perspective of no god existing. If you happen to be one of the god folk please judge as if you were not. Or at the very least see past your bias for the sake of voting on the better argument not on your own feelings. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pie is Better than Cake because Cultural importance I will start with the cultural importance of pie. There are many common phrases which depend entirely upon pie, and these phrases are important for teaching wisdom to younger generations. Examples: "You're always as polite as pie to them."[1] - Mark Twain teaches us one of the great pie-lessons of being polite. A pie never insults anyone, it just waits patiently, hoping to please with not only the external beauty, but the internal treat that is hiding just beneath the surface(in the case of covered pies). "Pie in the sky." - Some would say that it is bad to look after the pie in the sky, the unreachable dream. However, happy people know that having dreams and desires is not a bad characteristic, as long as it is used as motivation, rather than an unachievable benchmark. Go chase your pie in the sky, every day! "Easy as pie." - How else could we so strongly present the opinion that a task was not only easy, but even pleasant? "A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around." - Edgar Watson Howe successfully used pie as a lesson in being an every day hero. For a boy to sacrifice pie and ala mode for family and country... there is no greater calling. Aside from the lessons learned from saying and quotations such as these, pie is used as a symbol. Indeed, as we reflect on the Thanksgiving celebration recently in America, the pumpkin pie has served faithfully as the symbol of freedom, community, prosperity, and gratitude for hundreds of years. Ease of speaking Pie is an easier word to speak than cake. From a resting position with lips closed, only a slight opening of the mouth, and slight movement of the tongue are needed. Cake, on the other hand, has two 'hard' consonants that must be pronounced in rapid succession, causing unnecessary wear and tear to the tongue and roof of the mouth. Health benefits It is easy to make a healthy homemade pie. Indeed, an apple pie can contain 8 apples[2], yielding 1 serving of fruit in each of the 8 slices[3]! [1] The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn [2] http://allrecipes.com... [3] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pink Unicorn (Pro) Vs Flying Spaghetti Monster (Con) because I'll go to R3 first. Pro claims that you can make anything tangible pink. This is true, though the spray can he links to includes black paint, so he has effectively invalidated his own argument. Also I ask the audience to consider this: even if you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig? If you put spray on a horse, is it stil a horse. Yes, and yes. However, he is playing games with definitions to assert that a unicorn is a “horse with a horn.” His own definition says that a unicorn is REPRESENTED by a horse with a horn, not that it IS a horse with a horn. We don’t know what an actual unicorn is because it is based on a fantasy. All we know is our perception of a representation of it. Mikal cannot uphold his burden because he cannot prove what an actual unicorn is. Pro deceptively asserts that all monsters are sentient. This is a flat-out distortion and he cannot PROVE that all monsters are sentient. He has not even contested my definition, which mandates subjectivity, nor has he sought to address my syllogism. He asserts that every definition of monster includes “creature,” but this isn’t true. His “on balance” claim is also fallacious, as he suggests that, because a monster CAN be sentient – which it can be – that we must consider this backwards: that only something sentient can be a monster, or that most monsters are sentient. But this isn’t true, and if what is monster is subjective, spaghetti can be a monster. Example: if I have an exam tomorrow on 20 chapters of stuff that only Pots or Sargon would understand, I’d say: crap, that exam tomorrow will be a monster. Why? Because it includes an abnormally large and frightening amount of material and scares the bejesus out of me. He then brings up an irrelevant list of things that could exist, but this is IRRELEVANT. I only must show that it is possible for this monster to exist, which is what I have done. I’m separating that from a pink unicorn entirely: I’ll refute that point separately. He concedes that it is POSSIBLE for a flying spaghetti to exist, so this debate is already over . Likelihood of existence is indeed our criterion, but I’ve already shown that it CAN and DOES exist, which means that my burden is fulfilled. At this point the debate can either end in two ways: a win for me or a tie. He claims that a monster must be capable of performing an action that qualifies it as a monster. However, his following syllogism and his argument boil down to a monster being sentient. Again, not all monsters are sentient – which he admits – and not all sentient beings are monsters, nor must all monsters be able to go to school. The criteria for determining whether something is a monster is entirely subjective and is based on a perspective of what you consider to be unusually large. If one person considers it a monster, it is a monster in some possible worlds. His next argument only addresses one type of monster but this doesn’t refute that spaghetti can be a monster. Thus, my burden is upheld. He then suggests that I cannot prove that something can concurrently fly AND be a monster. However, my opponent has dropped the definitions of fly that I listed. One of them suggests that being exploded by a drone is flying. Something could be considered a monster and be hit by a drone. Matter can not be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of mass, so the monster still exists, is still a monster, and we will still deem it a monster even during the split second where it is being exploded – because the act of exploding is, to the naked eye, is instantaneous that we cannot make out its parts being dismembered. And even if we could, if even one person still deems it a monster – because my opponent has NOT effectively proved objectivity – my burden holds. And, if we deem a bowl of spaghetti a monster and it is taken up by an aircraft, it is STILL a monster. So I have achieved my BOP. He then deceptively appeals to objectivity again by asserting that “everyone would be overjoyed.” Untrue. Some people may not like that it was just exploded by a giant drone, or if they were violently hit by a spaghetti bomb and were injured, of course they’d probably yell “CURSE YOU!” And they could still find it to be abnormally large and ergo a monster. He cites Brenda Song. Who the heck is that? I’m talking about London Tipton from the Suite Life on Deck. Mikal has provided us with NO reason to doubt her word regarding unicorns. He completely dropped my argument that rich people know best and we should trust them. Who cares if she’s pregnant? Baby bumps are cute. When did I suggest that humans live in Australia? This isn’t true at all. He admits that not all humans live in Australia, so I have not committed genocide. I said Australia only exists in the mind: it’s a figment of your imagination. Australia doesn’t exist and MassiveDump said so. He has dropped the argument that what Massive says is prima facie. He suggests that the word of (x) may be questionable. This may be so. But Massive is not (x); Massive is Massive, and I trust Massive, and you should too. He’s provided NO reason as to why Massive would deliberately lie to us, or any defense of Australia. For all we know, Australia could be a figment of our imagination. A group of people could have gotten so drunk that they started saying nonsense like “Hey I'm from.” Let me ask you a question, voters: have you been to Australia? No, don’t lie, you haven’t, because Australia doesn’t exist. My interview with Jesus regarding camels, the color pink, and the traditional family have been dropped. As for his R2 argument: I’ve already addressed his definitions and why his first contention is a broad overstatement and a distortion. He brings up a skeleton which could be a unicorn and suggests that it doesn’t matter whether or not it is. This is false because I’ve already proven my end of the burden, so in order to win, he must prove that this is a skeleton of a unicorn, not a horse with a crappy haircut or a parsnip that fossilized over time and appears to be a horn. He can’t do this because he can’t prove what a unicorn actually is. Pro has proven a “could” statement, but has not provided any actual evidence that it “is,” which he needs at this point. He then suggests that a species could have evolved into a unicorn. This is a fine point, though to be consistent with his earlier suggestion that unicorns lived long ago, he would have to argue for devolution. Why exactly would this be so? He then suggests that it is viable for this to be so, but provides no explanation for why it would have happened other than changes in climate – he has not proven that a species of horses every existed who were impacted by something of this nature – or explanation for how a random genetic mutation to the extent of growing a horn could occur. Rubbing their head to form a horn? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You can’t just sharpen your head and grow a horn. He then points to mutations and deformities. It’s interesting that none of his arguments are in sync. The problem with this argument is that he asserts that a horse with a mutation = a unicorn, but he hasn’t proven this because, as I pointed out, his definition of unicorn is jaded. His assertion about a flying spaghetti monster is just an assertion. He claims we can will stuff into existence. Can I will 5 billion dollars for myself. Of course not. For the third time, matter cannot be created or destroyed. No, the Bible is not a credible source. It’s been rewritten and retranslated so many times and holds so many contradictions that we can discard it as a credible source. Then he suggests that a pink unicorn is more desirable because people like horses. So? Unicorns aren’t horses. The points about horses are tangential and misguided. And tastes are subjective. For instance, I’m scared of riding, so I’d rather have a spaghetti bomb right now. And I’m fat, so there’s that My BOP is fulfilled, whereas Pro’s is not. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Star Wars is better than Harry Potter because My argument is based on a one-on-one fight between one Jedi and a wizard/witch. Contention 1: All Jedi's could avoid almost any of the wizard's or witch's spells. The Jedi could jump extremely fast and high and he can jump onto walls and stay there for a fair amount of time. Also he can jump onto walls and then jump off to get even higher. Contention 2: If the Jedi attack first and destroy the wizard's or witch's wand, it renders the spellcaster useless. The witch or wizard has to have a wand to perform spells and they do not have enough time to make potions in a fight, so the Jedi would win instantly. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Annabella because Hmm... ok. ======== REBUTTALS ======== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <"CON 1: I'm better looking then anyone else on Debate.org"> +Unproven, invalid contention backed up in no way whatsoever. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <"CON 2: This is my opinion, NO ONE can prove an opinion to be false. After all it is an opinion."> +Uhh, I don't have to prove an opinion to be false (although I did). You have to prove your opinion to be true as instigator and pro. Also it is my opinion that you are not the prettiest, so using your logic my opinion would stand. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Just some values: Value: Ones right to have an opinion Value criteria: Freedom of speech." +Straw man, Pro's values are irrelevant. I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech or your right to have an opinion anyway. This is DEBATE.org after all... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========= CONCLUSION ========= As instigator and Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. In this case, Pro has an immense Burden of Proof - she has to prove that she is prettier than every girl on DDO. I have proved otherwise and met opponent has failed to put up an argument. Resolution negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." because "I defined "outlaw" as "outside the law," which you agreed to. Thus, anyone who is outside the law is an outlaw for this debate, whether they are a bandit or not." What you've conveniently failed to mention about my acceptance of your definition is the context with which your definition was presented. You said in Round 1: "People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns." This CLEARLY puts your definition of 'outlaw' into the context of somebody who must "continue to resist the law as always." This obviously was not meant to include policemen, who presumably don't break the law and who will have no need to 'resist' the law change. When I brought up policemen in Round 1, you twisted your definition of outlaw until it no longer meant what it actually does mean. You equated 'democracy' with 'popular government', and concluded that every government party in America is popular. You can call policemen immune from the law, above the law, beside the law, 3 ft. from the law, inside, outside or beneath the law. However you twist these words, policemen are not outlaws by the very nature of them being immune from the law's reach. -------- "Let's say that the law is some random 3-D shape, a cube. If a person is above this cube that is the law, then they are not inside the cube, and instead on the outside. If they were just above the center of the cubic law, then they would just be within the upper extremities of law, not above the law. It doesn't matter if the federal government is involved or not; the police are not required to follow a law; thus, they are above that law; thus, they are outside the law." More of the same stuff from my opponent, once again trying to prove that all lovers of wisdom are philosophers and all governments in a democracy are popular. Twist the words however you will but the fact remains that police officers are not outlaws by virtue of their occupation. ----------- "Not in this debate. I defined "outlaw" so that it would include federal officers who remain with guns even after they are made illegal." Right, you posted a semantically-based debate for which you presumed you'd covered all your bases in the resolution so you didn't actually have to do any work. Unfortunately, your entire case rests upon the faulty logic that police officers are all outlaws, which, by your own definition and the context in which it was presented, is absolutely false. "It was the only source I could find that would define "above the law" without referencing a hip-hop group, blog, film, or TV series. It is also an acceptable source for Debate.org; I have seen many debates that use them. http://www.debate.org... ; It is essentially a joke website. You may as well have used Uncyclopedia. Voters, my opponent has clearly tried to pull the wool over your eyes and mine by setting forth a definition in Round 1 and placing it in context of his argument, and then, when the obvious hole in his argument was brought up, changing the definition beyond all meaning so that we end up with garbage like "all police officers are outlaws". I have shown, theoretically and with a real-life example, that in societies where guns are outlawed, it isn't ONLY outlaws who have guns. Therefore, vote CON. Thanks to my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States because I agree with my opponent's definitions, as required. The only real contention that I am going to need, barring any countering to those of my opponent, would be that these citizens are of eligible voting age, and therefore are allowed to vote. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you, and good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because I believe that my opponent has contradicted himself more than once already. His answer: "No" to the final question in the last round: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything?" is self-contradictory as he has already answered several questions in agreement with the opinions of this great man and I am sure I will have no difficulty compelling him to agree further with Marx in this and subsequent rounds (assuming of course that he does not concede his contradiction and forfeit the rest of the debate.) I would like to point out than in answering no to this question without the kind of further clarification he has given for several other answers my opponent has little room to manoeuvre. He has categorically stated that he doesn't agree with Marx on anything at all. In round 1 my opponent answered "yes" (with no additional provisions) to the question: "Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" To be fair this question should in fact have read "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" I assume that this is how my opponent interpreted the question as he lists himself 'Pro' to labour unions on his profile, but even if he decides to take the semantic argument of the rights existing, whether or not they are desirable this opinion is still very much in line with Karl Marx's own opinions on the subject. Marx supported and encouraged labour unions (called trade unions in the UK) in many countries, where they existed he approved of them. "The immediate object of Trades Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades Unions throughout all countries." (Karl Marx - The Poverty Of Philosophy) http://www.workersliberty.org... "Every activity of this class was therefore, important for Marx-activity in which the class got consciousness to move forward. The formation of trade unions and the trade union movement were important steps in the formation of a class, a common class-consciousness. The superior organisation- the political party of the working class could not be formed and expanded in isolation from this practical struggle involving the large mass of workers. That is why the statutes of the International Working Men's Association provided for affiliation of trade unions and other organisations of the working class, along with individual membership." http://cpim.org... There are other contradictions inherent in my opponent's conviction that he does not agree with Marx. Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? A. Yes Karl Marx was well known for his support of women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, especially in cases where their health would be at risk, I am sure he would agree with my opponent on this one. Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? A. Yes There is also strong evidence that at various stages Marx exhibited a lot of respect for the morality of the Bible and that even in his early life: "Marx's writings during this period exhibited a spirit of Christian devotion and a longing for self-sacrifice on behalf of humanity." http://www.britannica.com... Some of his most well-known quotes about religion have been taken out of context and he strongly criticized those who focused on attacking religion. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk... I think plenty of Marx quotes about the negative impact of machinery and over-industrialisation could easily be interpreted as a belief in pollution of at least the "bits and pieces" level too, but will not press anymore on the Marx issue as I think the following has been proved: Pro claims not to agree with Karl Marx on anything but clearly agrees with him on plenty. This is a contradiction. I have chosen to focus on this one contradiction although I believe my opponent has also made others which I will discuss briefly but not elaborate on for now: Supporting the Death Penalty goes against a basic morality set out in the Bible, the commandment: "Thou shall not kill" Ex 20:13. Jesus taught forgiveness as his central principle, if you confessed and repented you should be forgiven. Claiming that the Bible is a good source for morality and supporting the death penalty is a contradiction. Supporting the death penalty is also in direct contradiction of the notion of being Pro-life. You can't be pro life and pro death at the same time. The Bible states that Jesus was a man, born of woman. "The word became flesh" John 1:14 Here is a selection of Christian sites claiming that Jesus was fully human: http://www.desiringgod.org... http://www.ucc.org... http://staticyouth.wordpress.com... Unless none of these are true Christians my opponent has contradicted himself. More questions: 1. Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all? 2. "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" 3. Are the listed opinions on the BIG issues on your profile (at the time of me typing this) a true representation of your beliefs and opinions? 4. Is the world round? 5. Was Karl Marx a Marxist? 6. Are you a Marxist? 7.Do Communists seek to abolish personal and private possessions? 8. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn? 9. Does gravity exist? 10. Was the torture and crucifixion of Jesus morally justified? Thankyou. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Why justin bieber should be prosecuted and sent to prison. because Popularity has nothing to do with it my friend. Justin Bieber should be put on probation and have his drivers license revoked. This is what we would do for any other person who were to commit this crime. The law does not choose favorites. The courts should not put him in jail for the reasoning that we don't like him. Sources http://www.mtv.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pokeban because Resolved: Pokemon should be removed from Cartoon Network. Pokemon: The series of anime movies and television episodes licensed by the Pokemon media franchise Should: Ought to Removed from: No longer aired by Cartoon Network: The cable television network Cartoon Network, broadcast in the United States 1.The characters on Pokemon frequently capture a variety of so-called "Pokemon", some of which are extremely rare. It seems to be the objective of all Pokemon trainers to do this at every opportunity. Rare Pokemon are the most desired, and the most frequently captured. This is clearly would be considered an act of illegal poaching in today's society. 2.They allow the Pokemon from their prisons only on rare occasions for the purpose of "Pokemon battles". These battles involve pitched combat between two Pokemon, ending only when one passes out. During the struggle, Pokemon use any means at their disposal in order to emerge victorious. This does not reflect the natural behavior of Pokemon. In the wild, they appear to be non-predatory. They fight infrequently, and never between species. The trainers, through their battles, are perverting the Pokemon's nature. This is a form of animal abuse, much akin to dog fighting. 3.Not only does Pokemon exhibit poaching and animal abuse. It actively promotes them. Those who commit these acts are viewed as "heroes". In fact, the primary manner in which social standing is achieved is through the collection of rare Pokemon, and success in Pokemon battles. 4.Cartoon Network and the show Pokemon have a target audience almost entirely composed of young children. These young minds are being corrupted by Pokemon's influence, which teaches them that poaching, dog fighting, and animal abuse are heroic acts. This will lead to a perverted world outlook. In addition, children will be inclined to imitate the Pokemon characters, their heroes, and develop a tendency to abuse their pets. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. because I accept this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homosexuality is a gentic disorder, and should be treated like any other gentic disorder. because Vote con~ <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Star Trek technology is achievable because Con said :" They work....by reassembling them from the information and the original parts ." Rebuttal : Indeed. The Star Trek version of the technology does not follow an entirely rational method. However, that is not the burden. Consider the round one established guideline: ' While the technology is inherently fictional, the function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including its practical application .' Nobody is claiming that teleportation should look, sound or behave exactly like the television show suggests. I said we could create a technology to mimic the function. _____________________ Con established : " They are able to send people through solid walls ." Rebuttals: Shame! My opponent is not a Trekkie. According to the source, " the Transporter operations have been disrupted or prevented by dense metals, solar flares, and other forms of radiation, including electromagnetic and nucleonic radiation." [1] Additionally, had my opponent researched the show a little further, he would realize that the "science officer" is tasked with scanning for "cracks" or fissures within enclosed locations, so that the transporter room can get a "lock on the target". _____________________ Con claimed : ...Nor will it do to break them down at the molecular level since cells cannot pass through walls. Rebuttal : Astounding scientific prowess. The Human cell is approximately 10 micrometers in diameter. The average atom is aproximately .3 nanometers in diameter. There are 204 billion atoms in a single DNA molecule. [2] There are two DNA molecules per Chromosome. The average cell has 46 chromosomes inside it's nucleus. A cell is not a molecule. _____________________ Con believes : Breaking them down to the molecular level won't do because molecules cannot travel through barriers like we see on Star Trek. Rebuttal : Interesting theory. Not all molecules are equal. An Osmium Tetroxide (OsO4) molecule has more mass than a CO2 molecule. Stating that a molecule cannot pass through barriers is flagrantly false. Before we establish that a molecule cannot breach a barrier, you must first define the molecule and the barrier type. In the human body, CO2 is able to pass through the cell membrane with ease. That's how gas exchange works. Without this phenomenon, we would not breathe. Molecules can certainly pass through barriers, if the barrier is porous enough. Regardless, this is not part of the burden. I'm not tasked with convincing anyone that molecules pass through anything. Teleportation is defined by movement through "free space". As such, I'll limit my arguments to reality, not strawman objections. _____________________ Con claimed : Breaking the molecules down to atoms won't work either because atoms cannot pass through walls unless they are porous enough, and space ship walls need to be air tight. Rebuttal : Atoms can certainly pass through walls. The process is called quantum tunneling. [3] The process requires the use of a laser. The beam heats the surface of a solid object and excites the molecules. The objective atom is able to push through the surface by displacing the electrons in its path. Essentially, the atom is "beamed" through the wall. _____________________ Con said : " The information required to record everything about a person is prohibitive." Rebuttal: The Human genome project began in 1990 on an IBM 468, with 32 Mhz of amazing processing power. The project was completed almost a decade ago in 2003. Information storage is not the problem, unless you assume Computer technology to suddenly stop advancing. [5] IBM estimates a quantum processor PC will be market available within 10 years. The technology is already invented, the company is now designing the platform. As per the source, " a 250-qubit system contains more bits of information than there are atoms in the universe. In contrast to a traditional bit, which can either have the value "0" or "1", a qubit (Quantum bit) can have "0","1" and both values at the same time. " [6] _____________________ Con said :" To preserve the person, all of the information in the brain must be accurately recorded and transmitted. If anything is missing, it could affect a person's cognitive functions, including their memories, personality, and bodily functions ." Rebuttal : The implications of your argument dive into metaphysics and religion. The human brain is a collection of chemicals and proteins. Personality is based on genetic predisposition and experience. One is hard-wired into the DNA, the other is a flexible pathway in the brain, built by chemical interactions and firing neurons. As long as the brain is rematerialized exactly the same way, we should assume the "personhood" will remain intact. We simply cannot conclude that the personality and memory would be lost, unless my opponent is hinting at the presence of a "soul". Memories and behavior are directly tied to physical structures and chemical interactions. Claiming that the memories would be lost is an assumption based on religion, not science. _____________________ Con argued : My opponent explained some of the research in tele transportation, but none of them overcomes the problems I've raised. The article in The Independent explains how information was transported using quantum entanglement. No substance was transmitted. Rebuttal : Before the candle was invented, someone discovered fire. The debate topic is not concerned with "what hasn’t been discovered". We are debating "if it can be discovered". Your rebuttal argues that transportation is impossible because success has been limited to photon packets. By that logic, the cell-phone should be impossible because the radio was once considered the peak of wireless technology. _____________________ Con Stated : The Chinese were only able to create a replication, not a transportation. Rebuttal : I suggest my opponent procures a copy of the Star Trek technical manual. The food replicator technology is the same technology used in the transporter. Every transported object is a replicated object in the Star Trek Universe. The transporter does not need to use the exact same matter for re-materialization. It just requires equal matter. As stated above, the re-materialized matter must be equal to the dematerialized matter. Assuming that the personhood is lost in the process assumes the presence of supernatural aspects to the human person, such as a soul or spirit. _____________________ Con argued : " ...if you read the article, the 100 atoms were not actually transported...None of these experiments are relevant to Star Trek transporters." Rebuttal : Again, incorrect. The study showed that solid matter could be dematerialized on one end, and rebuilt on the other end using equal matter (not the same, but equal). That is the exact operating principle of a Star Trek transporter, including the transfer of information on a photon packet. Hence the term, "beam me up". All arguments extended. _____________________ Round three Arguments: Manipulation of the Higgs Boson field – While the idea is raw, unrefined and purely speculative, it is by all reason possible to manipulate the Higgs field to de-materialize an object into energy. Many problems would need to be overcome, such as "how" to manipulate the Higgs field without super-heating it and re-materialization. [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Star_Trek ) [1] http://michaelgr.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://news.sciencemag.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.tomshardware.com... [6] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [8] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS because A pledge not to have children is not sterilization. It is not "de facto sterilization", because the woman is not sterile. "It is also inconceivable that a man murder his brother, or that someone would go into a crowded theater and indiscriminately kill moviegoers after turning his own room into a gigantic IED. We have laws that seek to prevent this kind of behavior from occurring." There are no laws that require a medical procedure to prevent the remote possibility a sane man may murder his brother or shoot up a cinema in the future. "The opponent continually attempts to frame the discussion in a civil rights point of view, when I have already refuted his arguments to this point, to which he or she offers no counterargument." My opponent has plainly not refuted my contention that carrying out the resolution would constitute a civil rights issue. The assertion that it is a "readiness" issue does not stop it also being a civil rights issue. "My point about readiness issues stemming from a prolonged VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION stemming from "short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy" stands as it is until my opponent attempts an earnest rebuttal." Already rebutted the relevance of "voluntary incapacitation". Short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy amount to no more than a few days to give birth and recover. The length of a minor illness. "That CON agrees that a proper course of action for a pregnant woman in the White House is to offer her resignation..." No.CON agrees that a possible course of action for a woman who wishes to raise children is to offer her resignation. If my opponent does not understand that he cannot change the terms of the resolution to fit a wonky new conception of a pledge as "de facto sterilization", I'm sure the voters will. The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child because Look at it this way, to have a child you must have two people, a woman and a man. So how is it fair if the woman is the only one who gets a say? I understand that the woman is the one who goes through labor, but the process of making a child includes the man (or the husband in this case) so it doesn't seem fair that the man doesn't get a say. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot because Many thanks to Mongeese for accepting this debate. Unfortunately, it would appear that my attempt at satire was not an unmitigated success. Just to clarify, the subject of this debate is squirrels, not people! Though (deliberately) not immediately obvious, the "immigrants" I refereed to were the gray squirrels that were imported into England from North America in the 19th Century and which have since largely displaced the native red squirrels here. Please be assured, therefore, that I used the words "pests" and "vermin" in their literal sense and the "black ones" I mentioned are the darker variety of the North American squirrel that have more testosterone and are even more aggressive than the regular greys (as detailed in my source). I sincerely regret the fact that I gave the impression that I was being abusive! As a final word of explanation: there was, of course, a subtext to this mode of argument - that being that there is a very fine line between patriotism and nationalism and some leaders exploit people's loyalty and love of their country to promote all manner of obscure and nefarious causes, labelling people who disagree with them as unpatriotic or even traitors. Moving on, in response to Mongeese's arguments, I fully agree with all his points. For the record, citizens of the United States are always more than welcome in England - America has been our closest ally in modern times and this point was widely echoed yesterday during the 60th anniversary of D-Day ceremonial events in Normandy at which President Obama and the Prince of Wales were both in attendance. http://edition.cnn.com... Just to further clarify, most English people identify themselves culturally more with Americans than they do with continental Europeans, even though a vast ocean separates us rather than the mere 26 miles of water that lies between England and France. To conclude this round I would like to return to topic of the debate and reiterate that the problems gray squirrels are causing in England are intolerable and that they must be culled in order to prevent further destruction to the country's flora and fauna. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with All policemen should use tazers as a last resort. because Here is the source you wanted about Llandudno and it's existence. http://www.llandudno.com... "They tazed him for what he said, if my opponent had their audio on. Therefore, my opponent is doubly incompetent. " First of all, I never said my audio wasn't on. Nonetheless, it is clear the the victim was restrained as a first resort, then he resisted, then he was tazered later. Thus debunking my opponents arguments. My opponent says that "Tazing is not that life threatening". As I have shown with evidence earlier, tazing has the potential to kill, so it is extremely life-threatening. He then goes on to try to venture off-topic and attempts to provide an alternate definition of last-resort. This shall be regarded irrelevant to the debate. Because my opponent has not adequately refuted my arguments, it can be seen that a affirmative ballot should be cast. Thank-you for your time. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Women are treated the same as men because Well we can't change the whole world so let's stat with DDO. Do women participate proportionately, being about one-third of the total membership? Why are women one-third of the total membership? It appears to me that, and correct me if I am wrong, that the cause of women participating or not participating in debates on debate.org, at least with the admittedly sleazy crowd I hang around with, is not due to their being or not being treated the same as men, and if I am not wrong then to what is it due? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with An Avocado is a Fruit because Ok my opponent says that the culinary point of view is the general view on an avocado, he says . Well let me show you. First if we look throughout his case at the places where he got his definitions then we must see that these sites must have taken a while o find. I did my own search on if an avocado is a vegetable in a culinary sense, it took me along time to find those exact sites. Now to a person who is just sitting at home looking for a definition of avocado he will probably go to dictionary.com or search it on google. DICTIONARY.COM IS A SITE USED BY PEOPLE, we must look to my definition because that is what a general person will look at. He may also go to a dictionary, well i will give 2 more online sources of the most used dictionarys in the world - webster's dictionary & american heritage. Avocado- a pulpy green- to purple-skinned nutty-flavored fruit of any of various tropical American trees (genus Persea especially P. americana) of the laurel family. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Avocado-A tropical American tree (Persea americana) having oval or pear-shaped fruit with leathery skin, yellowish-green flesh, and a large seed. b. The edible fruit of this tree.(American heritage dictionary online http://www.bartleby.com... ) Now I have fulfilled his request of me having to say why the botanical reference is better than the culinary one. It should be used because the person on the street who looks for defintions of these will go to these sites and if they search avocado these are the defintions they will see and accept. I thank my opponent for debating me on this topic and i would like to put a link up that is a bit off topic but funny. Thank you please vote for me <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kids Should School Start Earlier in the Morning and not Later because Kid should start school earlier because then they will go to bed earlier and get more sleep and wont be so tired and then they can learn more and plus they'll have more time for after school activity's and they can get out of school earlier and can hangout with friends more!!! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap Battle Rematch: Lannan13 vs. Truth_seeker because I accept <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man. because Pull all arguments across! BOTTOMLINE on Spider-Man vs Batman: 1) Spider-Man is fast enough to be avoiding machine gun fire and shielding himself from lazers (which move at the speed of light by definition, although it must be noted that he wouldn't be able to anticipate any light speed projectile without spider sense) at close range. As I've already shown, he is literally faster than a bullet as we clearly saw him webbing up bullets AFTER they were fired. What's more, he pulled this off with his goal being to protect someone OTHER than himself. My opponent has given us no reason to believe that Batman can move at a similar speed, much less move fast enough to avoid being clobbered by Spider-Man the very INSTANT the battle begins (i.e. a speed blitz). Batman won't even have the opportunity to CONSIDER using gadgets. 2) Even while shrunken down to the size of an action figure, we saw Spider-man EASILY knocking out trained soldiers who were normal in size. Again, imagine how one of these punches would effect Batman when up against the wall crawler at normal size. ONE punch is all it takes to put Batman down for the count. As of now, you could probably stop reading and just vote CON since there's pretty much no way Batman is getting around someone who is too fast/strong for him without any kind of prior knowledge of the battle or his opponent. 3) Spider-Man has his own unique fighting style which has enabled him to have fighting skills superior to most of the fighters in the Marvel Universe. Not to mention that Spider-Man has trained under Captain America as well (who is regarded as the best fighter in the Marvel Universe). Even if the two were close in strength and speed, Batman would not have his martial arts skills as an advantage. 4) One of the most intelligent people in the Marvel Universe (Hank Pym) claims that Spider-Man was smarter than him merely at the age of 15 (when he invented his spider tracers). Spider-Man is much older now and more experienced. When taking into consideration his own share of intellectual feats, he can at very LEAST a match against Batman. Thus, intelligence won't be an advantage either. 5) I've shown that the foes who my opponent has claimed to be superior to Spider-Man to have either been beaten only after Batman had lost earlier (hence had time to prepare for the rematch) and/or that Spider-Man is superior and has bested foes even greater still on a regular basis. When taking all of the facts into consideration, the dark knight doesn't stand a CHANCE! Mr. Wayne would approach the battle with his usual overconfidence and tough guy demeanor, only to be quickly dispatched and webbed up against a lamp post as if he were some common crook. The web head would then proceed to take a picture, make a joke and then continue the night on his usual patrol as if nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. . . . . to him, life is great big bang up, whenever there's a hang up, you'll find the SPIDER-MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! No new arguments next round. Thanks for the debate! VOTE CON! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because First of all, I'd like to thank The Skeptic for taking me up on this controversial and interesting topic. I am sorry to hear that your previous 'animal rights' opponents 'garnered poor argument' hopefully I will not be added to that list. Also, the 2,000 character limit is so we can get straight to the point. I completely agree with the majority of your previous post: - Animals do not have rights. - Dogs do not have language and therefore do not have higher forms of abstract thinking. - Dogs are not on the same moral platform as humans. This information would be valid in an 'Animals Should Have Rights' debate; however, it does not justify why it is 'a-okay' to mutilate a dog for aesthetic reasons, it purely implies that humans have a conscience. Humans have a unique ability to be aware of their surroundings (consciousness), thus resulting in emotions and feelings which, traditionally speaking, dogs do not possess. Humans also have the fundamental ability of knowing what is morally and ethically right and wrong. What makes it morally and ethically right to mutilate a dog purely for aesthetics? What are the benefits? I shall allow my opponent to 'expose more arguments' before I continue. Make them good :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because ==================== My opponent has conceded this debate unwittingly ==================== My opponent actually agrees with many of my points! In fact, she even complies with my argument that animals don't have rights, and thus are not on the same moral platform as humans. She goes on to say that this would only be valid in an "Animals Should Have Rights" debate, and that this has nothing to do with this debate. I'm sorry to say that my opponent is gravely mistaken. When we are talking about the ethics of mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons, then whether or not they have rights is CRUCIAL. If something were to have no rights, then it is effectively amoral. Rocks have no rights, so we can do whatever we want to them (unless you throw it at a person, who has rights). It's simple. Once my opponent has admitted that animals don't have rights, then she has conceded this debate. In fact, I was going to argue along the lines of relieving animals of unnecessary suffering (animal welfare), but it seems my opponent has taken the extra stride for me :). ==================== Conclusion ==================== The vote is clear and obvious: PRO. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits