text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine because It may have been better to have sent me a message or left a comment asking me that so as not to deprive you of a round of argument. In the context of what I wrote the term 'State' refers to the concept of the State, as in the recognition of the political organisation of government and society. The argument is not prejudiced in any way as to a specific nation state, country or nationality. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with illegal imigration is wrong because My points have not been refuted. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with An Avocado is a Fruit because First off i would tell my opponent that the meaning of life is to continue human life. SO you may cut his opening, onto all his contentions. If we look at the resolution it says an avocado is a fruit, yet it doesn't specify in what sense, so we must look at it as what the general society thinks of it. Our general society believes that anything with a seed is a fruit, an avocado is a fruit therefore because it has a seed. Now we can use it as a vegetable just like the tomato but to the general society it is a fruit. We can also use definitions according to dictionary.com an avocado is - Also called alligator pear. a large, usually pear-shaped fruit having green to blackish skin, a single large seed, and soft, light-green pulp, borne by the tropical American tree Persea americana and its variety P. adrymifolia, often eaten raw, esp. in salads. Now we look at fruit from merriam webster online dictionary-- the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant. The biggest thing i am trying to say is that the debate isnt about any specific area but in general Onto my case he hasn't touched it therefore my contention flows thru <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Health Care because French cheeses may be luxurious, but the entire category is not, as I've shown. Some cheeses are base, most are average. Obviously, not all cheese is luxurious. I'll go ahead and ignore the rest...if I lose S&G; on this, I'll be terribly upset. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bullying is good from a young age. because This concludes the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Peter Griffin is an inferior character to Homer Simpson because Peter Griffin is arguably more obese. Peter Griffin also has a talking dog, that writes books, bangs real woman, and drive. Homer has a mutt. Peter befriends a man with a speaking disorder, a crippled cop, and a perverted pedophile. He has more varied and interesting friends than Homer. Peter's wife does not have 5 foot clown hair. Peter arguably has better fighting skills, if you recall his fights with the chicken. Peter has an evil genius talking baby, while Homer has a mute baby. I believe Peter is superior in many ways. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Quote Battle because "You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." ---Dean Martin <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gun Rigths because Americans should not be restricted or be limited to any gun of their choice by government. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US because Firstly, a big thanks to Con for accepting and I look forward to a thoughtful, respectful debate. Secondly, my absolute sincerest apologies. I feel the quality and length of this round could have been much better. We are in the midst of moving and whatever I managed to get to in between packing/unpacking boxes is written below. Thus, the content is very simple, and limited (particularly the environmental benefits which I didn't have time to get into as much as I would have preferred.) Hopefully the coming days will be a little less hectic and once again, my apologies. I hope the simplicity of the first round can be pardoned and apologize if it is an inconvenience. Let's get started. I will be debating in favor of the implementation of solar road highways within the US. First, a brief explanation of what a solar roadway would entail: A solar roadway is a road surface that generates electricity by solar power photovoltaics. [1] The idea, according to the company Solar Roadways, is to replace existing asphalt roads, highways, parking lots, and driveways with solar road panels. Each panel, 12'*12', would consist of three layers. The top layer is the road surface, the middle layer (also known as the electronics layer) contains the microprocessor board, and the base plate layer distributes the power collected. Both the top and bottom layers are weatherproof in order to protect the electronic pieces between them. Contention 1: Safety The solar road panels provide many benefits, one being increased safety on the roads. The surface layer of the roadways will be textured in such a way that it increases traction, allowing tires to grip the surface with more durability. [2] In addition, LED lights will be included within the surface layer, designed to light up roads at night and create electronic highway signals, alerting drivers of weather conditions or any interferences on the road. [3] The solar roads also contain a heating element, that could warm up in cold weather to melt snow and ice, preventing cities form shutting down during bad weather, such as heavy snowstorms.[1] [4] Such implementation could go a long way in preventing accidents, and increasing overall security for drivers and pedestrians alike. Contention 2: Economy Being of renewable energy, solar roadways are generally self-maintained and will ultimately end up paying for the cost of production and repairs of the panels. The amount of energy gathered and stored would provide excess electricity that could be sold, thus becoming self sufficient. [3] Another benefit to the economy involves employment. New jobs would be created in the manufacturing of panels. The Solar Roadways website [5] estimates that in regards to panel production alone, the implementation of these highways could result in 2.5 million full time jobs for at least a ten year period. Contention 3: Environmental Benefits Solar energy has obvious benefits on the environment, and such a large scale operation offers a wide range of benefits as well. The most obvious among them is eliminating the necessity of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in order to produce electricity. Another, less conventional, idea involves the increasing production of electric cars. Though currently electronic cars have a relatively short range and must be recharged often, the implementation of solar roadways could eliminate that. Owners of EV's can plug their cars into solar road panels and recharge them at rest stops . Engineers are currently evaluating the possibility of charging cars as they drive. The increased use of EV's and solar road highways could theoretically eliminate the need for oil as an energy source. [6] Contention 4: Convenience There are several reasons why the utilization of solar road panels are convenient. 1) Durability. [1] The life span of these panels are estimated to be about 30-40 years, about three times the life span of current asphalt roads (7-12 years). 2) Panels can be built upon the roadways that are already in place. [1] The current roadways can be used, destroying them to put the solar panels in place is not necessary. I'm running against the deadline here with five minutes to post. So, a quick spell check and up it goes. Looking forward to Con's arguments. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_roadway [2] http://www.energydigital.com... [3] http://www.smartcity-magazine.com... [4] http://www.solarroadways.com... [5] http://www.solarroadways.com... [6] http://www.solarroadways.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Polygamy should be allowed in the United States. because "To many people, possibly a majority, marriage is a religious institution. They believe that the bond they share is spiritual, like God intended for them to be together. I'm not saying religion is right, but I know it's not wrong." You have merely looked at just the Christian belief of marriage and decided that since the majority of people practice it, it must be right and shove that belief on other people. What about people that practice other religions that believe in polygamy? Are you insinuating that all their religion's wrong and yours is right? You yourself said that people "believe" this, so why should everyone to forced to practice this "belief"? Also we must remember a little something called Separation of Church and State. While I believe it's fine to use religion to guide your decision, this is merely a dictation of what it says in the bible clearly violating separation on church and state deeming it unconstitutional. This country was founded on Freedom and as such we should advocate it, not deem it illegal whatever your personal beliefs might be. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States because I thank my opponent for his well though out response and wish him good luck in whatever endeavor is pulling him away from such an interesting debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Blue is considered a more professional color than red because First of all, while red is not a common colour in suits, it is very common in small accents, such as roses, ties, and pocket hankies. A black suit with a red tie or red rose in the breast pocket speaks professional more so than a blue suit. THe atribute of appearing proffesional is not caused by commonness of an object. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God. because Thanks for posting such an interesting topic for an argument. I look forward to a good and enjoyable debate and wish all the luck to my opponent. Now to start off I would like to give simple definitions for some of the terms in the Stone Paradox and Resolution: 1. Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power. According to the Random House Dictionary on Dictionary.com 2. The Christian God-The Christian God is defined as the creator of the universe (as mentioned in Genesis Chapters 1 & 2), who is pure and good (as in the books of Romans, Chapter 3 and Ephesians, Chapter 4) and who happens to also be all-powerful (as found in Matthew Chapter 19 and in the Book of Mark). Now onto my argument, the Paradox of the Stone leads to one of two scenarios: 1. The first scenario is that God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. This scenario informs us that God is restricted to what he can and cannot do by his own power. Since he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. 2. The second scenario is that God can create a stone which he cannot lift. This scenario informs us that God can create anything, including items that have power or some attribute that exceeds his own. This would then disprove idea that God is all-powerful, since there is something that can exceed his powerful. Being that the Christian God is defined as all-powerful and omnipotent, he should, in theory, be able to do anything. However, since the Christian God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift or he can create a stone which he cannot lift, it becomes apparent that the Christian God is not the all-powerful being that the Bible and Christian religion make him out to be. This means that either in either scenario there is something that God cannot do. Therefore, by simple reasoning and logic it becomes apparent that there is no way that there is no way for the God that is defined by the Christian Faith to exist. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Society would be better off without religion because Yes, without religion there would be peace in the middle east, or would there? Without religion we you have fewer moral values, many of the things you think of morally wrong today would maybe accepted because religion made those laws over the years. Also, i don't see how religion has slowed stem cell research. The reason people are against it is because their pro-life. They think that conception is the beginning of life, which it scientifically is. So it isn't religion, it's pro-life people, like me. You say intelligent design is being taught in schools. This is only sometimes true. most schools only teach evolution, unless you take a Christianity class. The schools that do teach it in their science class are trying to show both sides. In 6th grade I was taught and let us choose which one is right. Yes contraception would still exist. Because I think that people would think that a fetus is a human life no matter what. So you can't blame that all on religion, especially my catholic faith. Why religion? In the face of pogroms and pedophiles, crusades and coverups, why indeed? Religious Americans have answered the question variously. Worship is one answer. Millions gather each week to acknowledge their higher power. The chance to experience community is another. Healthy congregations are more than civic clubs. They are surrogate families. The opportunity to serve others also comes to mind. Americans feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless largely through religious organizations. Yet as important as community, worship and service are, I am convinced that religion's greatest contribution to society is even greater. Religion prevents us from being carried away by the tides of the times,because a true religion has an eternal value-system. Religion guides our actions in life, putting a check on criminal tendency in human nature. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value-system for human existence. As this is a philosophy debate, I will refrain from using sources like I do in political ones <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene because == Introduction == While I'd like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate, sadly it appears as if he felt the need to plaigerize his entire argument which I did not realize before I had accepted the debate. This is obviously bad conduct. For the website where my opponent stole his contentions, it can be found here [1]. That said, my primary focus of this debate will be opposing these assertions made by Pro in Round 1 (in addition to the asinine statements about America and Canada) --> "I believe that being successful or a failure depends on the genes and not on the hardwork put on by the individual. Boys and Girls who are lucky enough to get all the good genes from their parents are destined to always win. While on the other hand the people who have bad genes cannot succeed no matter how hard they try." == Arguments == 1. The Bell Curve is based on 4 primary assumptions --> intelligence is depictable as a single number; intelligence is capable of rank ordering people in a linear order; intelligence is primarily genetically based; and intelligence is essentially immutable. American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould argued that if any of these premises are false then their entire argument disintegrates [2]. However, there are plenty of criticisms to all of these claims. For instance, Harvard Psychologist Howard Gardner points out that there are multiple types of intelligence, such as analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, practical intelligence, etc. Most people accept the common phrases "street smart vs. book smart." If The Bell Curve's intention is to prove that intelligence is related STRICTLY to genetics or other biological factors, then how can they account for "street smarts?" 2. The American Psychological Association states, "There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation... It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences. There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis" [3]. 3. Associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at Emory University Melvin Konner notes that The Bell Curve is a "deliberate assault on efforts to improve the school performance of African-Americans... African-Americans have excelled in virtually every enriched environment they have been placed in, most of which they were previously barred from, and this in only the first decade or two of improved but still not equal opportunity. It is likely that the real curves for the two races will one day be superimposable on each other, but this may require decades of change and different environments for different people. Claims about genetic potential are meaningless except in light of this requirement" [4]. 4. There is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the methods used to garner the information in Murray's 'The Bell Curve.' For instance, the National Bureau of Economic Research economist Sanders Korenman and Harvard University sociologist Christopher Winship found certain errors in Herrnstein's methodology [5]. They concluded, "There is evidence of substantial bias due to measurement error in their estimates of the effects of parents` socioeconomic status... it fails to capture the effects of important elements of family background (such as single-parent family structure at age 14). As a result, their analysis gives an exaggerated impression of the importance of IQ relative to parents' SES, and relative to family background more generally. Estimates based on a variety of methods, including analyses of siblings, suggest that parental family background is at least as important, and may be more important than IQ in determining socioeconomic success in adulthood" [6]. 5. Now, there are a plethora of other scientists I can cite and quote as noting the methods and findings of The Bell Curve as complete BS. However, let's deviate from what the experts have to say explicitly and use a bit of common sense. Studies show that men and women tend to have similar IQs and intelligences; however, due to social circumstances women are statistically far more likely to be poor than men. This proves that intelligence and IQ is obviously not the only factor that determines one's life success. Additionally, many outside factors are huge influences such as the economy and one's political environment. Whether or not one has supportive or influential parents is also relevant, as is one's individual drive and other personality traits and factors which are all susceptible to change and grow with experience, and not limited to strictly biological indicators. 6. Pro states that those with "bad genes" cannot succeed no matter how hard they try. This is a statement with no factual basis whatsoever nor was it evidenced from what Pro plaigerized. On the contrary, I advocate that success is indicative of a lot of factors outside of genetics. For instance: hard work, luck, talent (i.e. musical, etc.) and networking. One's looks can also play a significant part to their success. Pro says that hard work is irrelevant though it is his burden to prove that this is the case. Additionally, consider the reality that when applying for a job and whatnot, an employer tends to look at one's grades and resume. It is completely possible to get good grades despite a lack of intelligence. For example, I can name even some DDO members who get good grades, but might not be "the brightest crayon in the box." George W. Bush is an example of a fellow who attended one of the nation's most prestigious universities and achieved high levels of success without necessarily being the brightest. == Conclusion == I'm not sure if my opponent was being serious or sincere with this debate (considering his plaigerism and remarks about Canada). Most academics acknowledge the reality that The Bell Curve is inaccurate and inconclusive. I will end this round for now as most of my points are pretty clear, but I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds if need-be. For now I send this debate back over to Pro and wish him the best of luck for what I hope will turn out to be an interesting debate. [1] http://wilderdom.com... [2] http://goinside.com... [3] http://www.search.com... [4] The Tangled Wing Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner, 2nd edition, p. 428 [5] http://press.princeton.edu... [6] http://papers.ssrn.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change because C1. Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately, it led me to a page I have taken a screenshot of and saved to my pictures[1]. Substituting 'gov' for 'org' I reached a page which I then, after one click (the 'evidence sidebare') arrived at a page where NASA agrees that global warming is both happening and is 'very likely human caused'.[2] C2: My apologies to my opponent; I intended to say that the United States is not the only developed country. Thus, for example, my references to Australia. Australia is a developed country. C3: I would like to state that humans are sometimes idiots and have been known, on occasion, to not ban things that were harmful. Examples include literally everything that has ever been banned; logically these thing would have had not to be banned at one point. Secondly, the wording of the resolution assumes that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment; if they weren't no one would have any particular desire to mitigate the effects. My thanks to my opponent for the debate. 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am not a troll! because You win this round, well played. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Illuminati Existance Debate because . . . Introduction My opponent opposes the claim that the Illuminati exists. To fulfill my burden and demonstrate that the Illuminati exists I will: Define the Illuminati Demonstrate that there is a real group of people that have and still do exist that fulfill this definition. Provide photos and video of said people. Provide documented proof of membership. Provide vital quotations from said people demonstrating their involvement in the Illuminati. Reveal actual ex-Illuminati members as a testament to its existence. To win, my opponent must provide an argument to demonstrate that said Illuminati members don't actually exist in the world that we both believe to be real. Any argument which tries to use a solipsist denial of existence shall be dismissed for it misses the point of the debate. Definition of the Illuminati The Illuminati is a network of global elites all of which are connected either by the 13 royal bloodlines or connected ideologically, who conspire towards an oppressive global government agenda and are usually members a number of occult secret societies . This group has existed for thousands of years under different guises. [1] [2] [3] Evidence of the Illuminati's Existence Let's first acknowledge some undeniable facts: - People referred to as global elites exist i.e. international bankers, members of international organizations, corporate owners, media moguls, heads of state, leadership administrations, intelligence operatives, etc. - Secret societies exist. - Royal bloodlines exist. - The ideology of globalism exists. I will intend to show that the global elites are in fact members of secret societies, part of royal bloodlines, and promote a globalist agenda. Secret Society Membership of Global Elites Freemasons: Winston Churchill , Simon Bolivar, Edmund Burke , Benito Juarez, Edward VII, Geroge VI, Bernardo O'Higgins, José de San Martin, Francisco de Paula Santander, José Rizal, José Marti, Pandit Nehru, Lajos Kossuth, Jonas Furrer, Guiseppe Mazzini (region leader of Illuminati), Eduard Benes, John A. MacDonald, Aaron Burr, George McGovern, Barry Goldwater, Estes Kefauer, Thomas E. Dewey, Alf Landon, Hubert H. Humphrey, Wendel Wilke, W.E.B. DuBois, William Jennings Bryant, King Hussein of Jordan, Yasser Arafat , Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Shroeder, Tony Blair , Yikzak Rabbin, Cecil Rhodes , Sir John J.C. Abbott, Stephen F. Austin, John G. Diefenbaker, Samuel J. Ervin Jr. (Watergate committee), Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Rev. Jesse Jackson , Sam Nunn, Lowell Thomas (brough Lawrence of Arabia to pub. not.), Gov. George C. Wallace, Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms, Robert Dole, Jack Kemp, Al Gore , Prince Phillip (GB), Zbigniew Brzezinski , Lord Peter Carrington , Andrew Carnegie , W. Averell Harriman, Henry Kissinger , Richard D. Heideman, Robert McNamara, Henry Ford , Samuel Gompers, Walter P. Chrysler, John Wanamaker, S.S. Kresge, J.C. Penney , John Jacob Astor , John L. Lewis, Pehr G. Gyllenhammar (Volvo), Percy Barnevik (ABB), André Citroën, Samuel Colt (Colt revolver), Edwin L. Drake (oil), Rockefeller family, Rothschild family , King C. Gillette (Razors), Charles C. Hilton (Hilton hotels), Sir Thomas Lipton (Tea), Harry S. New (Airmail), Ransom E. Olds (Oldsmobile), David Sarnoff (father of TV), John W. Teets, Dave Thomas (Wendy's Rest.), Edgar Bronfman Jr. (Seagram Whiskey), Rich DeVos (Amway), Alan Greenspan (Fed. Reserve), Giovanni Agnelli (FIAT), Peter Wallenberg (SE-Bank Sweden), Albert Pike (region leader of Illuminati). [4] Bohemian Club: the Bushes, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Merv Griffin, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Danny Glover, and 3,000 others. [5] Bilderberg Group: Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, the Rockefellers, Gerald Ford, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Peter Jennings, Colin L. Powell, William McDonough, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and about 115 powerful people. [5] [6] I could go on and on listing even more secret societies, but those are some of the more prominent ones. I haven't even gotten into the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Ordo Templi Orientis, Knights of Malta, the Templar Knights, Opus Dei, Order of the Golden Dawn, etc. As you can see above though, many of those global elites are actually part of the royal bloodlines such as the Rockefellers, Astors, Rothschilds, etc. In fact Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Dick Cheney are all related. [7] Proof of a Globalist Agenda Now that we've established that the global elites are connected to secret societies and royal bloodlines, let's establish that these global elites have a globalist agenda: "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop OUR PLAN FOR THE WORLD if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an INTELLECTUAL ELITE and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." -- David Rockefeller in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. [8] "The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962) [8] "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -- David Rockefeller pg. 405 of Rockefeller's autobiography, "Memoirs" [9] "There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult. This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Its membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally." -- Victor Marchetti (CIA Director's Assistant) in his book 'The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence' [10] Ex-Illuminati Members - Leo Lyon Zagami (Illuminati Grand Master, 33rd Degree Freemason, Italian aristocrat) - Svali (Illuminati Mind Control Programmer, born into an American Illuminati family) I will provide proof of affiliation in the next round. Conclusion The Illuminati exists. Sources [1] http://www.crystalinks.com... [2] http://www.illuminati-news.com... [3] http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.illuminati-news.com... [5] http://www.americanchronicle.com... [6] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [7] http://www.rense.com... [8] http://www.svpvril.com... [9] http://en.wikiquote.org... [10] http://www.redicecreations.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with should kids be able to drive at 13 years old because I will gladly accept this debate, and i will argue that pre-teens (usually ages 9 to 12 but we will cover all the way to toddler/infant) should drive. Please i will also indicate that you should take into consideration the reasoning and the arguments of this debate not the morality (after all that is what a debate is). First of all i would like to indicate that a "kid" is an individual until the age of 18. The law allows the minimum age of driving to be between 16-17. These are also seen as teens. You will have to prove to the authorities also your arguments. Nonetheless... Here are some facts: (F=fact; D=deducted) F: "33% of deaths among 13 to 19-year-olds in 2010 occurred in motor vehicle crashes" D: The fact does not indicate or mention pre-teens. You would argue, yes they don't because they don't have an driving license. But look at the numbers 13-15 is against the law to drive. Therefore preteens are allowed to drive since the % of deaths or crashes is not indicated. F: "56% of teens said they talk on the phone while driving" D: If you take into consideration a toddler or a individual who has not yet reached the capability to talk then this "fact" will not be applied. F: "Teens may not get behind the wheel and drive intoxicated the way an adult would" D: Self-explanatory F: "Six out of 10 drivers ages 16 to 20 who were killed in crashes were unrestrained" D: A toddler will be restrained in his/her/it's carseat. Therefore this will protect a toddler and will keep him restrained. Now you will argue that preteen does not posses the mental capacity to drive/operate a motorized automobile. Consider this: Driving requires a certain amount of hand-eye coordination, intuition and and a sense of the car's position (spacial geometry). The child is learning/improving his walking abilities which require some hand-eye-foot coordination, if it were to be introduced to a car situation, adaptation will take place. Intuition and mental capacity (i mean the ability to rationalize) is developing at an accelerated speed, the more reason to introduce a child at this age to driving. Bottom line is that all the facts prove that a child/preteen/toddler should be encouraged and allowed to drive. https://www.sps186.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women in the Kitchen because Con just referred to the resolution of the entire debate as "a comment that really does not apply." addtionally con has raised not a single point in favour of banning women from the kitchen. I win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize because I thank my opponent or accepting what should be a passionate debate. I accept my opponents definition of a standardized test in the sense that, in theory, standardized tests try to achieve the guidelines presented in the definition. I reserve the right to challenge the definition in later rounds. I will start by stating my contentions then refuting any brought up by my opponent. What is the point of school? To learn the last time I checked! Learning is defined as: acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information. [1] Schools seek to achieve this through the classroom; however, possible. I believe standardized testing impedes on a schools ability to to just that: help students learn. If we look at state's education systems today we will see that almost every states already require standardized tests for high students graduate. In fact 2/3 of students our already required to take them to pass. [9] This is an effect of No Child Left Behind requiring them to receive certain funding. [8] Looking at these we can see many of the failures that standardized testing plagues our education system with. [A] It's not fair to judge the ability of someone's entire academic career on whether or not they answer A, B, C or D on a test at one time. There is so much more to learning then that! What if you're a bad test taker? What if you got sick during the test? What if I have to go to the bathroom during the test? What if I'm just plain nervous? To know if you could pass or fail high school on the basis of 1 test it very intimidating to most students. To truly gauge a what a person has learned you must look at what they have achieved over the period of their academic career, not just 1 test. [B] Standardized testing funnels money from other subjects. If we look to No Child Left behind as an example, we can see that since it's passage 22 percent of elementary school leaders surveyed reported a decline in their art and music instruction. [2] If I want to be a preform in the arts when I grow up I won't have the skills I need because it was cut from my school to increase math education. This is not to say math is not important, but standardized testing that requires it to pass high school puts an overemphasis on it at the cost of other subjects. "Arts and cultural industries generate $1 .2 billion in revenues, $413 million in wages, and 19,500 jobs, totaling 6% of all employment in the County" [4] [C] High school exit exams have proven not to be any more beneficial then those not taking them in job readiness. Here are some highlights for a study done: "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." [3] If exit exams have no bearing a a student ability to succeed in a job, then why are we wasting time and money on them? [D] We are wasting time and money on exit exams. Not only our we wasting teaching time on taking a standardized test, but money as well. Consider the things that go preparing for a test and costs : Making the test (already costs thousands for many states), preparing for it (teachers must take time to be briefed on it, students also have to study (see point E for more info on that)), administering the test, (usually takes up to a day), grading it (think about having to grade MILLIONS OF TESTS, we do have electronic machines, but almost always someone has to go over it for mistakes. It also takes away time that could be used for teaching.)) [E] Teachers and students teach and study to the test. This creates a tunnel vision mentality where only the info that's going to be on the test is important. When you teach to the test you leave behind critical thinking skills. Just asking someone to answer A, B, C, or D does require one to look at a piece of information critically, instead their thinking only need graze the surface. [F] There's a strong luck component. If I only have to answer A, B, C, or D and I fail by one question, but the guys next to me passes by one question because he "guessed right" is that really fair? How does that demonstrate learning? Why should even some of a high schoolers grades to tied to something with such a high luck component? [G] If we wish to catch to other nations in the international ranking then we need to ditch standardized tests. Many other nations such as Ireland and Iceland do not use standardized testing as a means of grading students, instead electing to use performance based criteria to grade students. The ironic part of the whole situation is that they still score higher then us on international exams. Combine this with the fact we spend $9,666 a pupil [5] which is less then Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand, but still got outperformed on international standardized test. [6] [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... Standardized testing does nothing but hinder learning. The resolution is negated. 1. Purposes of a diploma I fail to see how this relates the resolution whatsoever. 2. Standardized tests certify level of accomplishment A standardized test merely means you are accomplished in selecting A, B, C, or D as the answer. As you'll see in my contention [C] this idea is supported. If standardized tests verify accomplishment shouldn't we see a difference in job readiness? "The standards for the tests should be provided by the states and the tests built, administered, and graded by an independent organization, much in the way that SAT and similar tests are performed." If each state has a different test, is it really standardized? "By keeping the tests basic, students who do not do well under the pressure of test conditions can still pass. However, student who cannot muster basic skills under test conditions cannot be expected to call up those skills under job pressures as well, so they ought not receive diplomas." So by making an easy test everyone can pass it! Wait, doesn't that diminish the accomplishment of passing the test? This contention would seem to contradict your earlier statement: "The valid public purpose is to certify a level of competence to prospective employers and to schools beyond high school having admission standards." 3. Standardized tests establish school performance Once again this school performance only assess what the test is administered on. State's tests are almost exclusivity focused on math, reading, and science. A school has a hard time offering other subjects is they receive funding solely based on the performance of these subjects. "Employers today consider high school diplomas only as proof that 18-year-olds attended school, according to a study released February 9 by the American Diploma Project, a consortium of three education-reform groups. ... The project's two-year review of education in five states found that more than half of high school graduates need remedial classes in college, and most who attend college never obtain a four-year degree. Employers rated high school graduates as "fair" or "poor" on basic abilities." Hmmm… considering that already ⅔ of students are required already to take standardized test, this would seem to prove that standardized tests are not working. My space is limited so I had to cut my contentions and response short. More to come in round 2. I request that my opponent please number his contentions so save space when responding to them. I look forward to the rest of this debate! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should we have "Designer babies" because I take the pro side of this topic because while picking and choosing specific genes for your children may seem unethical and greedy, it very well may better the world. First, let's discuss the issue of screening embryos for genetic afllictions and disabilities. To choose whether or not your child is burdened for life with autism or cerebral palsy is an easy decision for most people because of their inherent desire for their children to be happy, and it should be apparent to anyone that this can not harm anything. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I Am Not Charlie_Danger because Thx for reply? Ok, so I won't lie here: I'll probably be known here as a troll. It's basically everything that I've done. But I will be serious for a minute, and say that I truly am NOT Charlie_Danger. I am his brother, Connor. My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com... His Facebook: http://www.facebook.com... If you don't believe me, since I made my facebook today, before I made my debate, because friends of mine wanted me to get one, look at our steam profile pages. Mine: http://steamcommunity.com... His: http://steamcommunity.com... Neither of us have been online for a long time, him because he's been grounded and steam uninstalled on his computer, me because my laptop broke. And our youtubes. Mine has crappy videos made with windows movie maker: http://www.youtube.com... And his, which you've seen, with vidoes he recorded with his camera. I don't have a camera. http://www.youtube.com... There you go. cough. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors because My opponent never argues against having a military, period. We need a military for our collective defense, to combat terrorism, and to project power and maintain stability throughout the world, extending our soft power. If I prove that contractors are no worse than our own military (and are in fact better), then I should win that we should not discontinue their use. C1) Force multiplier For decades now, our government has been outsourcing various jobs within the military to private contractors, so that our troops can focus on their mission. According to David Kilcullen, a senior advisor to General Petraeus, currently only 40% of troops deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan perform combat duties; the rest are tasked to base support. [1] Kilcullen continues that because they are on a 2:1 rotation schedule, at any given time, only one third of the combat forces can be deployed on missions. The rest are resting and re-equipping. So currently, at any given time, only 20% of troops deployed abroad can be put in the field. Without the force multiplier effect of contractors, that ratio would be even smaller. According to the Congressional Research Service, 55% of PMC's are tasked with base support, 8% are interpreters and translators, 3.9% do logistics and maintenance, 2.3% do construction, 1.9% do transportation, 1.1% do communication, and 1.0% do training. [2] Getting rid of PMC's would rob our troops of their chefs, laundry workers, translators, and handymen. The vast majority of what PMC's do is not related to combat. C2) Oversight has improved significantly The same Congressional Research Service report continues, "According to officials at the Department of Defense, the Blackwater shooting incident that took place at Nisoor Square on September 16, 2007, was a watershed event that highlighted the need for improved management and oversight of all U.S. government private security contractors . . . According to these officials, DOD initiated a number of steps to improve contractor oversight, including establishing an Armed Contractor Oversight Division and significantly increasing the number of Defense Contracting Management Agency personnel performing contractor oversight . . . Since the institution of measures to manage [private security contractors] better, the Department of Defense reports that incidences where weapons were fired by [private security contractors] have decreased by about 67%." [3] C3) The Draft The CRS report continues, "Without private contractors, the U.S. military would not have sufficient capabilities to carry out an operation of the scale of Iraq . . . without contractor support to the U.S. military, policy makers would probably need to contemplate increasing the number of U.S. troops, perhaps . . . re-instituting the draft." The US would need so many more troops if we did not use contractors that Congress would need to re-institute the draft whenever we engaged in any sort of military operation abroad. C4) Cost According to the General Accountability Office, contractors are $15,000 cheaper per person than hiring a military equivalent. [4] And the Congressional Budget Office, studying a 20-year period, found that contractors are 90% cheaper at supplying logistical support. [5] Wars would be significantly more expensive if we did not employ contractors. C5) PMC's are essential to humanitarian assistance operations After the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu, the US developed "Somalia Syndrome," which is the name that scholars give to the American reluctance to deploy our troops abroad to stop genocides. Somalia Syndrome forced Clinton to impotently watch the Rwanda genocide unfold. James Pattison writes in "Outsourcing the Responsibility to Protect" that PMC's allow political leaders to overcome Somalia Syndrome and intervene to stop genocide. According to the Yale Journal of International Affairs, the US was able to hire MPRI to train Croatian forces in 1994; the training of Croatian forces allowed a successful counter-attack against Serbia, finally bringing them to the bargaining table. [6] The US would not have been able to deploy our own forces on the ground and without training, the Serbs would have slaughtered the Croatians in their struggle for independence. According to Rouba Al-Fattal in "The Privatization of Peace," PMC's acted as a "force equalizer" in Bosnia, preventing one side from gaining a force advantage and thus bringing both sides to the negotiating table. [7] Blackwater has expressed a keen interest in acting as the United States rapid reaction force to genocide and other humanitarian disasters around the world. [8] C6) Security Guards Someone needs to guard our diplomats and other State Department officials as they stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and help them build up their civil society. In Iraq, with the US withdrawal, the State Department is relying completely on 7,000 private contractors to protect them. [9] Say what you will about Blackwater, but not a single person has died while being guarded by this PMC. [10] The CRS points out that contractors are superior for protection because most contractors are locals, who blend in and speak the language, so they are less likely to arouse attention. [11] C7) Air support According to think tank Senlis Afghanistan, having fewer boots on the ground will lead to an over-reliance on air support, which empirically kills far more civilians and turns people against us. [14] ==Rebuttal== R1) Undermine US credibility 1. The new Armed Contractor Oversight Division has decreased "firing incidents" by 67% meaning because of new DOD oversight post-2007, contractors only use their weapons for clear and legitimate purposes, obeying the rules of engagement. 2. Our own military doesn't always have clear rules of engagement. One Iraq war vet describes the US rules of engagement during the Bush presidency as "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us." [12] 3. Turn, there is more oversight over PMC's than our own military. There are multiple oversight branches, and the DOD and Congress can always refuse to renew contractors for PMC's that misbehave, creating huge incentives to crack down on employees. This is way more oversight than for our own military, which was able to cover up its murder of two Reuters journalists, until Wikileaks exposed the incident. Rape My opponent provides 4 examples of rape. When you send a bunch of young men overseas, unfortunately, some percentage of them will be rapists. The Pentagon estimates that 15,000 women WITHIN our military are raped or sexually assaulted each year. [13] If you include our military raping natives, the number becomes much larger. Rape is a systematic problem within our own military; 4 incidents is small in comparison. In addition, contractors who do not deal with rape allegations will not be rehired, whereas our own military has shown no accountability for the rape epidemic in its ranks. Kill Civilians Oversight has improved dramatically since the Blackwater incident my opponent cites. Our military is no better: "4 soldiers gang raped a 14-year-old girl in the town of Mahmoudiya, Iraq." [15] "Photographs taken by a Marine intelligence team have convinced investigators that a Marine unit killed up to 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them ``execution style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha." [16] Given the difficulty of presenting a case and refuting at the same time, I will offer the rest of my rebuttal in the next round. [1] The Accidental Guerilla, page 270 [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Ibid [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] Ibid [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink", November 2007 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Meat production should be significantly reduced because Thank you, Lexicaholic, for accepting my debate = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Contentions: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ------Meat is a very inefficient form of nutrition------ To get 500 calories of meat from the average pig, you must feed them up to five times more grain, that's 2500 calories for 500. Grain-fattened U.S. beef is even more inefficient, taking up to 10 times more grain to get the equivalent amount of meat. With a billion people worldwide under the poverty line, this is something we can't afford. We should eat grain, not meat. ------ Ranch animals make more greenhouse gases than cars ------- Clearing forested land, making and transporting fertilizer, burning fossil fuels in agricultural machinery, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep contributes 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, a.k.a. Global Warming would have a great many adverse affects on humans, which I trust I do not have to elaborate on here. ------- Red meat and mortality ------ Eating only about four ounces of red meat per day over a period of ten years can make you 30 times as likely to develop cancer and heart disease as well as have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. -------- Meat is much more perishable than grain------- Grain and corn can be stored for a much longer time on average than meat, which almost inevitably becomes infected and decomposes from bacteria and fungi. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... Most recent national geographic magazine as well <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended. because Thank you, 16kadams, for accepting this debate. Contention 1+: Expense The federal government currently spends $23.44 billion dollars per year to fund the War on Drugs [1], and that's not even counting any possible economic gains from people not being imprisoned and turning to a life of crime (statistically more likely to occur when people are jailed even for non-violent offenses [2]) and instead continuing their life contributing to the economy, nor does it include any gains from taxing a newly regulated drug industry in whichever states would have them. Contention 2+: Rights People have a right to their own bodies, and the right to put what they want into their own bodies. Drugs are no exception. The federal government should not be restricting people's rights. It's dangerous once government controls what may or may not go into your brain, for this is a power easily abused. Additionally, the current drug war is unconstitutional. It took the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol [3], but no such amendment currently exists for the prohibition of drugs. Additionally, the 10th Amendment leaves all unenumerated powers to the states [4], leaving them with the responsibility of either prohibiting or regulating the drug industry. Contention 3+: Negative Effects Many people die as a result of the drug war, including even people who wish to use any drugs deemed illegal [5]. The drug war sends drug users and dealers underground, resulting in more organised crime, violence (drug cartels can't use the legal system to settle disputes), corruption, spread of disease, and other social problems [6]. Additionally, the prohibition only encourages smuggling by lowering the legal supply, which leads to an illegal, thus with more risk, cost, and profit, supply. As former federal nartotics officer Michael Levine describes: "I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U.S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program. On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it “a sham put on for the American taxpayer” that was actually “good for business” [7]. Conclusion +: The War on Drugs is basically paying billions of dollars illegally to strict the rights of Americans, kill many of them either directly or indirectly, spread social problems, and grant higher profits to drug cartels. That will be all for now. Your turn, 16kadams. 1. http://actionamerica.org... ; 2. http://www.mosac.mo.gov... ; 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu... ; 4. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com... ; 5. http://www.drugwarrant.com... ; 6. http://www.bmj.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because Actually, my opponent is very much mistaken in his assumption that I have 'unwittingly' agreed wholly to his side of the debate. A good debater is one who can see both sides of the argument and can admit to facts, manipulating them to suit his or her argument. Looking at The Skeptics debating record, I thought he would've known this. Now, let's proceed. To begin with, the fact that animals do not have rights is not crucial. This is because 'Rights' are Man made, just like laws and regulations. Animals have no need for this, since they have no conscience. This has already been established. However, animals do have a brain. They experience the same reactions to certain stimuli as humans do, such as stress, anxiety, contentment, pain, etc. Therefore, dogs cannot be compared to rocks - another invalid point. Dogs work in social groups, just like humans. Although they do not have 'spoken language' they do have communication. Dogs communicate primarily through body language. The ears and tail are two of the most important factors associated with this type of communication. Now, what is crucial is that humans DO have consciousness and thus the ability to choose what is right and wrong. My argument is, what is actually 'right' about cropping and docking? The answer is nothing. There are no benefits to this practice whatsoever, thus making it 'wrong'. Is it right for a human to kick his dog or set fire to his horse's mane, just because he needed to let off some steam? No, it is not. Just because animals do not have rights, it does not mean it is right to mutilate perfectly healthy body parts. As you can see, my argument still stands and my opponent has managed to waste two rounds without actually putting forward a valid argument. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Birth vs Acquired Disabilities because Thanks for a really great debate KevinW. ==His case== R1) Premature births This point doesn't really add anything to the debate – it merely explains the mechanism by which some people acquire birth disabilities. And remember, it's better to be born premature and be disabled than born premature and die. R2) Longer time period My opponent didn't answer my argument here before – according to the rules of debate, he shouldn't be allowed to answer in the last round. I offered two examples here, but my opponent only nitpicks my second example, he doesn't answer the larger argument. Someone can acquire a disability immediately after birth and have it for the same period of time. A baby can suffer brain damage from oxygen deprivation during birth (a birth disability) or he could choke on his spittle an hour later, suffer oxygen deprivation, and thus acquire the same disability. Since both birth and acquired disabilities can be possessed for an entire lifetime, the length of disability is irrelevant, since both can be equally bad in this regard. *friendship study* My opponent never answers two key arguments here: 1) someone can acquire a disability before early childhood as well, so this applies to both types of disability equally and 2) I read his study and it was about children who are immature for their ages in kindergarten, not the disabled. ==My case== C1) Depression My opponent says shame on me. I'm not suggesting that depression is less severe among those with birth disabilities, but my Karla Thompson evidence says it is less common. People with acquired disabilities are 10 times more likely to suffer depression. My opponent doesn't answer my evidence that people with birth disabilities often adapt so well that they don't want functionality back, such as the deaf who refuse cochlear implants. The same is not true for acquired disabilities. C2) Old dog, new tricks People who are blind from birth will immediately develop a better sense of touch and smell, since these senses will take over their ocular brain area; neuroplasticity also helps them develop a perfect mental map of their environments. Anyone who is blinded as an adult will take at least 3 years to acquire the same compensations, according to Norman Doidge. Someone who is deaf at birth can much more easily learn sign language than someone who loses his hearing at age 50, since children's brains naturally soak up languages. My opponent says it depends on the situation, but I apply similar disabilities to each other and show that people and their brains are more adaptable to birth disabilities than acquired disabilities. He says adults can recover more easily, but if the adult recovers at all, the brain injury clearly wasn't as serious as the birth injury my opponent is comparing it to. Most abilities, like facial recognition, are innate, not learned. I have thus shown that acquired disabilities are more jarring and harder to adapt to. Vote con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Batman could beat Spiderman in a fight. because I do acccept this debate, and look forward to my opponents opening arguments! Good luck, my friend. Your gonna need it! >-:) Nah I am only kidding. But good luck though. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past because I am starting this debate because I've seen some famous fundamentalists and evangelical Christians mention this argument when trying to disprove abiogenesis. I would like to explain why this fails in a debate. Criterion for this debate is that my opponent has to have at least 10 debates finished.This is to prevent trolls and people unfamiliar with this site and topic to accept,although there are still some chances for that to happen (see what I did there?). 1st round - acceptance 2nd round - opening arguments 3rd round - rebuttals and cross-examination 4th round - counter-rebuttals and conclusion Voting period 10 days Time for arguments 48 hrs 10.000 characters Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Cats vs Dogs because Number 2 is a lie, cats just as prone to anxiety issues as dogs are. http://www.petmd.com... When a cat gets stuck in a tree, you call the fire brigade to rescue them. I don't know what the hell you are referring to. If you are referring to leopards and wild cats let's begin analysing the hunting strategies of wolves and I will display you to sophistication level of the canine. If you are going to use leopards, I have every right to use wolves as they are in the same family of animals, and there are no known behaviour of wolves that cannot also be found in domesticated dog species. ( http://yamnuskawolfdogsanctuary.com... ) Wolves make tree-hugging leopards look like the pu$$ies they are. Wolves have a hierarchy, a code of conduct and a way of life. Leopards have a tree... The only Cat that comes close to the level of sophistication of canines is the lion. Lions, however, are only one species of dog. Put a bunch of dogs together and an entire hierarchy and society will form immediately, cats will just scratch and bite until the most vicious one is left their on its own and the others stupidly cower in the corner when they don't realise they can gang up on the stronger one via team work (dogs often do this). Good luck on your rebuttal, you'll need it. On another note, whilst it's true to say that cats are more independent as pets, they will never amount to the level of training that dogs such as blind dogs or circus-trained dogs are. Cats are intellectually inferior to dogs and emotionally less intuitive too. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I might be God because My resolution is that I might be God. Might: Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than "may" [1] May: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility [2] Possibility: The fact or state of being possible [3] Possible: Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. [4] So we see that in order for my resolution to be true, there has to be a possibility, even a weak one, that I am God. Looking at the definition of "possible", unless my opponent can present proven facts, laws, or circumstances showing that there is no possibility of me being God, my resolution stands. Good luck, Con. ---- [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations. because I accept this challenge and look forward to the debate to come against an opponent as qualified as RoyLatham. As I stand, posed to guard my position with honor, I wish him luck as he officially enters the *cue dramatic music* Gauntlet Tournament. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ayy lmaos because I accept and would like to request definitions from my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because ALL RIGHT THEN. SINCE I OBVIOUSLY CANNOT SHOW VISUAL PROOF THEN I WILL HAVE TO USE ANOTHER EXAMPLE. ANY PERSON COULD HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH THEIR BUTT IF IF WAS JAMMED UP THERE FAR ENOUGH. YOU COULD USE A LEG BUT IF THAT DIDNT WORK YOU MAY HAVE TO MANIPULATE THE CHICKEN INTO A MORE FAVORABLE SHAPE. GRANTED THAT THIS MAY CAUSE EXTREME PHYSICAL HARM, ANY PERSON COULD STILL DO IT - THUS PROVING THAT I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Climate change because It is important that in a debate only the issues and the arguments presented are addressed. Referring to the adversary's school of thought is not a valid way of countering his actual arguments. E. G. in our case I may be better or worse than the "average Co2 advocate" but I must be attacked on the merit on my own arguments not on the merits of the arguments of "advocates". By doing so Con commits the straw-man fallacy (makes it look like his adversary has a weaker argument and then tries to attack the weaker argument) [1] and insinuates that I am not doing my job and only trying to demonstrate that there is global warming. I restate my initial promise and the topic on which we agreed to debate (global warming a) exists – agreed, b) is caused in a significant degree by humans – still debating). I will stick to my promise and I will win this debate by proving what I have promised. The second straw-man fallacy committed by Con is that he suggests that I must prove that all or most of the warming can be explained by Co2 increase. Although this is a clever strategy I will not get sidetracked. As I have already stated in my previous 2 speeches, I assert that global warming is caused in a "significant" degree by Co2. I have also pointed out in my 2nd speech methods that can prove my theory false. I thank Con for taking up some of them. I thank Con for clarifying his position on temperature trends. I can now contradict him without contradicting myself. Con states that temperatures have increased since the last Ice Age and the last Little Ice Age. Con further states that the temperatures have been stable for the past decade. This last statement is false; you can verify it by looking out the window or by looking at satellite temperatures [2]. Con tries to induce guilt by association [3] between GW science and GW show. I will not try to defend Al Gore. Con, however, is trying to defend oil financed science. This is a losing strategy. As I have stated, we are debating arguments. What I have presented is clear bias from the science negating human induced GW. I will further argue that while IPCC tried to link hurricanes to GW and failed, the oil industry tried to silence independent US government financed research [4]. At the end of the day we have finance for human induced GW with no strings attached and finance for negation of GW WITH strings attached form "innocent" oil companies [5] [6] (quoted by Con). It is also weird for oil industry to finance science that negates GW, given the suspicion that this arises. If all that was important was the truth then there would be no need for oil industry to spend billions on financing this research as they would get the same result with no cost. There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and no meaning in the use o loaded words like bureaucrats. The works of the IPCC are in fact peer-reviewed [7]. I see that Con has restated his idea that scientific consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now consider this as an argument per se. The first consequence of Con's argument is that he indirectly admits that there is some sort of consensus. It is clear that by counting the number of scientists that agree or dissent with global warming neither Pro, neither Con can win the debate. But they can prove probable Pro or probable Con. Con pointed out that there were times when scientists got it wrong regarding homosexuality or Steady State Theory. While the premise is correct the inference is not. These examples are interesting because nobody counts the successes. It is dull when scientists get it right. You would expect the smart people to be right. Much like in plane crash fear the proportion of false theories created by scientists is exaggerated by the fact that wrong theories are surprising. Furthermore, Con states that what ultimately "won" was science. Winning is final and large consensus would be a good sign of winning. All the factual sane knowledge we have about the world is based upon scientific consensus (not even 100%, there are still scientists that think the Earth is flat). It may be proven wrong but it rarely does. Most of the time new theories incorporate old theories instead of contradicting them (Pythagoras generalized theorem -> Pythagoras theorem). If Con were right even elementary knowledge and communication would be impossible. While consensus doesn't mean 100% certainty, it means high probability. At this level, it would be safer to bet on the vast majority of scientists. I will further prove that their science is correct. Con quoted a part of the proof [8] I presented in my second speech pointing out that there was cooling at the end of the Carboniferous period. However, Con forgot to mention anything about the fact that in the beginning the temperatures were high and that the total amount of Co2 decreased during this period. Con also ignores other phenomena that contributed to cooling [9]. My argument about Co2 concentration and temperature stands. Also the Carboniferous is called that way because of the fact that coal was formed during that period [9]. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere then was transformed into wood and than into coal. We are now just putting it back into the atmosphere. There is actually more coal than limestone formed by skeletons of sea creatures. Con is also wrong that Co2 is gradually decreasing since the last 600 million years as I have shown in my first 2 speeches. In my first argument I presented the super-greenhouse effect on Venus. Con decided to attack this example in his 2nd speech. His firs calculation is correct: Venus should receive 2 times the sunlight earth receives. The rest of the demonstration is wrong. First Con is trying to demonstrate that there is no GW on Earth, but in his calculation he uses this conclusion as an hypothesis. He states that if temperatures on Earth are 288 k and Venus temperatures 737 the greenhouse effect on Venus would be 737-2*288 = 161 (Con supposes that the mean temperature on Earth has no Greenhouse Effect). In fact the temperature of Earth with no Greenhouse Effect would be 255 K [10]. Then the temperature on Venus would be 510 K with no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect would be in fact 227 K. Con now states that the Co2 effect is linear. In his first speech he stated: "a little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically". So the relationship is not in fact linear. If Venus has a 227 K temperature increase because of greenhouse effect then on Earth a small increase in the initial concentration of Co2 would lead to severe initial increases according to Con's model. For a more clear explanation of the process see graph [11]. In fact Venus is even hotter than Mercury [12] which is closer to the Sun. The Moon also proves the greenhouse theory and it is at the same distance as earth [13] and is on average colder. I have proven the bias of the science that negates GW, gave explanations about the Carboniferous and the Co2 output, have shown how Con's calculation actually proves my theory true. Te motion stands. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.sciencemag.org... [8] http://www.geocraft.com... [9] http://www.palaeos.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://img404.imageshack.us... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://www.teachersdomain.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel because I will instead change Superman's strongest feat to that of him flying against the terraforming machine. There probably IS a way to figure just how strong that is, since we know that a particle attracts every other particle with a force directly proportional to the square of their masses and indirenctly proportionaal to the scale of the distance between them to cause Universal Gravitation... I have know idea what that means, except that that is the definition of universal gravitation... A good point but he was taking both her and that bigger Kryptonian on at the same time Actually... You are mistaken. I just rewatched the clip. Superman got the first move. They were doing a stare-down, when a plane came. Faora attacked it, then Supes flew into her at immense speed, taking her at least half a mile into an Aplebees. They stood up, looked at each other, and Supes attacked. Faora dodged easily, and then proceeded to beat him for about 30 secs. "You're weak, Kal." Superman was being beat straight up, one-on-one, mono-y-mono. Then, desperate Superman flew with her to the town, where Nam-Ek joined in. Remember, if 1 Kryptonian=1.5 Powerpuff Girls, then 2 Kryptonians=3 Powerpuff Girls. It is pretty clear that Superman was having difficulty against the two; the only way he one was to: 1) Throw Nam-Ek into a fuel-tank (that explodes) 2) Get out of the way of the military 3) Let the military shoot rocket at Faora's face 4) Throw a plane (that explodes) at Faora. If the military hadn't shown up, Supes would be at the bottom of Zod's shoe! Since it isn't officially established in the film and since only Blossom can use this ability, can we agree to drop it (breath)? Agreed. My opponent will have to forgive as I do doubt this actually occurred, given that PPG was a children's show and guns were prohibited from most shows... If my opponent can provide an episode title that I can look into I will believe him, but until then no. The episode was Ploys R' Us. I would have been skeptical to. durability was the primary ability holding it together. He does indeed have powerful durability If this was Powerpuff Girls Z where the girls were all 15 years old, then my opponent would have an argument. Interesting Fact: Tara Strong (the brony queen, who also voiced Bubbles) was asked about PPG Z. Her response: I only watch the real Powerpuff Girls. _____________________________________________________________________________________ I did watch the show, sadly. I would argue that the girls in PPG Z were weaker than the PPG! On a side note, why do the Japanese always put "Z" at the end of their titles? We also mustn't assume the girls get stronger with age. There is no evidence. _____________________________________________________________________________________ In City of Clipsville , we see the girls older. As teenagers... I still have nightmares... Scary... Wait... I'm a teenage boy... They're teenage girls... NO! I'M NOT GOING THERE! _____________________________________________________________________________________ My opponents argument about "Superman has already beaten, for all intents and purposes, 3 Powerpuff Girls" is flawed, as I pointed out. Suprman did not "win". He just hid as the gov. shot a rocket into Faora's face, and he watched as a small jet crash landed on her face... Superman would not have won if the military had not intervened... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christians should take the whole bible literally because When my opponent says that he is "not even saying that it's possible for the bible to be taken literally" has just admitted that the very thing he is arguing for might just be impossible. He then proceeds to say that Christians should deny facts because they "devote their entire life to this Jesus Christ guy." Anybody who cares about reality needs to rethink their life if they disregard facts. But they don't have to abandon calling themselves Christians. Christians need to decide for themselves what being a Christian means to them. If the title becomes them, Christianity is a cult, not a philosophy. But Christians can and do view their religion on a philosophical level. This connects to what my opponent says in the next paragraph: "I say believe in the whole darn bible, and if something in it contradicts logic, then maybe they need to think more about their religion." Like I mentioned, they should rethink their religion. But the transition from a fundamentalist Christian to an atheist cannot happen overnight. The transition takes time. It can take years. For many, it is never completed. It is of course better to be 'slightly' Christian than to stay a fundamentalist. And if the change is too quick, the result is atheists with a Christian mindset. I speak of atheists who preach non-belief and shove it in people's faces, as well as atheists who protest anything remotely religious, such as a nativity scene or the 9/11 cross (1). My opponent believes that Christians should just accept the logical fallacies for God. This is not a good philosophy for anybody, even if they have some messed up beliefs in the first place. Sources: 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line because I'm not going to concede this debate just because my opponent puts a ton of pictures and geometric stuff. I'm firmly sure that if you take any two points in the universe the shortest distance between them is a straight line. No sphere involved. My opponent is just cheating by breaking their own rule of not lawyering (which means to use a ton of sources for no apparent reason just to win). Honestly though, if you can't understand that a curve is always longer than a straight line if both begin and end at the same point then you are either mentally retarded (in the literal sense of the term retardation) or you are just a troll who actually does understand it. I can also paste a ton of pics and links such as this: http://www.instant-analysis.com... That doesn't make me a better debater; it makes me a loser who can't debate myself and has to use others' math equations to illustrate my point so that I don't, my self, come up with a half decent debate. Frankly, this is just plain stupid and Con is using purely filthy tactics to win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio because My opponent clearly stated in the OP that "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." That is clearly an absolute statement, and since we are talking about TV and Radio, it is an absolute statement of censorship on those. I presented three examples of government censorship in those mediums, which have gone unrefuted. As for my opponent's case, he has yet to provide any logically reason for why it is the parent's responsibility and not the government, or at least not a shared responsibility. Nor moral frame work, nothing. Since none will be presented until the final round, if at all, the moral frame work of different entities' responsibilities will be up for debate and challengeable. Typically the limiting of debates, after such an absolute claim, is not accepted. A common example is when someone debates "Abortion should not be allowed" and then later tries to argue that they only meant in certain circumstances. But, in the spirit of debate, I will accept the limit and argue that government should be allowed to censor TV, Radio, Games, and other forms of entertainment for explicit material as well. Children within a society are partially the responsibility of that society. This is because they often attend public schools, use various public resources (libraries, parks, tax credits, etc), and if they get into trouble, they can become a burden on society (damage public property, use resources of public jails, etc). Since they can become a potential burden on society, it is in society's best interest that the risk of burden is minimized. Ideally, this responsibility should fall on the parents, however, should the parents fail in their responsibility, it is better for society to pick up the slack, then to allow that risk to cause harm. Since the government is charged with protecting our society and its interests, this responsibility falls to the government. Now that it has been identified that the government holds some degree of responsibility, we have moral justification for government actions. All that is left is to show logical evidence for censorship. A meta-study from 2007 noted that violent video games correlated to increased risk factors for aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, lower school performance, more likely to engage in fights, etc [1]. The same study also pointed out various studies that showed the same correlation to the watching of violent movies and TV shows. Another study from 2001 showed that parents are unaware of the actual levels of violence in many games and movies/tv shows [2]. The jump from correlation to causation must be done logically. As pointed out in 2004 meta-study (which compiled studies from 1993-2004) [3], violent individuals are often the "good guys" in many video games and movies, thus providing a positive image to children that "violence is a good way to get what you want." In regards to sexual images to young ages (mostly boys), they tend to reinforce the natural urge of sex and more often than not, hide the negative effects (STDs, pregnancy, ruined relationships, etc) [4]. Since certain content within video games, TV, movies, (all forms of media entertainment really, the medium does not really matter) can have negative effects on younger children, and since the government, acting for society, has a partial responsibility to protecting and preventing certain negative effects that increase the harm to society, they have a moral obligation to censor these to some degree, to minimize these risks, while allowing as much freedom to the parents as morally permissible e.g. there is a fine balance. The Resolution is refuted (again, under tighter rules). Thank you, [1] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [2] http://www.childrennow.org... [3] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [4] http://www.media-awareness.ca... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable because Sadly pro was unable to join us for round 2. Extend all arguments. Additional thought: Within North America the taboo against consumption of dog meat is logically reasonable, for a pretty simple reason that most means of attaining the meat in question would violate local laws; not to mention be unsightly to the neighbors (where the taboo comes into play). Doing the same to a cow within urban areas (as most of the population resides), would be equally taboo and illegal. In North America there's a nice removal from death. That we farm our meat away from where we live, is an intrinsic part of our society and therefore culture. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against # of rounds in debate should be increased because At debate.org we are allowed a maximum of 5 rounds and a maximum of 8000 characters. I find this to be sufficient. My first point: Having this limited format helps retain the quality in debates. When i say quality i mean both the quality of the debates and the quality of joy that participants get from debating. When the quality of rounds is increased, there is a tendency for debates to get repetitive. Opponents have a tendency to repeat the same points and at times to go off topic. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith: In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill, For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still; Second point: At DDO we let readers decide on the winner, it is in the interest of both participants for the reader to go through their debates thoroughly. At DDO we are having facing the problem of unvoted debates. Proof: http://www.debate.org... ; A larger number of rounds would discourage potential voters. As far as voters are considered, more the merrier. My opponents pre-emptive argument: 1. that the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed . 2.I never said no limit I only said a higher limit. If the debate can go on forever, then any finite number of rounds would be insufficient. I intended to give my opponent freedom to manouvere(with regard to number of rounds) but since his point is that we need a higher limit, i must ask- how many rounds do you want?And why that specific number? It is possible (improbable but possible) that two participants may want to continue their debate even though five rounds have elapsed. This would probably happen when both participants find each others arguments interesting, develop mutual respect for each other and want to continue debating. In this case, participants can simply start another debate on the same topic and continue where they left off. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best dirty rap songs because Basically my opponent Googled "Best Dirty Rap Songs" and went with the ones other people mentioned as being among the classics, instead of - in my opinion - supplying actual good rap songs that happen to be dirty. Throughout this debate, I've looked to various adult themes and all kinds of songs from classics to the most popular. Eh, I'll conclude with a REALLY vulgar song called "Pregnant Pu$sy" by UGK. The title is self-explanatory. While with other songs I went for ones with decent music and flow, here I'm gonna go with a song that's okay but really just kinda grossly raunchy. It's amusing :) Examples of Some Lyrics... I guess you can call me a family man Cuz I care for b!tches babies every chance that I can I don't give them clothes or diapers and sh!t But I like to feed their babies with my big black d!ck Cuz I'mma tell you if you didn't know You ain't get sh!t til you fvcked a pregnant hoe The pu$sy is hotter, it got an extra kick It feels like hot potato pie around your d!ck... Cuz if she's expecting, I can satisfy And at the same time give a kid a pacifier And I love it when I bust that old nut Cuz I know that her baby just gonna lick it all up Pregnant pu$sy is the best you can get Fvcking a b!tch while her baby sucks your d!ck (repeat) Ain't no pu$sy like when impregnated A pu$sy made for nutting in - I could never hate it... I love her big titties but I hate the taste of milk And a bigger fatter a$s on my dick is smooth as silk Now if she got a boy it ain't fun But if she got a girl then it's 2 pu$sies for the price of one And if the belly's all stacked I put the hoe on all foe's (fours) and hit the pu$sy from the back... I love to fvck them pregnant hoes Your baby's sneezing out nuts cuz I bust one in his nose I'm pretty sure this is my last debae for awhile, so uh, vote for me ;) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is 69 and 420 funny?? because the proof is in the puddign! this twitter account has almost 500 followers. why wood they folow it if its not true https://twitter.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Macro Evolution is supported by evidence. because I'm still waiting for some good evidence of macro-evolution to be presented. My opponent has conceded all three pieces of evidence I posted. He also used irrelevent arguments and/or quote mining. I had a case that was poorly refuted by con, but con never had a case, which does not fit the rules: Rules: This is not a debate on abiogenesis This is not a debate on the existance of a creator This is not a debate on the age of the Earth This is not a debate on educating children on evolution Burden of Proof is shared No semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries) Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works. BOP is shared, con never met his BOP, I technically should win this debate until con givs me a case, too. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Defend your favorite band/artist... With songs. because Here's my final set of songs. Here is an experimental song by Queen towards the end of their careers "Innuendo" While the sun hangs in the sky and the desert has sand While the waves crash in the sea and meet the land While there's a wind and the stars and the rainbow Till the mountains crumble into the plain Oh yes we'll keep on tryin' Tread that fine line Oh we'll keep on tryin' yeah Just passing our time While we live according to race, color or creed While we rule by blind madness and pure greed Our lives dictated by tradition, superstition, false religion Through the eons, and on and on Oh yes we'll keep on tryin' We'll tread that fine line Oh we'll keep on tryin' Till the end of time Till the end of time Through the sorrow all through our splendor Don't take offence at my innuendo You can be anything you want to be Just turn yourself into anything you think that you could ever be Be free with your tempo, be free be free Surrender your ego - be free, be free to yourself Oooh, ooh - If there's a God or any kind of justice under the sky If there's a point, if there's a reason to live or die If there's an answer to the questions we feel bound to ask Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask Oh yes we'll keep on trying Hey tread that fine line Yeah we'll keep on smiling yeah And whatever will be - will be We'll just keep on trying We'll just keep on trying Till the end of time Till the end of time Till the end of time Finally, here is maybe the most treasured Queen song of all time. The final nail in the coffin. Bo Rhap. "Bohemian Rhapsody" Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from reality. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see, I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low, Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me. Mama, just killed a man, Put a gun against his head, Pulled my trigger, now he's dead. Mama, life had just begun, But now I've gone and thrown it all away. Mama, ooh, Didn't mean to make you cry, If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters. Too late, my time has come, Sent shivers down my spine, Body's aching all the time. Goodbye, everybody, I've got to go, Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth. Mama, ooh (any way the wind blows), I don't wanna die, I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. I see a little silhouetto of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning, Very, very frightening me. (Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figaro Magnifico. I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me. He's just a poor boy from a poor family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity. Easy come, easy go, will you let me go? Bismillah! No, we will not let you go. (Let him go!) Bismillah! We will not let you go. (Let him go!) Bismillah! We will not let you go. (Let me go) Will not let you go. (Let me go) Will not let you go. (Never, never, never let me go) Ah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. (Oh, mama mia, mama mia) Mama mia, let me go. Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me. So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye? So you think you can love me and leave me to die? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby, Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here. (Oh, yeah, oh yeah) Nothing really matters, Anyone can see, Nothing really matters, Nothing really matters to me. Any way the wind blows. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Climate change because As I have previously stated it is important for the relevance and quality of the debate that only the argument presented are analyzed. Referring to "Co2 theorists" or "deniers" only muddles the debate and brings irrelevant arguments to the debate. I refrained from bringing into the discussion questionable arguments or false evidence produced by "deniers". Had this debate been:"I believe that CO2 advocates are right" or "Deniers are wrong" rather than "GW is human-induced in a significant way" than Con's reference to Co2 advocates statements would have made sense. I have already stated that I will not get dragged into a discussion about advocates and deniers. I am only interested in Con's arguments and he should only be interested in mine. I also salute the fact that Con engaged in tackling the methods for proving false the human induced GW. In my previous speech I pointed out that there was consensus among scientists and that it is more probable that the scientists saying GW is human induced are right. Con had 2 attacks: there is not a large consensus and the consensus is not meaningful. Con first tried to prove that consensus is not meaningful and than that there is actually no consensus. This means that Con abandons his first contention that consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now prove that Con's argument further strengthens my position. First of all, Con only managed to prove marginal misconduct in the IPCC and not in other independent studies while I managed to link all of Con's sources to financers that have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. When evaluating proof, one test is the vested interest in the outcome of the debate [1]. Con conceded in his second speech that GW scientists have no vested interest. Furthermore I have proven a clear and foul initiative form the part of oil industry to deny climate change. Con did not answer to the allegations and proof I provided with this respect. What is more, if there are some scientists that can speak out for themselves and deny the "official position" it is highly improbable that the others will be dominated by the "bureaucrats" at the IPCC. Con did not provide any evidence of the interference of the IPCC interference in the research of GW scientist. Con also attacked all of my sources in block, without mentioning what source is not credible. To Con the Wikipedia articles are more biased than oil financed or oil directed science. This is highly improbable. With respect to the consensus argument Con first conceded that consensus is meaningful and I have proven that it is more probable that the human induced GW theory is not affected by vested interests or by interfering from outside sources. Con decided to address the "significant" term of this topic. I must point out that it was not until the third round that Con addressed the "significant" definition. Until this round Con chose to replace my statements with those of "advocates". When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner by humans I have also provided the means to evaluate if this change is important. Con addressed some of them in the second round and attacked the idea of important enough to take action now. Con argument is nevertheless flawed as he proves that previous action was insufficient not that action must not be taken. Furthermore, Con decides to attack a specific course of action (cap and trade) when there are other means of combating Co2 emissions (i.e. taxes). While in this attempt EU failed to reduce emissions the basic idea should work as it has done in US when trying to curb So2 emissions. So if Con agrees to use this criterion too I should win this debate. We had previously agreed that there is global warming. Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented. In studying the past Co2 records Con pointed out that there can be no correlation between Co2 and global temperatures. I have shown that at the end of the period temperatures decreased and also Co2 levels decreased. The graph and phenomena presented by the article also point out a clear trend in the output and replacement of Co2. This imbalance of absorbed and emitted Co2 and also the positive feedback effect were never accounted for by Cons arguments. Even if at the scale of 600 million years there seems everything is ok, at the scale of 600 000 years Co2 has risen and h In the discussion about Venus and the Moon the basic idea was to observe simpler systems to determine the effects of Co2 in the absence of other factors that may complicate the analysis and hence the debate. I have provided evidence that shows that Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the Sun. Con only attacked the relevance of my source. In this case I will quote sources [2] [3]. Also, I have shown that the Moon which is at basically the same distance from the Sun as Earth is on average much colder. The Moon doesn't have any Periodic Oceanic movement to explain this characteristic. According to the principle tertium non datur the only thing left is the lack of greenhouse effect. Per a contrario on planets with atmosphere (i.e. Earth) this effect can be shown to be significant. We have both agreed to compare Venus to Earth. Nevertheless Con provided proof that states that we must not compare Earth and Venus due to major differences. According to common procedures what has been agreed in a case by the parties is considered truth for the purpose of that case. I must further point out that the evidence presented doesn't explain why we must not compare Venus and Earth. It simply points out that the pressure on Venus is greater than that on Earth but it further analyzes Co2 effects based upon the quantity. The document presented also says that we can only project Co2 evolution by not taking into account the projected evolution of population since this is not science but sociology. This elementary wrong as we must try to improve our models by using all the available data (humans produce co2 – this is no rocket science). The article also concedes that even using it's optimistic projections Co2 will increase temperatures by 1.85 C. When analyzing Venus, Con calculated a + 150 C greenhouse effect. I have shown that the calculation is wrong since Con used the presumption that there is no greenhouse effect on Earth to complete his calculations. The actual temperature that should have been used in the calculations should have been 255 K for Earth with no greenhouse effect. The graph presented is just that: a graph of a logarithmic function. It is for illustrative purposes only. It shows what math already that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x. The derivative shows the speed by which a continuous function "grows". 1/x has large values at the beginning and smaller as x increases. This means that the initial increases in Co2 have a larger effect than subsequent increases of Co2. Me, Con and the article agree on this point. However, neither Con's model, nor the one in the document explain the high temperatures on Venus. If for every 2 degrees we need to double the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere then for +150 C we would need a 2^75 increase (more than the amount on Venus) in Co2 to cause such an increase. This contradicts all the observed data of both Venus and Earth. It is more likely that the initial quantities of Co2 account for most of the effect and that most of the subsequent quantities cause smaller increases. Therefore most of the heating happens at the beginning. This heating is significant. I have used the same inverse method as the one used in the article presented by Con. It is both the Sun and Co2. The motion stands. [1] Preparing for legislative debate; Linda L. Oddo, Thomas B. McClain; P. 30 [2] http://hypertextbook.com... [3] http://www.universetoday.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Republicans are good??(: because We currently live in a society where everything must be labeled organized and furthermore judged. Sometimes in progression of mental disorders and diseases this can be effective based on the premise that it is supportive. Politics, however grate their opponents constantly and everything becomes black and white. Americans believe that they must simply agree that all ideals of a candidate will in the end match up to their own based on a basic alignment. The republican party, to this degree, suffers the most in this situation. For eight years Obama has bashed the Republican party and now the party itself is fueled with anger. In its anger has come the voice of Donald Trump, a man that the Republican party is now against even though he is their best contender. There is no support in this idealistic organization anymore of parties and most are chastised for being in favor of one party or another when in reality we need to simply look at the person running. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.' because ========= 1. ORP Mafia ========= Con is completely LYING about everything that went on during that game. Fortunately, I have provided a link in the last round with a step-by-step analysis and direct quotes and links to the game. Moreover, Con continues to blatantly lie when he says he only called out 3/5 of my mafia within several pages on DP1 (Myself, KRF and Ghostwriter, of course). He indeed called out a 4th: Vi_Veri. In a recent forum, Phil says he called her out because she "defended me" though I have proven that she only made *2* posts prior to him calling her out, and she did not defend me in any one of those posts! The only thing she said about me was, "I wonder what Lwerd's economics major might develop into - who knows? I'm sure Nags will get us some investigative powers." Ladies and gentlemen, in no way, shape or form was that defending me so wtf is Phil talking about? After that, Vi said Phil was being paranoid... But so did Cody (on pg. 14), pcmbrown (on pg. 15), Bellum (on pg. 16), wonderwoman (on pg. 19)... Yet despite all of these people agreeing with me and even voting to lynch Phil, he claims that Vi saying "I wonder what Lwerd's major will do" is defending me and thus CONFIRMING to the point of him PROMISING that we're all mafia. Again, despite all of these people agreeing with me he says, "Guys please believe me... I can guarantee you that their role will show up as mafia." So as you can see, he used bad logic and I refuted all of it several times. He also knew who 4/5 of my mafia was randomly within a few pages on DP1 to the point that he could GUARANTEE all of our guilt, and he didn't know anyone else in any other mafia... despite the fact that my mafia didn't "agree with me" and several other people did. Mhm. Phil is a liar but for more links and evidence: http://www.debate.org... ======== 2. Facebook ======== GW lied about her name, age and photo while registering for DDO (to the point of getting a fake pic instead of having a non-photo avatar) and as a 40+ year old claims that she randomly decided to friend Destiny Gillies despite not knowing who this 15 y/o girl is and being at least 25 years older than her. Does that sound normal to you? Kim Cox has also written and commented on Destiny's pictures, saying things like she looked cute and pretty (Ghostwriter admits this -- we have screen shots of it anyway). Once again, this is not normal. Clearly they are related thus implying that GW is also related to Phil. Further, Phil has ignored my comment about them having OTHER friends in common too, such as Manola Cox. So how can Phil have "no idea" who Kim Cox is despite them having several mutual friends in common including 2 relatives?! Once again, this can not be chalked up to a coincidence. Ladies and gents, what are the odds that your RELATIVES are Facebook friends with random people from DDO? And what about the age gap? And the comments? Phil saying they live in the same town is yet another convenience. Further, there are more than 180,000 people in that town so that makes the odds even LOWER (than, say, a small town of 2,000 where everyone might know each other or have mutual friends). In short, the odds of this "coincidence" are SO LOW that it cannot be considered a coincidence! Some of their (Facebook) friends in common: Destiny Gillies and Manola Cox (relatives), Ashley Vogelpohl, Jovenae Eggen... The odds suggest this obviously CAN NOT BE A COINCIDENCE WHEN "GHOSTWRITER" KIM COX ONLY HAS (4 friends in common with Phil, including 2 definite relatives) 97 FRIENDS TO BEGIN WITH! Plus! Phil is once again lying about being from the same town as Kim. Both Kim and Manola Cox are from OREGON according to their Facebook (once again, I have screen shots of all this) so there goes his point about obviously having multiple friends being from the same area and all. Phil is from UT; these ladies are from OR. Clearly Phil knows Kim Cox in real life and borrowed her Facebook to pose as Ghostwriter. ================= Re: Back to Back Sign Ons ================= Phil says about both him and GW accepting their role claims back to back (with photo evidence), "These are literally right after Vi_veri sent out the Pm's!" Once again, this is a lie. Just scroll up to look at the photos and notice that this happened 2+ hours after Vi had sent out the roles. Moreover, here is even more photo evidence of me noticing back to back sign-ons of Phil and GW before this controversy even came to light: http://tinypic.com... . What incentive would I have to make this up? ============ Re: Mafia Cheating ============ Phil notes, "And as to the GW asking me to post saying I was online, contradicts your earlier argument that we are on at different times. If I was online at the same time then how could I have been her?" No. What I said was that this was (one time of many) when I noticed you both signing on back to back. She said, "Look - Phil's online" so I looked at your page, it said "Online 2 minutes ago" and then I refreshed; it said you were on. I went back to GW's page and it said she was "offline 1 minute ago." This happened multiple times over a few minute period. I have already provided photo proof of me noticing this, as well as the testimonies from several site users who noticed this happening at the same time (Askbob, Vi, etc.) -- this is when Vi asked that question to in which you mistakenly responded as GW -- and again we have all of those other members I mentioned (Nags, Rezz, Alex, DontBeRacist, xxdarkxx and Puck) who also agree that they have noticed strange patterns and coincidences. Vi believes as mod based on what happened to your role and character in the game that you and GW are the same person. The user known as Puck has also pointed out that since playing mafia, the only games that GW didn't play in were games that you were absent from as well. ======== Re: Mistake ======== Phil says, "When vi asked why GW didn't vote for herself, I gave her the obvious answer in misquotation." No. This is a lie. Look back at the link I provided in the last round; there was no QUOTATION anywhere. Phil wasn't doing any quoiting. He simply said, "Because I forfeited." He did not copy and paste anything to "misquote." ===== Re: S/G ===== In addition to the examples from last round, there's more. GW the brilliant paralegal doesn't understand compound words just as Phil doesn't (and other basic 1st grade grammar). For instance, GW says things like "dis-appointed" while Phil writes words like "dis-order." Proof: http://www.debate.org... / http://www.debate.org... . They both also write "scimmed" instead of skimmed, but who's counting? Plus, Phil says "a lot of people use phrases like 'kk' while typing" but do lawyers in their 40s? Or are they a bit more professional? Obviously the latter; plus we have screen shots of the real Kim Cox talking on Facebook in a much more professional and mature manner than Ghostwriter does here on DDO, or how Phil talked to Vi while pretending to be Kim. ======= Re: IP Info ======= Phil writes, " "My cell phone uses sprint service, and has nothing to do with cricket." Obviously he completely ignored my point from the last round: Cricket covers users with agreements from Metropcs and >>>> Sprint Nextel<<<< according to the Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Again, Phil has a Sprint Nextel. ======= Conclusion ======= There are FAR too many coincidences here. Any one of those can be seen as a coincidence at face value; however, when viewed at as a group the evidence becomes overwhelming (especially the Facebook!). Users in the other forums have all commented giving further reasoning and analysis but once again I'm out of characters. Please extend all of my arguments from the previous round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I Am Not Charlie_Danger because I am just a man that knows where he lives, knows where he sleeps, and who knows what he eats. As a matter of fact, I'm looking at him now. He looks so peaceful as he sleeps. If I had a camera, I would take a picture. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God exists because =="I would like to ask my opponent to prove that God thinks."== I would like to ask my opponent to prove that she thinks. We have no way of knowing, nor can she prove it except by pointing to the statements she has made. In the same way, I am implying that the Abrahamic God has made a statement of self-existence, and thus by Descartes' existentialism we must affirm the resolution. God exists, because God made a self-actualized declaration of existence. ==Kierkegaard and Subjectivity== Actually Kierkegaard was more one-sided than you may realize. He argued that all truth is ultimately subjective truth, even if it appears objective. He actually argues that objective truth is impossible, that it is outside of mankind's epistemological ability. Further, my opponent relies on a nuanced interpretation of Jesus' words as quoted above. Many Christians (note that she only quotes Christian scripture though we are debating a Deity straddling three faiths) interpret "Jesus is Truth" as "Jesus is truth incarnate, because in him there is no deceit" (1 Peter 1:22). Actually, even Kierkegaard believed this, "Paganism never gets nearer the truth than Pilate: What is truth? And with that crucifies it." My argument put succinctly is that existence is a subjective thing itself. Can we objectively prove the existence of currency? No, because it is an idea, all economics is. Worth is subjectively decided in the minds of mankind and we symbolize it with metal and paper. But currency does exist, subjectively in the minds of people that use it. Convince enough of them that it is worthless and you have a depression. Thus the existence of even a basic thing like economics is dependent on a subjective existentialism. =="does this mean God CARES about us?"== This assumption is irrelevant to the debate. Existence is not dependent on temperament, and there is no monolithic Christian, Muslim, or Judaic view of God's affection toward mankind. Look at Jonathon Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Look at the concept of Jihad. Look at how God told Jews to slaughter Philistine infants. Each of these contrasts a cuddly view of God. I'm not required to defend a loving God, and the fact that you note God's affection implies God's existence. You have conceded. ==Conclusion== Voters, I am trying to have an old discussion in a new way. I'm asking you to not vote how you personally believe (otherwise what is voting more than taking a poll?), instead I am asking you to consider the arguments, and determine which of us is the superior debater for the round. This resolution is two words. The first is defined rather narrowly, the second is completely undefined, and as the Pro I have explored that concept of existence and made a worth while argument that God does exist both through Descartes' self-actualized rationalism, and by the subjectivity of postmodernism. This is worth your vote, because it allows for both religion and atheism in balance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Crowley could beat up castel because Vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I would beat your up because < > It means you're a liar, i.e., someone who doesn't tell the truth. A liar can never be trusted so anything you say can not be handled accountable. < > Actually, my profile only goes down to my city which has hundreds of thousands of people living in it. I seriously doubt you could find me in it. < > Not just that but the fact that I found them using generic search terms any person could type in looking for an easy picture of a "private jet" and the fact that they're different planes does prove it. <> I would like to turn attention to the word "could". No one says "It could be me" they say "That's me". Once again, you are a liar who can't be trusted and not only that, it's impossible to keep that much muscle mass at the age of 99 or if you're a woman. < > A. Not your picture B. You don't know how big I am < > A. You don't know where I live B. Even if you did, I'd either not be alone or have the doors locked <> I don't have enough space on my schedule to do debate. By that definition, you are also a nerd, as you are debating me right now. So if I can't be that big, by your logic, than you can't be that big. ::CONCLUSION:: My opponent bases his claim of a bunch of "ifs" that I have proven he can't accomplish. He has continually lied and I have given plenty of circumstantial evidence to prove that he is wrong. P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't post a link for the woman's muscle mass fact. My internet is messed up right now and I don't even know how I'm on this website right now. I'll post my link in the comment section later for those of you who are interested. Thank you for a great debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ninjas are better than prates because I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. <"ninjas could totally kill pirates,"> And pirates could kill ninjas, too...but so what? This debate isn't a poor man's Deadliest Warrior, meaning that we're not debating who'd win in a fight between a ninja and a pirate -- the debate is, as the title says "ninjas are better than p[i]rates." As I said, the onus is completely on my opponent -- but he has failed to provide a rationale which would back his claim up -- just because ninjas could potentially kill the pirates doesn't make them better. <"plus they have many honors that pirates dont, therefore have more to live up to"> What honors would these be? And secondly, having higher expectations doesn't equate to being better. And even if ninjas *were* to have more "honors," the thing is, these honors are based off human opinion, and are therefore, subjective, which means they're a poor objective measure in determining who's "better." I'd again like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate; I look forward to his retort. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against LM Classic: mongeese vs. Yraelz because Having made it this far, I'd like to congratulate my opponent, this should be a fun round! In this round I'll be using the following five characters: 1. Sephiroth For anyone who doesn't know, he was the main protagonist in the final fantasy 7 series. Powers: He has a lot, notable ones are the ability to teleport, to move faster than the speed of light, his super nova attack, meteor... http://villains.wikia.com... http://www.animevice.com... http://finalfantasy.wikia.com... 2. Black Alice, before she went to Hell and was traumatized. Powers: She has the ability to steal the powers of others. http://en.wikipedia.org... (comics) 3. Sentry (Robert Reynolds) Powers: Super hearing, can move faster than light, energy projection, control of light, passive radiation, resuscitation, the ability to implant memories. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Robert_Reynolds) 4. Vash (without his super weapon Angel Arm) Powers: Superhuman agility, reflexes and strength. He once prevented mass amounts of deaths by throwing pebbles in order to knock bullets off of their course. He has also been seen using telepathy. He is extremely intelligent if not the most intelligent human. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Emma Frost Powers: Extreme Telepathy rivaling Charles Xavier, Diamond Form. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to warn my opponent before I continue. I do not have the time or the space to fully describe each character I posses while simultaneously arguing this round. If you would like to make attacks on my characters you will doubtlessly have to do some research for yourself. Having established my team I'd like to begin by arguing the easiest point for me to win. Then I'll progress to the other arguments in no particular order. Contention 1: Yu-gi-oh cards ================== My opponent hinges a great deal of his points off of the idea that Yugi's or Seto's cards can somehow interact with my five characters. This would be a plausible point if my characters were all duel monsters, however, they are not..... Yu-gi-oh duel monsters do not exist in reality, nor in the world of Yu-gi-oh. Instead they are simply cards that are brought to life via holograms. They are completely immaterial and have no effect on the real world what-so-ever. For proof I'll reference the Yugi vs. Rare Hunter episode from season two. At 16 minutes and 15 seconds it is explained exactly how the cards function. As holograms, in a game. If my opponent would like to continue to pursue this line of argumentation I will beat the horse until it is dead. The cards cannot interact with anything outside of a duel. My characters will not accept a duel nor are they cards. Atem (The pharaoh that Yugi occasionally changes bodies with). =========== The only time that Yugi ever has access to the Millenium Rod is when he is dueling Atem. In other words my opponent cannot simultaneously have access to the Millenium Rod and also Atem. Additionally the character limit of this debate is five, not six. I'd point out that Atem is indeed his own person as stated by this article: http://en.wikipedia.org... He's a Pharaoh who Yugi unlocked from his prison in the Millennium Puzzle. Thus my opponent has no ability to use Atem. Kirby ==== 1. Kirby can't eat boss monsters in any game. Additionally he can only eat mini-bosses after having defeated them. 2. Kirby can't eat people permanently, he spits them out after roughly three seconds. 3. Kirby can only copy a fraction of someone's abilities, not all. The Dominion Rod ============ 1. It can only be used on three distinct types of statues. None of those fit the description of "statue of liberty". Third paragraph, read for yourself: http://zelda.wikia.com... Now I'll address my opponents arguments in order. 1. Mind Control with Millennium Rod The major flaw with the rod's mind control ability is that it's influence can be easily broken. For instance in the yu-gi-oh series Joey resisted the power of the millenium rod and returned to his normal self during his duel with Yugi in the Battle City Arc. This means that the Millenium Rod is completely useless against my characters who either have superb intellect or flat out specialize in some form of telepathy. This is also a major problem for yugi because it means that at the end of this debate he's the one mind controlled by Emma Frost, who's powers rival Xavier. Additionally, even if the cards did work, Black Alice absorbs powers. Meaning if my opponent could summon the winged dragon of Ra (he can't) then she would just absorb it's powers. Winged Alice or Ra owns team Pro. If this scenario even happened, Yugi would leave New York on Emma's will. But I honestly think Yugi is dead before he starts to move. 2. Swords of Revealing Light a. Sentry moves faster than the speed of light. Before Yugi can do this he is dead. b. Cards don't work. c. This would be like Yugi using Swords of Revealing Light on Joey. Doesn't happen. d. Additionally the card only stops attacks, meaning my characters can still move faster than the speed of light in defense. This accomplishes nothing for whatever three turns is. Then Sentry straight up owns his entire team. "Sentry possesses tremendous energy projection, capable of harming even the Hulk, who has withstood the equivalent of solar flares unharmed." e. Yugi, Seto, Link, Midna, and Kirby can't withstand solar flares. 3. Statue of Liberty a. Links dead before he moves via Sentry or Sephiroth. b. Link doesn't know where the statue is. c. The statue doesn't indestructible seal. Even if Link could control it then my members could still walk inside and destroy him. d. Sentry can throw the statue out of New York. Now I'll address my opponents pre-empts to my characters. 1. Sephiroth a. When Sephiroth lost to Cloud he did so while holding back Holy and fighting three other people simultaneously. Additionally he didn't die, he just joined the life stream. Link gets pwned by Sephiroth considering the massive speed difference and power gap. b. Cards don't work. And Link is functioning in the an example of the real world, not video game land. Time doesn't freeze when he is posed with questions in New York. Finally Sephiroth wouldn't bother asking the question, he'd just take his gear back.... brutally. 2. Emma a. If Kirby get's close to Emma she will just mind control him, and then have him attack his own teammates. Alternatively she can turn into diamond form and kill Kirby with super strength. 3. Black Alice a. She isn't going to wait around while Yugi searches through his deck for a Kuriboh and a Multiply card. b. Cards don't work. c. She'll take Yugi's power. d. She already would have taken the winged dragon of Ra's power if cards could work. e. Additionally if she took the Kuriboh's powers she would also take multiply which would inevitably make tons of Black Alice's who would steal everyones powers except Sephiroth's and Reynor's. 4. Vash a. Yugi doesn't draw a card because he's dead. b. Vash still has a gun, because cards don't work. c. True, Vash is a pacifist. However he can use rubber bullets to knock Kirby senseless. Some other character kills the blacked out team Pro. d. Finally, unless Yugi and Seto can dodge bullets, they'll both be knocked out before they can draw cards (if they weren't already dead). 5. Sentry a. I was mistaken in my battle with Acer. Sentry does not have a Serum on him. He does not need to apply it constantly, it was a one time deal. Read my source. b. He can't be mind controlled if he can't be seen. Too fast. c. Finally, his speed blitz can't be countered. He'd kill everyone before they drew <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever. because I'd like to start off this debate by acknowledging that I am a huge Michael Jackson fan (music-wise). With that said, although Michael Jackson is one of the most talented and well-known/well-loved performers of our time, there are a few flaws with a) the topic of debate and b) the way you chose to argue this debate thus far. First, the subject of this debate is completely subjective. By saying that MJ is the "best pop SINGER" ever, you are implying that he has the best vocal ability. Surely there are other pop artists who have a wider vocal range, a more powerful voice, etc. I'm not sure that a majority of voters would agree that he has the best singing VOICE per se even if they agree that he is/was extremely talented, influential, unique, a great dancer, etc. Second, the debate topic claims that MJ is the best pop singer ever -- it doesn't differentiate between male and female. So in terms of musical influence and prowess, MJ has some serious competition with Madonna (others as well, but Madonna being the most prevalent in this case). Third, repeating "He just is." over and over might not be the best way to win votes on this site. Most participants are actually articulate, intelligent people who may not appreciate that style of debating. Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States because Let me begin by saying that I appreciate Con's trenchant response to my arguments. In this round, I'll continue to attack Con's procreation argument, while also defending my own argument. Now, contrary to what Con has claimed, I actually have defined marriage and given reasons why it should be defined that way. Marriage is mainly based on commitment and love, and it's part of the right to liberty, privacy and association. But we shall get into that more in depth shortly. C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right. Con seems to have raised two different themes in his last round. First, it is simply not the case that my arguments are circular. I'll put the credibility of my opponent and his sources up against the Attorney General,[1] the former Solicitor General and the federal judges dealing with same-sex marriage cases.[2-3] It's no contest. These arguments are not circular because there is no a priori presumption that marriage is between a man and a woman. And secondly, despite what Con claims, the burden rests with the state to show why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Later on, my opponent merely asserts that gay relationships are not conducive to child-rearing. First, he has not provided a shred of evidence to justify this view. Second, I have actually provided evidence to support my claim by citing the American Psychological Association. The credibility of the APA trumps my opponent's unfounded beliefs. Con then goes on to say that Deputy Director Linette Scott's criteria detailing the state's interest in marriage are vague and perhaps too broad. Indeed, he goes on to suggest that these criteria would apply to friends and relationships with pets. I think these critiques are almost unbelievably weak. Friends and pet owners don't facilitate public order by forming cohesive and economically stable family units. They also don't create a realm conducive to liberty and free decision making by spouses. Nor do they help create stable households, unless Con is equivocating on what these "friendships" are. C2: Gay people qualify as a suspect class. Once again, Con has not challenged any four of the constitutional criteria I have outlined to show that laws that classify based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny. I'll go over this more shortly, but I'm just pointing it out for now. Let's see if Con was successful in defending his position against my five arguments. 1. First, Con attacks a straw man in dealing with my opening argument. Remember, I acknowledged that Con's position allows sterile couples to marry. My actual argument, which Con has not addressed, is that the notion that marriage is based on 'procreative types' is narrow, contrived and ad hoc. Entrenching heteronormative views into society is not a state interest. Con's position could have practically been pulled out of the Summa Theologica,[4] as many Catholics like Bill Donohue continue to demonstrate.[5] As I've said, affirming such a position is a private interest. There is no rational secular purpose for defining marriage in such a manner. 2. Second, Con's rejoinder to my next argument fails for the same reason his overall argument fails: It's ad hoc and based on no evidence. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right to prison inmates, even though the state knows perfectly well that they will never be able to procreate, since they can't have physical contact with their spouse. See Turner v. Safley[6] Though marriage has been defined as being heterosexual in common law, this is simply irrelevant. The Supreme Court's 14 rulings on marriage cases since 1888 have all been gender neutral and have described the right to marry as being a component of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[7] I submit that the Supreme Court really has gotten it right on this topic. The right to liberty, privacy and association predate the constitution and really get at the heart of what marriage is all about. Professor Nancy Cott, an expert on marriage and a distinguished historian at Harvard University, has argued that the core social meaning of marriage is not primarily based on procreation.[8] Rather, it's based on choice, mutual feelings, commitment and support in an economic partnership so that both spouses can get the material needs of life. To reduce marriage to sex and procreation is, for lack of a better term, vulgar. 3. Third, Con seems to be contradicting himself. Is the state interested in procreation or only in joining unions that are 'procreative in type,' regardless of whether or not they actually do or can procreate? Con should really make up his mind. If it's the former, then Theodore Olson's argument about overpopulation stands. If it's the latter, then, as I've said before, his argument is ad hoc. Moreover, it is not a state interest to "teach the next generation what marriage is and is not." The same first amendment that allows Catholics like Robert P. George, Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher to express their views on marriage also prevents them from enshrining their beliefs into the law.[9-10] 4. Fourth, despite what Con has claimed, procreation is not the central or only reason the state has an interest in marriage. And as I've said before, allowing gays and lesbians to marry would in no way harm the procreative function of heterosexual marriages or discourage heterosexuals from marrying, even if it is an important component. My opponent has not addressed this because the fact of the matter is that allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not harm heterosexual marriage. If anything, evidence and expert testimony from scientists and sociologists who study marriage has shown that allowing gays and lesbians to marry strengthens the institution of marriage for both gay and straight individuals.[11] Dr. Ilan Meyer, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, has also pointed out that bans on same-sex marriage harm gay individuals by imposing a government-sanctioned stigma on their relationships.[12] All of this further cuts at the notion that bans on same-sex marriage are rational. 5. Fifth, Con reiterates the claim that my argument begs the question. I've already dealt with this claim and refuted it. As I've explained, his argument is irrelevant because the 'responsible procreation' argument wouldn't survive strict scrutiny. Con then goes on to claim the procreation argument could survive strict scrutiny if the judge presiding over the case accepted my opponent's description of marriage. Yes, if a judge accepted the tautological notion that marriage is between a man and a woman along with the ad hoc procreation argument, then he or she might make that decision. C3: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My equal protection claims have gone unchallenged. C4: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My due process and suspect classification claims have gone unchallenged. There is no way on Earth that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Surely, gays and lesbians wouldn't use up all of the marriage licenses. | Conclusion | To say that marriage only involves unions that are 'procreative in type' is nothing more than an ad hoc position supported by no credible evidence. So you have that on the one hand. On the other hand, you have the combined weight of 14 Supreme Court decisions about marriage being an aspect of liberty and privacy. We've also seen expert testimony from some of the world's foremost experts in sociology, public health, science and history. This is not even close. If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in civil marriage is justified, stronger arguments are needed to demonstrate that, since my opponent's do not. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Guys make WAY better friends than girls. because although my opponent makes compelling arguments against my case, she does not prove the resolution true in anyway. extnd my args vote con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right because So your argument is that the death penalty is morally right because it gives people something to look forward to? That's rubbish! The death penalty is literally the definition of morally wrong, the morally right thing to do would be to aim for rehabilitation and not deterrence, hell, it works in Norway, there's barely any crime there, and there's no death penalty, in fact, prisons in Norway are more like holiday resorts. I will explain my, "logically wrong" part next argument. Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Affirmative Action because It seems you don't quite have the right understanding of affirmative action, and sometimes you make ignorant or unsupported assumptions about the situations and behaviors of certain groups. To address your first situation: Affirmative action is made explicitly to take into account the realistic tendencies of employers or admissions officers. In post-Civil Rights America, the employer wouldn't necessarily "flip a coin," even though that might be the ideal situation for two completely equally qualified candidates. Affirmative action is taking into account both the natural bias that was and still is existent in American (see President Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 http://www.thecre.com... ) as well as the centuries of social deprivation and setbacks that the minorities and neglected social groups of this country have faced. In terms of the so-called "resentment" that the whites feel, I agree that there undoubtedly would be some cases of resentment, but it's not some unconditional hatred that suddenly is felt towards blacks by whites. And besides, the point of affirmative action is to to take into account these age-old economic and social inequities with the acceptance of burden by the generally better off white population. Also, you are not taking into account how affirmative action also applies to laying off workers from their jobs. A colorblind system of laying off workers would inevitably be favoring white employees, since they are the ones who have held senior positions due to the years of white male dominance in society. Therefore, in the absence of affirmative action "color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it" ( http://www.understandingprejudice.org... ). "So, you say we should just reverse this discrimination." You're employing the term discrimination incorrectly. Affirmative action is the preferential selection of equal candidates in a systematic way, and done according to statistics ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), in order to balance the existent inequality in society. This isn't "reversing discrimination," which implies an age-old innately felt resentment towards the opposite race, but a scientific way to counteract the natural discrimination among race-class divisions. When you used my quote against me, you understood it incorrectly. Whites would get more jobs because they have been holding senior employment positions for years, and have had more educational opportunities. With affirmative action, blacks would be given more jobs because the policy is, like you said, not favoring them due to some kind of natural superiority over whites, but selecting them because of their deprivation of opportunities and their inequality in respect to the majority. "Both the white man and the black man are supposedly equally qualified...The only blacks that benefit from affirmative action are the ones who lived in the North, where slavery and segregation ended sooner." Yes, but just because they are equally qualified doesn't mean they have the same family history. It's true, their might be some cases where affirmative action is done at the expense of poor whites, but when there are two equally qualified candidates, there's a higher chance that the black one came from a more difficult background, and this is taken into consideration. "The black guy has to have had a family that was more successful than the average black family, or the white guy has to have had a family that was less successful than the average white family." Wow. That's pretty ignorant as I understand it, and frankly, a little racist. So in order for a black guy to be as qualified as a white guy, the white guy has to be below the success of the average white family? That is a biased assumption; you're saying the only way a black person could be as qualified as a white person is if the black guy was unusually above the status quo and the white guy unusually below it. "Obviously, the family histories had the same effect, if they're equally qualified" Again, no. Just because a black guy happens to be exceptionally qualified in terms of intellect or test scores or whatever doesn't mean he was some 1/4 mixed race kid who grew up a pampered life in New England without any discrimination. "only the upper blacks compete with the average whites for jobs." This is in theme with all your previous statements. Please either provide statistics or define what specifically you mean by "average." Average in terms of what? Education? Income? Or a combination of all these factors. "The upper blacks are the ones who weren't hit strongly by racial segregation in the past." An "upper black" as you call it could very well have been born into poverty and lived in the deep South under segregation, and therefore should be picked in a job if they are of equal or comparable qualifications to a white. This selection would take into account the difficult family history faced by the black, while the white, due to statistics, probably didn't face that same discrimination. Also, many sources can refute your statement that affirmative action benefits only middle and upper class blacks, who you claim aren't the victims of discrimination. The AAFP argues that affirmative action actually created the minority middle classes. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Even if, as you said, the white suffered from the xenophobic anti-Irish sentiment after fleeing from the Potato Famine, it is inappropriate to equate the suffering of a poor Irishman to the suffering of an African American. I am saying this with a deeply empathetic view of the Irish, because my ancestors were a proud Catholic family from Ireland who faced a lot of discrimination in employment once they arrived in the New World. Affirmative action might be able to be abandoned in the future, when the races are more or completely balanced. But as of now, the idealistic and unrealistic colorblind "flipping a coin" method just isn't practical, and it isn't fair. As said before, it just leaves in place the imbalance in opportunities between majority and minority. Also, you have failed to refute the benefit of diversity in the workplace. Diversity helps co-workers become more empathetic and tolerant of other cultures. Studies have been done to show that there's a ""consistent pattern of positive relationships between diversity in higher education and both learning and democracy outcomes""( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Vote PRO <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with America is the best country in the world because The resolution is that America is the best country. I maintain that it is the best country primarily bec. of its values,and positive influence. As well as, success in all areas, including; financial, militarily, technology, and science. My opponent has not yet provided another country to compare. I presume it will be one of the 5 super powers, but I will wait till he presents his country then show why America is at least as good. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon because Okay, first, to address my opponent's questions and counter-strategies and whatnot. "The philosophical, profound nature of the existence of the rock fuels part of my argument. I view existence as a tier system. In a battle, we seek to bring an opponent down one tier. This is what constitutes defeat. For any living opponent, a defeat (in general terms) is being killed. For anything that has a life, defeat is the loss of that life. What about, however, something that doesn't have a life in the first place? It stands to reason that the way to defeat a non-living object would be to make it completely non-existent. More on this later." Incorrect. "12) Being knocked out, rendered unusable, or killed is considered defeat. People who are knocked out, rendered unusable or killed cannot be used any more during a match." [1] Technically, because the rock is unusable, it is already defeated. "1. What are the limits on the size of what Kirby can swallow? The source does not specify. It appears to be infinite, and therefore, not in accordance with the rules of the debate." See Video 1 (1:10). Quite a large range, but far from infinite. "2. Yugi and the Millennium Ring. Can Yugi use the Millennium Ring? To quote my opponent's source, 'The strong people who managed to survive the ring's power are: Mahado, Ryo Bakura, and Dark Marik.'" Given that people who are capable of using one Millennium Item are capable of using many, and Atem is one of the most powerful spirits in the entire anime, he would certainly be able to unlock the powers of the Millennium Ring. "1. It seems to me that if Kirby could swallow three humans in one gulp, he would have done so to a lot of his enemies in the TV show–thus, it seems to me, so far, that Kirby would not be able to swallow all three at once. Also, my opponent states Kirby has a very limited vocabulary. Is it enough to understand commands from my opponent?" Kirby cannot swallow excessively large objects, like the monsters usually imported by King Dedede. However, he will eat the small ones. Kirby cannot speak very well, but he is capable of being instructed, as Tiff does constantly in the show. "3. The Millennium Ring is about the size of Flavor Flav's clock necklaces." What? As interesting as this is to know, it serves no purpose to this debate. "It is not a very 'fine' instrument. How could something so large possibly point out an atom? The answer: it clearly can't." The answer is magic. It always is. If Yugi wants to know where the atom is, then the Millennium Ring will point in the general direction of the atom. Sure, the location would not be exact, but I would be able to narrow the atom's location down to a few square feet, allowing Kirby to easily eat it if necessary. If that does not work, I can always have Link ride on Kirby's Warp Star and hang Kirby off of the side using the Clawshot. Link can then use Kirby as a vacuum-cleaner, taking him all over New York City, eating everything he possibly can. The atom stands no chance. "2. First of all, I doubt Kirby can swallow this rock. It is massive. So, this point is already refuted. However, I'll go on to explain why Kirby's swallowing of the rock is ultimately irrelevant." Oh. You're using a giant rock. By my opponent's picture, it seems that he is using Ayer's Rock. However, Ayer's Rock is extremely large. I doubt that it would actually fit in New York City, especially when it is 1,142 ft. tall [2], and the highest point in New York City is 1,250 feet high [3], Ayer's Rock would have to be located in a large expanse with no building or construction that would tilt Ayer's Rock out of the zone allowed. I doubt that this is even possible. "2. Say Kirby did swallow the rock. What does that mean? The rock now exists inside of Kirby. The rock still exists. Therefore, it is not defeated." However, the rock would be rendered unusable by Team CON, and therefore, the rock would be defeated. "1. The passage of time. It seems, now, that Team PRO will be unable to defeat the rock, as it always exists and is gigantic, or the atom, as it always exists and is seemingly impossible to find. Thus, as time passes, the atom and the rock will remain, but all other mortal, living characters, will grow old and die." Solution: Link uses Bomb Arrows to break Ayer's Rock down into smaller pieces that can be consumed by Kirby. Because eating the rock makes it unusable, the rock is defeated once Kirby eats said smaller pieces. Or, Midna could levitate Ayer's Rock, and move it out of New York City, instantly defeating it. "1. The passage of time. It seems, now, that Team PRO will be unable to defeat the rock, as it always exists and is gigantic, or the atom, as it always exists and is seemingly impossible to find. Thus, as time passes, the atom and the rock will remain, but all other mortal, living characters, will grow old and die." For one thing, Atem does not age while in the Millennium Puzzle. For another, I already can defeat both the rock and the atom. "2. Frankenstein. As you have noticed, mongeese is a part of my team. The team captain must issue commands to all of his team members. Without the team captain, the team is rendered useless. Therefore, mongeese cannot be defeated by any of mongeese's characters, because to do so would create a paradox. mongeese cannot render his own team useless by ordering his own destruction without forfeiting the battle." You misunderstand the role of the team leader. "7. The team leader may not directly participate in the competition, but may only facilitate. The role of the team leader is to explain what the team would do and why it would win against the opposing team." [4] So, you see, I do not command my team. I just explain why it would win. And it would win, whether or not I am defeated mid-way through the battle. Of course, I could be left as the last person to eliminate, thus allowing me to issue commands for after I am defeated. "3. The power of a judge. Is my opponent going to risk destroying MTGandP? He must, in order to win, but such could be construed as utter disrespect towards a judge, possibly warranting a loss in conduct points." MTGandP is not judging this debate. [5] Plus, I would like everybody to know that I mean MTGandP no disrespect, and I am sure that he understands that I am being required to defeat his hypothetical self, which I am sure he would accept. "4. The power of the tournament creator. Same thing as above, except with Logical-Master. Destroying Logical-Master could be construed as a highly, highly punishable offense." Highly punishable offense? Technically, he's already agreed to let you use him in Ultimate Team War, so he has probably acknowledged that his hypothetical self is quite likely going to be defeated in some way, shape, or form. Plus, he's set up the rules that command me to eliminate him. Now, for a recap: 1. Kirby effortlessly swallows MTGandP, mongeese, and Logical-Master, turning into Debate Kirby. 2. Kirby gets rid of his Debate ability. 3. Yugi locates the atom using the Millennium Ring. 4. Kirby eats the atom. 5. Link breaks down Ayer's Rock into much smaller pieces using Bomb Arrows. 6. Kirby eats the smaller pieces that used to make up Ayer's Rock. 7. Kirby leaves New York City, eliminating Kirby and all of Team CON. 8. Team PRO wins! 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com... 4. http://www.debate.org... 5. http://www.bracketmaker.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Hitler was insane. because I thank my opponent for his response. "You are a liar." I am not a liar. I came up with the logical argument on my own; I merely utilized my source to familiarize the readers with some background on Hitler. "When the definition of "insane" in a medical dictionary is "of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity" ( http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... ...), the definition of insanity requires application. I admit that I should not have defined insanity with a syntax dictionary in the first round, but this definition is clearly more valid, as insanity should be judged from a medical standpoint rather than the standpoint of an English teacher." My opponent proposes another definition in the final round. He first defined insane as mentally deranged with dictionary.com, then defined insanity in the second round with a medical definition, and in the previous round correlated insane with the definition of insanity from the medical standpoint. I find it highly unfair that my opponent is constantly changing definitions, and there is really nothing to rebut here. My opponent now defines mental disorder, but I already defined "mental disorder" several rounds ago, and since my opponent did not disagree with that definition, my original meaning stands and his new definition should not be taken into consideration. My logical argument deduced the definitions and properly aimed at the resolution. Once again, bringing up new and unfair definitions does not prove a point. "My opponent asks why it matters that Hitler is responsible for his actions. His being responsible for his actions makes him sane according to the medical field. My opponent conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions by saying "So?" So, my opponent has conceded the debate." Everyone is responsible for their actions, it is obvious. But that simply does not mean one is sane or insane. Insane people still must be held responsible, for every event has someone responsible. I believe we have differing opinions and definitions of responsibility, and since it was not defined, this responsibility argument is irrelevant. I have not conceded the debate. Let's review: -I gave a logical argument to show Hitler's insanity. My opponent really did not present a new argument to support his side. -Responsibility is not relevant. Without clarification, it is in the eyes of the beholder of the definition. I urge a Pro vote. I thank my opponent and the audience for this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against RAP BATTLE(begginners) because Damn your threats were a tease Man you said that there'd be war I'd rather be dead than on my knees Guess you don't know what "L" stands for Try to get up here on my level, I'll Walk on you like the floor, meanwhile My attack leaves you bedeviled But like a whore you're back for more Then accuse me of plagiarizing But that accusation is crucial We both know you're just crying Cuz my obliteration was brutal I'll prove to you that you're lying I dare you to type it in Google Then come back apologizing When your worthless search is futile I know you're a beginner, ungroomed So I wasn't expecting a Grammy You won't be the winner but I assumed You'd at least bring the Heat from Miami Though your flow's cold like icicles I rode you like a bicycle Brought you down to the ground Even while I was getting high on nickels So no complaints that you lost Yeah you're catching balls like Randy Moss But even that can't beat the Saints Still undefeated, I'm the boss <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion is Murder (providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies) because As discussed heavily in the Comments section of the debate, this resolution relies solely upon the agreed definitions of both parties. Because I do not deem a semantics argument to be advantageous to this discussion, I will try not to waste too much time in opposition of my opponents flawed definitions. That said, I do have a problem with Pros propositions and must address them as such. First, Pro objects that sperm nor ovum are alive. That is blatantly false. Sperm is difficult to think of as alive; however, they have the energy to fertilize, making it a living thing. Further, it's true that a sperm cell cannot live on its own and will die within 72 hours if it does not fertilize an ovum. However, because the sperm cell will DIE means that it must first be ALIVE. It thus meet the criteria of sperm being alive and validates my argument. About 3.8 billion years ago, life began. Since then, all organisms have merely been copies of that original organism. Thus, both sperm and ovum are living , and my argument on this issue stands. Re: My opponent's claim that I have straw manned his argument by mentioning the 'obvious' fact that an amoeba does not have human rights -- Pro has missed the point. I said that an amoeba has all of the same characteristics as a human zygote, so it is a potential human. Similarly, a human zygote is a POTENTIAL human. But POTENTIAL things are not deserving of the same rights as actual things. In other words, a potential human isn't worthy of human rights because it's not human, whether that potential thing was an amoeba or a zygote. Additionally, let us address the blatant straw man my opponent stated in the previous round, in saying that I have "claimed the opposite," in other words, claimed that a zygote is not human. What I did do was state the fact that a zygote is a POTENTIAL human. This is akin to how a tadpole is not a frog; it is a tadpole, who has the potential - due to its genetic make-up - to one day be a frog. This is not similar to calling a baby cow a calf, because a calf is still a cow (while a tadpole is not a frog). A zygote is NOT a human. It does NOT have all of the necessary human functions for survival on its own, in order to be considered human. Next, Pro states - and I quote it verbatim - "You hair is a part of your own body, possessing your own genetic code and being a part of your biological systems. As such, you may do it it as you wish." ... Ha. That's true, and that's exactly why a zygote - which is part of your own body, possessing your own genetic code, and being a part of your biological system (reproductive) is another part of you for you to do as you wish. It should be pretty clear by now that Pro is a huge fan of the style over substance fallacy or aspect of debating; his Texas Sharpshooting rings loud and clear when he says things like, "stop using old and recycled attempts to bypass a meaningful response" in reference to my valid arguments which he unsuccessfully disputes. Pro stated, "You claim that 'child cannot acquire any rights until it is born ' yet give no reasonable defense of that position." To reiterate my previous points, a child cannot acquire any rights until it can survive on its own because: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right �€" which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? [1] Re: You hold the burden of proof- you must demonstrate that my reasoning is flawed and provide a logical basis for your claims. Pro clearly is not familiar with the burden of proof fallacy, which very clearly indicates that PRO always has the burden of proof. Pro must prove that abortion = murder, but I have clearly falsified all of his premises. Re: You have not demonstrated that killing times of war, as a part of conflict, is, in fact, murder. Until you do so, this entire line falls apart. -- Actually, by Pro's very own definition of murder (the taking of a human life), then killing - even in combat - IS, in fact, murder. To say that war is a justification for killing is absurd. Wars exist for immoral reasons all the time. In the case of justification, then one can justify murder in other instances as well, i.e. vigilante killing. The fact is, that once decisions have to be made about whether or not something is moral or justified in terms of killing , things become shady and unclear. Pro sarcastically (and unnecessarily, and not so cleverly) asks: Do you plan to defend or explain any of your claims, or simply state them as fact and assume everyone will accept anything you say? I assert that embryos or aborted fetuses are POTENTIAL lives; not human lives, and therefore do not fit the appropriate definition of murder as suggested by Pro. My rounds explain why. Finally, Pro maintains that this debate is about whether or not abortion (outside of several extenuating circumstances) fits the definition of murder. Obviously one only has to look in a dictionary to determine if that's true or false; this debate is clearly about if abortion SHOULD be considered murder. Again, a zygote CANNOT be considered of the same value as human life, because it is NOT human life - it is POTENTIAL human life. I hate to use such a rigid analogy, but consider a bank bond purchased for $20. In ten years, the value of this bond may increase to $200. However, to say that it is valued at $200 today would NOT be true. It merely has the POTENTIAL to one day be valued at $200. Similarly, a human zygote - while obviously a very special, precious and necessary thing - is valuable, but not AS VALUABLE as an actual human life; a life that can perpetuate its own existence by itself. Murder is the taking of a HUMAN LIFE. Not the taking of potential human life. While that is bad - and you may even think JUST as bad - it is still not the SAME. I have 1 minute to post this, so here goes... Vote Con. Source: [1] http://www.aynrand.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." because I thank my opponent for another quick response, though it's substance was somewhat lackluster. I shall refute his argument in a linear fashion, and demonstrate a serious hole in it: ==================== Sentience in animals ==================== Why does my opponent give me a Wikipedia link showing that there is self-awareness in some animals? How is this even related to my argument saying that since all animals are sentient, they deserve rights? In fact, my opponent's link can at best be used as an argument for MY SIDE. There really is nothing much left to say here - I've got nothing to refute but in fact more to gain from his link. My opponent seriously needs to focus on this argument, since if I can maintain this ethical foundation, then his position seems grim. ==================== Justification for eating animals ==================== ---->>>"Humans naturally have evolved to eat meat. It is in human nature...Humans still evolved to eat meat, and we still eat meat, so we should remain eating meat." --> And if you bothered to read the description of the appeal to nature fallacy, you would realize that the ethical foundation for eating animals CAN NOT come from the fact that it's natural. ---->>>"However, it is also in human nature to try to cooperate with others to solve disputes, before resorting to murder, and this has evolved into modern government. Other animals kill each other to end disputes immediately, unlike humans, who try to reach a consensus first." --> The sociological construct between humans and animals isn't as wide as you make it to be. Yes, we do have several distinguishing factors such as a language, a civilization/culture, and higher cognitive faculties. These are solely what allow us to dominate the Earth. HOWEVER, we still fight, we still murder, we still steal, and so on and so forth. These behaviors can easily be explained by evolution, meaning it's present in most animals today. So is it okay to commit murder in a heat of passion because it's natural? NO. You aren't even addressing my counterarguments, but simply going around them. ==================== Using animals for clothing ==================== ---->>>"If we kill an animal to eat it, we might as well salvage its inedible skin for use as clothing as well." --> So my opponent concedes his original argument, and basically aligns it with his previous justification for eating animals. Okay, but of course his argument for eating animals is equally empty of reason. So until he can rescue the first argument, both of these arguments will sink. ==================== Animal testing ==================== ---->>>"It doesn't mean we shouldn't, either." -->Uh...YES IT DOES. My opponent basically just said the opposite of my argument, a claim with no evidence or reason to back it up. I stated that just because something isn't smart enough, doesn't mean it deserves less rights. All my opponent said was the opposite. A completely unsupported argument. ---->>>"Also, lab rats ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ...) would go extinct if we didn't bother to breed them for usage in experiments." -->Which is why it should be our responsibility now to take care of them. Because it was humans who first bred them purely for our uses, and it should be our responsibility to fix this. I can imagine programs trying to find ways to integrate them into a natural evnvironment, or maybe even creating one for them. ==================== Animal entertainment ==================== ---->>>"It still ends up to the advantage for the animals." -->Uh, not always. Have you ever seen circus animals? Besides that, there are many cases of animal abuse in domestic homes - a simple flip on the television can attest to that. ---->>>"It is more ethical to feed an animal for entertainment than to not feed it and not use it for entertainment, especially when the animal has no other source of food." -->Supplying animals with food (their lack of food most likely results from the spread of humans) is a good thing, but forcing them to be your pets and/or for human entertainment is NOT ethical. It's like me going up to a hobo, giving him food and shelter, but forcing him to entertain me. If the hobo wants out, he should be allowed to. But can an animal do that? No. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent stated that he has produced a "fresh argument against the sentient point". I really hope that this isn't true. He has no substantial argument against the ethical underpinnings of my argument, and every other example of applied ethics (not using animals for food, clothing, etc.) crumbles in succession. If my opponent really wants to refute my ethical basis, he should start by NOT giving me links that support my position. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Rap Battle because Hey man, what's with all the salt? Whatever the reason, it ain't my fault Now, you can put your baton away And if you're christian, you might wanna pray They say that jesus can save us all But can he repair a broken jaw? As far as insurance goes, I hope you're covered Cause you'll need more than some aspirin from the cupboard <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because Full resolution: With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish agrizzly bear in combat inside yellow stone national park. PARAMETERS: 1) The fight takes place in Yellowstone national park 2) Kleptin is assumed to be well capable of climbing trees 3) Kleptin gets access to a high quality hunting knife 4) It is assumed that Kleptin is not in any way physically handicapped and is at least physically capable of sprinting a mile in 5 minutes and benching 180 pounds. That'll be all. I shall begin arguing in round 2 and my opponent is more than free to follow suit and do the same (or begin arguing in round 1). CON is more than free to provide definitions of the terms used, but I am not obligated to accept them should I feel they do not meet the intentions of this debate. By taking up this debate, CON agrees to my parameters and my conditions. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached because I thanky my opponent for their response. The source my opponent cited is not explained at all by my opponent, but he is refernecing a military coverup in the middle east. This was not treasonous aciton, howvere. It wasn't even technically illegal, just highly immoral. Reagan didn't just negotiate with terrorists, he armed them. "And my main point is who cares? Reagan not only made a lot of good happen compared to other presidents, but he also is dead. So nothing can be done. Unless this is some sort of personal grudge you have with Ronald Reagan. Everything you have said is not news. It's happened since murderers started lying about murders." This whole statement represents a fundemental flaw in my opponents understanding of the purpose of debate. I am arguing that Reagan should have been convicted of treason and impeached following the Iran-Contra scandal. No, that does not mean that he can be. I am just proving that the decision made was not the just one. My opponent basically admits that everything that I have said is true. Therefore, Reagan did commit an act of treason. He attempts to dismiss the fact that Reagan should have faced the punishment for his crime by stating that he had good intentions, and that it was to save hostages. My opponent appears to have skipped the part of my argument where I proved that Reagans actions only led to even more hostages being taken. My opponent cedes that Reagan committed treason, therefore, he should have been convicted of this crime. Along with such a serious crime, and impeachment would obviously be necissary (as presidents have almost been impeached for lesser crimes such as purgury). VOTE PRO! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92 because You say that Republicans and Democrats "couldn't be more different" on these issues. The truth is, if they were more similar, they would be literally the same: taxes: They both support the unconstitutional income tax. They both support taxation in principle, which is theft. national security: They both believe, as you do, in Rooseveltian liberalism; i.e. world policing, which undermines our national security. Both want to keep troops in 160 countries and rob the U.S. taxpayer to pay for the defense of Japan, Israel, South Korea, Europe, etc. spending: They both run up huge deficits, funded by the printing of more fiat money. Historically, government has grown slower when Democrats have been in office. The only "difference" I see, looking from Clinton to Bush on this issue, or Carter to Reagan, is that Republicans spend MORE than Democrats, run up bigger deficits, and cause more inflation of the money supply. If anything, this issue is a cause to vote for a Democrat. corruption and influence peddling: Come on! Do I really have to respond to this? Duke Cunnignham. Tom DeLay. For every corrupt Democrat you could name, some liberal activist could name a corrupt Republican. There is no difference here, and if you think there is, you are a blind partisan. morality: Both parties are entirely immoral. You know all about the Dems, but just look above to see a few Republican names. Let me add in Larry Craig and the various other closeted homosexuals who rally against gay equality while soliciting bathroom sex in public. The deficit spending the Republicans love is immoral to the core. life: Abortion? There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans -- they both think abortion should be decided by the federal government, not the states (as the Constitution says it should). Furthermore, neither party is really against abortion. They use it as a political prop. Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Ron Paul has a bill that would strip federal jurisdiction on abortion, but none of your "abortion is murder!" representatives are interested. liberty: Give me a break. The Democrats want to enact social democracy and take away economic liberties, and the Republicans want to enact / have enacted a police state, through Executive dominance and things like the Patriot Act. But the Republicans also hate economic liberty, which is why they love printing fiat money so much. solarman says I'm a communist because I believe in radical change. That is classic. The Founding Fathers, in his view, were all communists. They wanted radical change enough to take up arms. I want to restore THEIR country, but I'm willing to take the moderate approach of voting for the candidate who reflects my views. And no, I will not vote for the Whigs or the Democrats; I will not vote for slavery. I will only vote for Free Soil, and I will only vote for Ron Paul. The impact my doing so will have on the election is zero. If Dr. Paul does run independently, the impact of millions others like me doing the same may hurt one of the two major-party candidates, but I don't care. The question was "will Ron Paul running hurt the Republicans like in '92" and the answer is NO. The vast majority of people who support Ron Paul would never vote for Romney, Giuliani, McCain, or Huckabee, etc. The Republican Party does not own my vote, that's for sure. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Indian women no longer captive of tradition because "Indian women no longer captive of tradition" I shall be arguing for the affirmation in two relatively independent ways: 1) Indian women living in America are far from captives of tradition 2) The Indian government has been taking steps to remove traditions that previously had enslaved Indians According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, an Indian is 1 a: a native or inhabitant of India or of the East Indies b: a person of Indian descent 2 a: american indian b: one of the native languages of American Indians. Exemplified in definition 1B, yet consistent with the rest of the definitions, an "Indian" women need not live in India. To be considered "Indian," one must merely fulfill ancestral requirements. Following this reasoning, it is evident that Indian women residing in America are not captive of tradition; in fact, they are given rights to protect themselves against many traditions. Even with women residing in India, there are still vast changes from traditional ways. For example, according to Times Magazine, India has recently passed a bill preventing men from domestically abusing women [1]. It is apparent that women are no longer slaves to Indian traditions; they have been given some of the same rights that Westerner's have. I am curious as to the nature of my opponent's sources for his extreme claims. For example, contradicting what my opponent has said, Muniruddin Qureshi's book, Social Status of Indian Women [2], shows that "The liberal egalitarian legacy of the Indian National Movement had, in turn, led to the Constitution of free India granting a position of equality to women by way of political rights." Evidently, women are *not* captive to the ways of the past; their social status has changed. I would also like to note that my opponent's spelling and grammar is far below par, so that category should gain a Pro vote. In conclusion, as both of my two separate contentions prove, Indian women are no longer captives of tradition. My opponent provides a few questionable examples that do not undoubtedly prove his point. As such, please vote Pro. Thank you Sources: 1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... 2) http://books.google.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is homosexuality wrong? because "On your first point rebuttal. Gender is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. The reason I say this is because that every human being who is here is endowed with particular biological gender features that every human being has as well as that why gender I consider to be "unique" is that sometimes we as human beings may appreciate of what body we are created with as well as assess our strengths and weaknesses. Take for example, men are mostly adept physically rigorous tasks and are suited with taking leadership roles and being the head of the family. Too, when it comes to family parenting, fathers fosters and loved their children by chastening them for their own profit and setting up disciplined children to be able to grow to strong, respectful and healthy adults of tomorrow. Women on the other hand are excellent at empathy, mentally strong and their emotional attachment to their children may help into raising up emotionally and mentally healthy children." My opponent asserts that gender is unique to every human being, but does not dispute that each human has the same gender as roughly 1/2 the world. "Second, you made a rather somewhat irrelevant comparison as a rebuttal to my reasoning that homosexuality is wrong because it is the act of trying to imitate and pretend to be the other gender, when you're not. Now what I mean by this is not like a male comedian dressing up like a girl in a comedy act- no, what I mean by "pretending" to be the other gender, is to be really serious into thinking that you are really the other gender. By what I mean like when people feel like they are really "a woman trapped in a man's body" or "a man trapped in a woman's body". Instead of relying on their biological features to base their gender, they base it instead of what they feel "inside". They think to be the other gender that are really a "man" or a "woman" when they aren't." My opponent is essentially saying it is immoral to have delusions, which homosexuality is not. My opponent is confusing homosexuality with transsexuality. "If we regard homosexuality as "normal" based on what contemporary morality and ethics code (what everyone believes), then what becomes of other moral issues like rape, murder, abortion and man-child marriage? Should we base it too on what the contemporary public's view on it? Suppose the future moral ethics deemed all of the aforementioned above as "normal" in the future- what now?" My opponent is putting words in my mouth. I never stated that morality is based on what is considered normal. "Homosexuality is really a moral issue, homosexuality is a moral issue because it involves a persona acting like the other sex which is in clear defiance of their biological sexual traits." This doesn't make it a moral issue... "The issue of homosexuality really is- where should we base our sexual identity? On our biological traits or on what a person feels "inside"? What a person feels is relevant to the debate topic and what you feel is SUBJECTIVE because it is based on your emotions" Emotions aren't subjective. You either have them or you don't. "thoughts can be controlled and can be restrained instead of giving in to what you think." Of course you can. However, thought itself is not a choice, for thought is required to have a choice. "You just proved my point on gay sex- which is a part of homosexual behaviour- to choose to have homosexual sex is without of no excuse. it is in clear violation of what your body meant to lie with which is a woman. In gay sex, one partner has to act like the female while the other acts like a masculine- a clear perversion of the natural sex that is meant for both a man and woman to have." My opponent here is assuming that homosexuality is wrong. If I disagree that homosexuality is wrong, there is no argument here to refute. "the homosexual lifestyle is a very harmful lifestyle that is disease-prone and it is common knowledge to know the homosexual lifestyle is disease-infested, particularly associated with AIDS/HIV and STDs ( Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 51). On this CDC link it reports a high rise of HIV infections on reported unprotected homosexual sex ( http://www.cdc.gov... ... ). In addition, from the journal report of Journal of Human Sexuality "Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices" reports anal intercourse can result in, '...anorectal trauma, hemorrhoids and anal fissures (M.A. Cretella et al, Journal of Human sexuality - the link is here: http://www.narth.org... ... )" My opponent's source does indeed show gays as suffering much more from HIV and STDs than straight men, however they also mention that the majority of homosexuals have had unprotected sex at least once in the past 12 months-an equally likely explanation. "Concerning "redefinitions" of morality, yes morality has been defined. But once you brought up Jesus' message of "Universal Love" (By the way, the main message is Salvation by belief in Him) that is nothing new." No, but in the society Jesus lived in it was extremely unusual. "The OT testament has already had a subtle justification on why slavery is to be condemned back at Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve- the progenitors of mankind- are created in "God's Image". Since humans today are thought to be descended from Adam and Eve it follows from logical deduction that the descendants of Adam and Eve are too created in the Image of God. To enslave one another is an act of trying to distort the image of God, hence it is wrong. By the way the OT actually reveals a command from God to the Israelites of treating foreigners in their land since they too have been strangers in Egypt as well (Leviticus 19:33-34). By the way, Romans 1:20-ongoing talks about the idea of a Universal moral law from God "seen clearly by all men". This "redefinition" is nothing but an attempt repression of the moral conscience mankind was seeded with from God- a result of the actions of the First Couple leading to the Fall of Mankind." As I stated before, I will ignore any religion-based arguments. "Yes, there are several news reports of which the LGBT community is caught in the act of bullying and intimidating anti-LGBT be it be Christian groups or preachers in the public square." People of all kinds have been caught in the act of bullying and intimidating people they don't like, that's not an argument. "One news report of the Christian-owned bakery shop called Sweet Cakes, refused to fund a wedding cake for two lesbian couples. The only they have against is their religious conviction against homosexual immorality." My opponent once again assumes that homosexuality is wrong. Besides, boycotting is a protest tactic that goes way further back than this incident, including yes, civil rights groups. "Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die." Because people being jerks is totally something that is restricted to LGBT (note: this is sarcasm). "One viral video of a Seattle gay pride parade witnesses several pro-LGBT supporters beating up a pastor who was preaching outside http://www.lifesitenews.com... ... )." Again, this is not something limited to LGBT groups. "One traditional Catholic group in Brazil adorned in traditional military parade marching peacefully against abortion was met with hostile reaction when several angry mobs launched a retaliation against the Christians http://www.lifesitenews.com... ... )" This has nothing to do with homosexuality. "You do not need to see why Nazism and Communism were so condemned because of their mass murders and mass rape. Communism and Nazism were condemned by this because this was an ethical belief that they held of massacring their enemies and torturing them. Now you might say why compare the issue of homosexuality to Nazism and Communism because both issues are of a moral matters. Even though that the LGBT don't commit mass murders, they do however try to impose their own moral codes upon the public." Says the person trying to impose upon people his belief that homosexuality is wrong. "The argument "There is no harm" has been already answered in several paragraphs, sir- especially the links I have provided exposing the LGBT attacking anti-LGBT groups as well as medical reports on health risks on homosexuality." And I have refuted these. "Thoughts can be controlled- I have answered this before on paragraph 4. Thoughts are wrong if you think wrong. If I think of lying down with my sister or my mother or killing my teacher- that thinking of course is wrong." No, that thinking is not wrong because you cannot choose what to think. Once again, thought cannot be a choice, because choice requires thought. And while one can control their thoughts, this requires thinking (which is not a choice) that their thoughts should be controlled. "Jesus on Matthew 15:17-20 declares where sin starts at- that is in the heart, then on the thoughts before being done out explicitly." Like I said before, I'll be ignoring any religion-based arguments. "Since choice proceeds from thinking, doesn't it follow logically that thinking is also a form of choice?" No. That makes no sense whatsoever in even the slightest way. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Crew the best sport because //We all know perfection isn't possible that makes it a constant battle on your mind to think about what your doing and how to improve.// Every single sport has that element trying for perfection. My point to you is that crew has that element much less than more complicated team sports, such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer etc. In conclusion, I agree that crew is a physically and mentally beneficial sport. However, it is not "one of the most beneficial sports for your body that you could possibly engage in." Thank you for an interesting debate! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against dogs are better than cats because I will start with the negative case. 1) My opponent may consider not giving an animal a bath to be a big deal, but this is considerable labor that must be taken into consideration. 2) Actually, there are cat shows [1]. Again, it was not my opinion that cats are better than dogs; it is a fact that dogs were not bred for looks, while cats were [2]. 3) I apologize for the wording, but it should be semi-obvious that I meant "The cat owner does not have to exercise their cat." My opponent did not object to "Cats do not require a human to exercise", so I assume this point was conceded. 4) There are types of cats that do not shed, just as there are types of dogs that do not shed. My opponent's rebuttal is void. 5) Dogs that defecate outside have to be cleaned up after in some neighborhoods, so my opponent's objection is, again, void. One must also consider the labor required to take the dog outside regularly. 6) There are outside cats as well, so my opponent's objection is, again, void. Feline independence is not due to their hating their owners. 7) Again, my opponent ignores the labor required to walk the dog to its favorite spot. 8) Again, cats can be trained to do anything a dog can do; however, intelligence studies (sourced last round) have found cats significantly more intelligent. My opponent also dropped two of my points. On to the final blow to the affirmative case: 1) Unlike murder, there are no victims in drug use; therefore, my opponents objection is entirely nonsensical. Dogs are put to the use of enforcing purely victim-less crimes and in this action, violate basic human rights. 2) Again, a cat can be trained to do anything a dog can be trained to do. This includes helping the blind "see" [3]. My opponent concedes the rest of her points. Because my opponent has dropped all of case except the government's enforcement of laws of tyranny and abilities that apply to both cats and dogs, the resolution can not be affirmed. Further, I have provided a plethora of reasons to negate. Vote CON. [1] http://www.cfa.org... [2] http://www.messybeast.com... [3] http://www.animalliberationfront.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. because Thank you for your response. Before I began, I would like to say that I am in no way trying to be rude in this argument to come. I am simply pointing out facts in a caring way, though it is hard to tell over the internet. ================================ Argument: You state that war has so many cons that it should cease. You says that 'killing thousands of people because they are being tortured does not make since.' No offense, but this statement itself does not make since either. We are talking about war, not a specific war, but war in general. I have said this in my previous arguments, but you have yet to address them. My examples of the Korean war is not what we are talking about, it was just an example. Not all wars are about freeing certain people. Most of your opening paragraph in round three does not make since. Saying that ‘they could leave via suicide' is simply foolish. You go on to talk about the war in the Middle East. Again, I have said countless times, not all wars can be based off of one example. If I play a basketball game against a horrible player and win, I can not say that I will win all my future games. The reason for this is because there is always something different, there could always be a better player than me. The scenarios always changes, same thing in war. You give a list of what makes a "terrorist." First of all, this list is irrelevant, seeing as to not all wars are about stopping terrorists. Secondly, the list is extremely flawed! It is not even our government's use of the word terror. Your source even says that people use the world so lightly, that people have started using it to describe their their enemies. The list you gave was showing how people loosely use the word terrorist. The funny thing is your own source says that the list is wrong. Your source does not help you in the least. Sources 2, 3, and 4 are also irrelevant to this debate, for yet again not all wars are the wars in the Middle East. Your mass copy and paste of the site you used is not very reliable, and does not cover all war. It covers a war, but not war itself. I think you are somewhat confused about websites. Just because you list sources from a site does not make it true. For example, this site (1) believes Michal Jackson is still alive, and popping up all over the world. Here is a direct quote from the site: "The World Weekly News has reported that Michael Jackson is appearing around the world on his birthday. He has been seen in Ireland, South Africa, Dubai, Shanghai, Manila, Rome, Barcelona, London, Moscow, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Sydney, Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Michael appears on the street, sings and dances for about thirty seconds then he disappears. ‘It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen,' said Roger Farley of London. ‘He appeared on the street, sang a few short lines of the song, spun around and was gone… It was him. It definitely was him.'" Now simply because this site says Michials still alive, does not make it true. The internet is full of stuff like this. These people (2) even say that Elvis Presley is alive and working as an undercover agent for the DEA! But back to what I was saying, the internet cannot be trusted, and you needed more official sources to help your case. But again, if you think that America is so evil and the real terrorists are fine, then you agree that war against the USA is righteous and necessary. Saying that Justice and revenge are the same is completely wrong. The best way I have heard it put was that revenge is retaliation by a wronged party against the person or people they see as having caused the wrong. The person carrying out an act of revenge may have been harmed indirectly or not at all by the person at whom the revenge is directed, but on some level there is a perceived personal grievance. Justice, on the other hand, can be carried out by an unaffected third party. In most developed countries it is considered vital that the judiciary be independent from the other arms of government, partly for this very reason. Justice also doesn't necessarily involve any act of retribution. For example, the acquittal of an innocent person can be considered an act of justice, but it certainly isn't revenge. Justice also requires fairness, and while this is obviously subjective to a large extent it's still relevant. It's no secret that the invasion of Iraq was partially motivated by the '9/11' terrorist attacks, but while a war killing tens of thousands of civilians with no terrorist involvement may be called revenge, there aren't too many people who would see it as justice. Do you see what I am getting at? On a smaller scale, if someone rapes a girl, then the girl's brother goes and kills the rapist, then it was revenge. Justice is when you are punished in the correct manner by people who are not deeply affected by the situation. If justice and revenge was the same thing, that would mean if a ten year old stole my bike and I killed him, then the ten year old came to justice. You see? It obviously does not work that way. I even gave you the definitions of both justice and revenge in round three. About the civil war, you said: "Should there have been a war? Not unless need be." Of course there was a need! You say that the North became greedy when they could have just blockaded the south. This was not the solution, in fact, it was the South that started the war by firing upon northern troops! Comparing slavery vs war is also a bad contrast. The slave has done nothing wrong, where as in war the other person usually has. The slave does not have a choice to be free, but in war the person has the choice to surrender, slave ownership puts one man absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune. This is not the case in many wars, although it is the case in some. I shouldn't have to say this again but, not all wars are the same. Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. I really do not mean to be rude, but I have absolutely no clue as to what you are actually talking about. Audience, my opponent has done a great job in debating me. I really enjoy that she did not forfeit like most of the others do. But, she has contradicted herself in so many ways. She has made absurd claims, and has even admitted herself that war is sometimes necessary, therefore proving my case. She has made false claims such as revenge and murder are the same, and has also failed to provide reliable sources. I ask that the audience vote correctly, and not simply with who you agree with. I would like to thank my opponent once more for the lovely debate, and would also like to thank the audience for reading. (1). http://www.michaeljacksonsightings.com... (2). http://www.elvis-is-alive.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules. because In the last round, rules 1, 2, and 3 all used the word "is", a violation of rule 1 from round 1. Therefore, the debate is won by me. 1. Whaling activities in Japanes countries don't not effect whales. 2. Japanese countries aren't not against whaling. 3. "Napan" never didn't rhyme with words like Japan, which incriminates whaling acivites. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President because Introduction I would like to begin by thanking WilliamsP for accepting this debate. Let us get started. Arguments I will begin by detailing some key facts about Bernie Sanders’ economic plan. By looking at Bernie Sanders’ website, specifically on a page titled “How Bernie pays for his proposals,” it is evident that Bernie will enact policies that, in order to be paid for, will require an increase in payroll taxes and the income taxes of individuals, particularly high-income individuals. After looking at this page, I added up the costs of each of those programs, as well as the amount of added revenue after the tax increases. Under Bernie Sanders’ plan, tax revenue will increase $13.6 trillion over the next decade. This will include revenue from the new 6.2% employer-side payroll tax and the new 2.2% broad-based income tax. Overall, the marginal tax rates would be significantly increased, as well as the cost of capital and the amount of capital needed to start a business. As a result, the GDP would decrease 9.5 percent long term. After that decade is over, the increase in taxes “would lead to a 10.56% lower after-tax income for” the bottom 99% “and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84%.[3] Another source of tax revenue under Sanders’ plan comes from healthcare. Currently, people do not pay taxes on the value of the health insurance provided by their employers. Were people to pay taxes on this today, federal tax revenue would increase by over $300 billion.[4] Under Bernie’s plan, though, privately-provided insurance would go away; instead, employers will have to add the value of the insurance policies they used to provide to their employees’ paychecks. This ends up increasing said employee’s taxable income. Furthermore, employers would be required to pay employer-side payroll taxes on that new income. This adds up to $3.6 trillion in added federal revenue.[2] After taking into account the reduction of the GDP? (36*10^11) - ((36*10^11)*.095) = $3.25 trillion. Presently in 2016, there are currently 7 federal income tax brackets.[5] Under Sanders’ plan, two more brackets are added, and their rates are increased. For example, if you make $10 million or more each year, 52% of your income is taxed. Between $2 and $10 billion a year? 48%. Furthermore, if your wealth exceeds $1 billion, an extra 10% is added to your estate tax.[2](Estate tax increases anywhere from 5% to 25%[3].) Now, in addition to ordinary income, there is also taxation on capital gains and dividends. We know that dividends are taxed twice: Once as income and then again a second time. If you make more than $10 million a year, you end up paying at least 104% of what you received in dividends. It does not take an economics major to see that there is a problem with paying more than you received.[3] Under Bernie Sanders’ new tax proposal and spending plan, the GDP would decrease 9.5%. Capital investment would decrease 18.6%. Average wages (after taxes) would go down 4.3%. Approximately 6 million full-time jobs will be lost. This would, to say it softly, crush the economy. Bernie Sanders would also increase the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour. Now, the existence of a minimum wage is an entirely different debate on its own, so I will not go into detail right now, but there are a few key points I need to go over concerning it. A minimum wage decreases the amount of low-skilled jobs. A wage should reflect the amount of work the job demands. Is a door opener at a hotel worth $15 an hour? No. Is it worth $7.25? Probably. Increasing the minimum wage would also increase the cost of running a business and having employees. While this could change in the long run, it will ultimately remove certain jobs from existence and kick out those who are employed in those positions. I will now go on to talk about trade. Bernie Sanders is opposed to free trade. In a page on his site, "On the Issues: Income and Wealth Inequality," it says, "Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries." This shows a lack of knowledge of the issues. If Bernie knew what it was like to run a business, he could see that this is a ridiculous concept. One cannot just dictate business activity so recklessly when it will have unintended consequences, which this would. Also, free trade boosts not only our economy, but the global economy as well. While yes, American companies employ people in other countries, foreign companies also employ Americans. It it not a one-way concept. Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company but employs over 30,000 Americans.[7] Furthermore, the gender wage gap, which Bernie's site calls "an outrage," is a myth.[6] Yes, on average, women get paid less than men, but this is not for the same job. Women tend to have jobs that pay, on average, 78 cents to the average dollar a man makes. It is not for the same job, it is an overall average. Conclusion I believe I have sufficiently given a good amount of facts in opposition to a Bernie Sanders presidency. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in favor of it. Sources [1] https://berniesanders.com... [2] https://berniesanders.com... [3] http://taxfoundation.org... [4] https://berniesanders.com... [5] http://www.bankrate.com... ; [6] https://berniesanders.com... ; [7] https://www.cars.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92 because 1. I am "working within the system" and supporting Ron Paul for president on the Republican Party ticket. How is that NOT "working within the system"? But yes, if he chooses to run as a third-party or independent candidate, I will vote for him in that capacity, just as 10% of the white male population voted against slavery and for Martin Van Buren in 1848. Did this NOT help bring about slavery's ultimate demise? I think it did. The Founding Fathers did not work "within the system" when they seceded from the British Empire. Ron Paul's candidacy may be the last hope for the "system," and after that, other avenues may need to be explored. 2. The parties are the same, as I've illustrated. What is the difference between the parties on fiat money creation? Zero. This is the engine of big government, and they're both 100% on board. Historically, the dominant factions in American politics have been a Hamiltionian centralist party (the Federalists, the Whigs, the early Republicans), and a Jeffersonian "state's rights" party (the original Jeffersonian Republicans, the Jacksonian Democrats, parts of the post-Civil War Democratic Party). But beginning with William Jennings Bryan's ascendenscy over Grover Cleveland, and then Wilson's election in 1912, there have been two Hamiltonian factions with very little difference between the two. I will not vote for a fiat-money candidate bought and paid for by the Wall Street bankers. 3. Is everybody but Paul corrupt? That depends on your definition. Some of the others may not know they're corrupt -- they may not understand the nature of central banking, etc. But yes, everyone who buys into and politically profits from the fiat-money counterfeiters is corrupt. Just look at the top contributors of all the major candidates, except Paul. They are investment banks. You think "Islam" is the greatest danger to the country -- this blinds you to the ongoing theft being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System. If you fail to grasp the importance of this issue, then you can inflate the tiny differences between the two parties. But if you recognize that monopolistic control of the money supply and debasement of the currency trump everything else, then you would see that Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for. It just so happens that he's right on all the other issues, too. I need to address something you said in Round 2: You think Ron Paul wants to put himself in charge and do things "by fiat"? Nothing could be further from the truth! Virtually every president since Lincoln has expanded the power of the presidency. Ron Paul would be the first since Grover Cleveland (the best president ever, by the way) to actively work to REDUCE the power of the executive branch and return it to the Congress, the states, and the people. But he would use the power of the veto to slash spending and taxes, and he would use his power as commander in chief to end U.S. imperialism. These are things the Constitution empowers him to do. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against knowledge is free will, knowledge is memory because I have proved the very definitions of knowledge, free will, and memory are different. They are not the same therefore I have won the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against This is a Poetry Battle because Great idea! Here's my first entry: Partly Cloudy When Cloud and Sun fight And Battlefield Sky is filled with their might Vying for domination of horizons great; We ask -- What shall be our fate? Great long battalions, majestic and white Trying to extinguish Castle Sun's light. Volley after volley, they go back and forth, Their battles resounding from the South to the North. Full sun or full cloud, their ceasefires deem. When victorious one or the other might seem. But the battle goes on, for always they rally, And with hit after hit rises the tally. Locked forever in massive heavenly conflict, As if mandated by some higher edict. Sun and Cloud become good and evil in this, the inverse, And the battle for Sky flares into a fight for the universe. I can't say this was written spontaneously. About a month ago, in fact. Hope everyone likes it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent will try to win this debate because Exactly. He is either trying to win or trying to lose. It doesn't matter which because in trying to do one he is trying to do the other and hence he is either both trying to win and trying to lose, or both trying to lose and trying to win. Either way he is trying to win. He is also trying to lose and should be DQd for that reason. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is ronaldo better than messi? because Rebuttals: none Messi is faster than Ronaldo, he scores on better plays than ronaldo. He is widely acknowleged as the worlds best player by Wayne Rooney, AND OTHERS. "Once they said they can only stop me with a pistol. Today you need a machine gun to stop Messi." -Hristo Stoichkov "Messi or Ronaldo best player in the world? In the world, I would say Ronaldo. Messi is from another planet." - Turkish internationalArda Turan "Messi is God, as a person and even more as a player. I knew him when he was a boy and I"ve watched him grow. He deserves it all." -Samuel Eto'o "Although he may not be human, it"s good that Messi still thinks he is." -Javier Mascherano "They tell me that all men are equal in God"s eyes, this player makes you seriously think about those words." - Football commentatorRay Hudson "Messi is the Mozart of football." -Radomir Antic "It is clear that Messi is on a level above all others. Those who do not see that are blind." -Xavi There are three or four important things in life: books, friends, women" and Messi." - Portuguese writerAntonio Lobo Antunes "Messi is class. There is him, and then there is the rest. What he does is extraordinary." -Franck Ribery "We give him the ball and stand back and watch. People often say to me they saw Pele and Maradona play. In the future, I will be able to say I saw Messi play." -Thiago Alcanatara "He is always going forwards. He never passes the ball backwards or sideways. He has only one idea, to run towards the goal. So as a football fan, just enjoy the show." -Zinedine Zidane "For the world of football, Messi is a treasure because he is role model for children around the world" Messi will be the player to win the most Ballons d"Or in history. He will win five, six, seven. He is incomparable. He"s in a different league." -Johan Cruyff "I have played against Platini, Maradona, Cruyff and played with George Best " a lot of big names, but none of them has been able to do what Messi does. Two years ago I said that the best player I played against was Maradona and the best player I have played with was Bestie. But I can now say I have never seen a player as good as Messi. He"s in a league of his own." - Former Tottenham starGerry Armstrong "Who is the Best Player in the World? Leo Messi. Who is the Best Player Ever? Leo Messi." -Arsene Wenger "I like Messi a lot, he"s a great player. Technically, we"re practically at the same level." -Pele Messi does not need his right foot. He only uses the left and he"s still the best in the world. Imagine if he also used his right foot, Then we would have serious problems." -Zlatan Ibrahimovic "Messi defies the laws of anatomy, he must have an extra bone in his ankle." - Argentina's 1986 World Cup-winning coachCarlos Bilardo "Who"s better, Messi orCristiano Ronaldo? Messi. Ronaldo is good, but Messi is 10 times better." - Dutch starKlaas-Jan Huntelaar https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com... See for yourself... https://www.youtube.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. because I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and am glad to hear that he is working hard on new features :D! *Note - Gay will be a loose term for the LGBT community.* ~Counterarguments~ "I have to point out the obvious. In your first paragraph, you say that gay marriage is already a right ("taking a right"), however in your second paragraph, you say that it "should" be a right. Which one is it?" --> All that meant is that it SHOULD be a right for gay people to marry, because others would contest that it SHOULDN'T a right for gay people to marry. "Your contention that gay marriage "should be a legal form of marriage" otherwise we as society would be taking a right away is false. The right to which you are referring doesn't exist (in most states) or in the U.S. Constitution. Since the right doesn't currently exist, you can't take it away." --> Because there isn't a law, amendment, or what have you recognizing gay marriage, this is a discrimination on gays. The lack of a legal form of marriage recognizing gay marriage is discriminating against the RIGHT of gays to marry like any other heterosexual couple, because without a law recognizing the rights of gays, they CAN'T marry, a right that I am arguing should be present for heterosexuals AND homosexuals. "In the next round, please clarify for myself and the audience how you came to decide which legal reasons are substantial and which ones are not, and why." --> I would say that the burden of proof is on you, since I argue there is no justifiable legal reason to prohibit gay couples to marry. Whatever your argument may be, I'd be glad to refute it. Gay couples should marry because they are voluntary and adults. Marriage should be given to anyone who fits these requirements. "Is the fact that more than ‘55% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage'(1) a substantial reason in your opinion, or just something we should ignore?" Argumentum ad populum. The fact that 55% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage has no merit on the justification for gay marriage. 1. Slippery Slope argument I'll disregard the problems with your slippery slope argument, but instead I'll take a new approach. Why NOT let polygamous marriage? I have yet to see a feasible argument against more than two partners who are consenting and adults. The only problems with the marriages we will supposedly "soon allow" are as follows: Polygamous marriages: Most show signs of coercion, and involve young under-aged girls. However, if it were to be between consenting adults, then I'd say that is fine and should be made legal. Incestuous: The reason why we say "no" to it in an intrinsic why is due to the Westermarck effect [1], a subject involving imprinting. But if it's between two or more consenting adults, then SURE. GO AHEAD. Bestiality (just in case you do this one): Animal abuse, most would say. The animal can't say "I do". ~Conclusion~ Not only does the classic slippery slope argument fail (in a new approach I'd dare say), but I have shown that gay couples SHOULD have rights, since not letting them have the ability to marry is discrimination. I will await my opponent's new arguments and rebuttals. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (psychology)#Westermarck_effect <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Captain America would beat master chief in a fight because (INTRODUCTION) Thank you for your argument. I appreciate that you did not forfeit, as that is quite common these days. (REBUTTALS) These feats of Captain America are impressive but I believe that a lot of these feats take place in multiple universes, there is even one where he is Iron Man. I believe that using different information from separate universes is a little unfair, as it means in one universe Captain America could be stronger than another. I tried to find a resource that proves Cap once lifted a tree, but I found none. It is very unlikely that he would use Mjolnir against Master Chief, probably because Thor owns it and not Cap. Yes, Captain America is quite good at multiple martial arts but he does not know all of them, Even if he is a better hand-to-hand combatant that does not mean he would win. As for the speed, I again found no resource supporting your claims. Yes, he may have knocked out Namor (Who is NOT stronger than the hulk) But Namor was out of water, and was not at his peak. Also, Colossus is only 500 pounds, below Captain America’s strength. Stalemating against Wolverine is not a surprise, as Wolverine is not as skilled as Captain America. I hope you get the point. “And Captain America does have more experience: Cap was a prominent comic character in the 1940's that eventually lost popularity. But like I previously mentioned, be made his official comeback in 1964. Modern day (2014) to 1964 is 50 years of experience, and that's not counting his WWII years.” FALSE! What you said about the publication history of Captain America is true, however time in Earth 616 and time in our world is different. “It is possible that 4 years of comics in our universe are the equivalent of 1 year in the Mainstream Marvel Universe , as it is revealed in 2013's Indestructible Hulk that the 2008's Skrull Secret Invasion happened one year ago in Earth-616. This would mean that from 1961 (the debut of Fantastic Four #1 and the beginning of the "Age of Heroes") to 2013, only 13 years have passed in the Earth-616.” {1} There you have it. Captain America is younger than Master Chief, who was and still is training and has been for 40 years straight unlike Cap, who only started military training after the age of 21.. And as stated before, alternate realities, at least in my opinion do not count. I hope everyone gets my point. (FINAL ARGUMENTS) I believe that Master Chiefs weapons which include various guns, grenades, laser swords, flame throwers and more plus Master Chief’s enhanced abilities are simply too much for the Winghead, and again, Cap has no particular defense to weapons. A quick list of Master Chief’s weapons is in order. -M6 Grindell Non-Linear Rifle: One of the most if not the most powerful guns in Halo. It is extremely damaging to infantry and Captain America would probably be considered infantry. {2} -M41 Rocket Launcher: While this beautiful piece of weaponry is primarily used to fight vehicles, if it can tear a 66 tonne Battle Tank into rubble, just imagine what it can do to one person.{3} -Overshield: A defensive weapon, yet still useful. “ The Overshield technology is developed by the Covenant to enhance their Sangheili warriors' personal shielding system . The Overshield can be used by anyone utilizing a personal shielding system such as a SPARTAN in a MJOLNIR armor or Sangheili with a combat harness . “ {4} For more weapons used by Master Chief and his fellow soldiers please check this link: http://halo.wikia.com... Anyways, my point is that these extremely powerful weapons plus one extremely powerful guy = one dead Captain America. (CONCLUSION) I once more thank my opponent for an excellent debate. Please vote Con! DDD (RESOURCES) {1} http://marvel.wikia.com... {2} http://halo.wikia.com... {3} http://halo.wikia.com... {4} http://halo.wikia.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive because I extend my arguments <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Islam is a peaceful religion because Thanks for the debate! First off I would like to say one thing: THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE!!! I have no "racial" prejudice. I do believe, however, that Islam is FAR from a peaceful religion. I will start with posting some pictures. Take a good long look... ( http://images.google.com... ) Allow me to quote some of the signs they are holding up... "Slay those who insult Islam!" "Butcher those who mock Islam!" "Europe, you will pay! Your 9/11 is on it's way!" "Be prepared for the REAL holocaust!" "Europe will pay! Demolition is on it's way!" I would like to know where you read peace into that. You might, however, consider this a small group that should not be considered. One of those groups that should be looked over. I think this would be a mistake. If this is how muslims are acting, this is how I will precieve Islam. On top of that, peace is not taught throughout the Qu'ran. Surah 4:95--- "Not equal are those believers who sit and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and lives." Surah 2:190--- "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever you catch them." Surah 2:216--- "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not." Hadith 4:73--- "Muhammed said, "Know that paradise is under the shades of the sword." Please explain where you are reading peace into this. Even if you go back to the Qu'ran, past the gruops that you think we should look over, such as the Jihad, you will not find peace. I find it rather interesting that the Qu'ran peacefully permits the beating of one's wife. Surah 4:34--- "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." This is only to be a last resort, after VERBAL abuse. ( http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... ) Not so peaceful. Take a look at this one... "A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires." ( http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... ) "To classify an entire religion based on a crazy group of radicals is absurd." Not really. Not when the "radicals" are acting in accordance with their holy book. Besides, If this is how the religion portrays itself, why should we believe otherwise? "The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." ...But it says that forgiving is BETTER. What? You CAN take revenge, but it BETTER to forgive? If it permits the taking of revenge, it is not peaceful. I don't care if it encourages forgiveness. I will start with that. Thanks! Renzzy <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Bernie would have won. because I thank @VulpeLegatus for accepting to debate me on this very interesting motion. To answer Con, I did not support Clinton over Trump, I remained neutral. Let's get into it, I strongly believe Bernie Sanders would have convincingly defeated Donald Trump, a historically unpopular (refer to unfavorability ratings throughout the election) candidate, in what was supposed to be a democratic slam dunk election. But she, and her extremely heavy baggage, as well as poor voting record, establishment and centrist/corporatist ties, was undoubtedly the worst candidate the democrats could've fielded, as her weaknesses lined up to Trump's strengths. A1 : Demographics The first hints of a Bernie win in the general were in the demographic breakdown of the votes. Indeed, in areas where Hillary underperformed Obama (thus leading to defeat), Bernie was consistently doing better than her. Nowhere is that more evident than for the millennial vote, a tremendously important consistuency for a Blue victory. Hillary's campaign registered a significant 6 points drop from 2012 [1] However, Bernie Sanders enjoys unprecented support among millenials. As TIME put it so eloquently : 'Bernie Sanders has trounced Hillary, poll after poll', Notably, one survey even showing that he is the most respected political figure among that age group.[2] Ahead of the popular democratic President and any Republican and Democratic lawmaker in the country. Hillary even underperformed with the female vote, a voting bloc she was expected to sweep. The reason? Discontent among white working class voters, Male and Female alike. [3] The same voting bloc Hillary's campaign used as evidence to smear Bernie Sanders as a non-diverse candidate. 'For every blue-collar democrat we lose, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia and you can repeat that in Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin' This ridiculously flawed mentality outlined by close Clinton ally, Chuck Schumer, is exactly what turned an easily-winnable election into an unpredicted Trump victory. Throwing working class white democrats under the bus, as well as snubbing millenials and progressives, to appeal to moderate Republicans is a losing strategy. Go figure . Bernie appealed to white working class voters in the critical states of the Rust Belt, the states that were supposedly 'democratic firewalls' that Hillary managed to hand over to the Republicans for the first time since the mid-1980s [4] and he appealed to independants and progressives, who went third party in record numbers not seen since the 2000 Presidential Election. A2 : Strengths and Weaknesses The most important factor leading to Hillary's humiliating defeat, is that her, many, flaws, all lined up to Trump's strengths. His populist message was able to resonate because Hillary's decades of public service have outlined her multiple contradictions and have only strenghtened her image as a corporatist, corrupt establishment politician. Most famously, his constant badgering of her support for disastrous trade deals, as well her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal (she lobbied for it despite her claiming she's opposed to it) [5] at a time when manufacturing jobs where in mass exodus thanks to those very same deals, helped land a fatal blow to the Democrats. While Trump was traveling around the country advocating for an end to the disastrous trade deals that led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, guess who had voted for the very same deals? Hillary. Guess who had spoken out against them? Bernie Sanders. While Trump was rallying up masses and speaking outagainst the War in Iraq, the very same, costly and deadly war that Hillary voted for, [6] while Trump was speaking out against the countless interventions of regime change that Hillary supported around the world [7], Americans were listening. And he was able to successfully ride a wave of anti-establishment populism, the very same establishment-corporatism that defined Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders, however, offered the same populist, anti-establishment, anti-TPP, and anti-interventionnist message that Trump offered, and that the American people were longing for, minus the bigotry, xenophobia and racism that caracterized Trump's campaign. Conclusion This election was the Democrats' to lose. The Republicans had nominated the most unpopular candidate in, probably, American History, ridden with controversy. A Presidential candidate, caught bragging on tape of commiting sexual assaults, publically bragging of tax evasion, amongst others. She, in spite of receiving the backing of a popular President, a (really) popular First Lady, countless celebrities and public figures, Hillary Clinton managed to lose the election. Her neglect for the working class of America, only playing in Trump's favour. Had the Democrats nominated Bernie to lead the fight in the General Election, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that he would've won in an electoral landslide. Not only for the consistent polling data that showed him ahead of Trump by double digits [8] not only because his message resonated with all the voting blocs that Hillary Clinton lost, but also simply because he was the polar opposite of Hillary Clinton. She was the out-of-touch, establishment candidate that embodied the 'swamp' Trump spoke out against. And such was the disdain towards the establishement that the American people were ready to hand the helms of the nation to Donald Trump. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com... , http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [8] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Riots Following the Murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson were/are Morally Justified because FRAMEWORK: My opponent has chosen to forfeit his first constructive. He was given 3 days to respond, the maximum allotted by debate.org Yet he chose not to respond. Therefore all of my arguments in rd 2 stand as true. My opponent has rds 3-5 to respond to my remaining arguments. Rd 2 Review... VIOLENT RIOTS and MILITANT FACTIONS OFTEN SPUR REFORMS AND SOCIAL PROGRESS by HIGHLIGHTING LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN LONG REPRESSED. The violent wing can encourage authorities to compromise with the non-violent wing of an anti-colonial or civil rights movement, just as suspects will often confess to the 'good cop' to escape the fury of the 'bad cop.' Because my opponent failed to respond, all of my arguments from my first constructive in rd 2 STAND. Violent riots and militant factions within anti-racist or anti-colonial movements have been essential to that movements success. As I showed in rd 2, the American Civil Rights Movement, and the anti-colonial movement in India and South Africa all depended on a violent wing to succeed. http://www.npr.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.massviolence.org... OVERVIEW My first constructive in rd 2 focused on these histories to demonstrate how riots often spur vital social reforms. My rd 3 constructive will demonstrate how the Ferguson rioters, specifically, are justified in rioting. --- THESIS: African Americans in the United States of America, especially those in Ferguson, have suffered numerous violation of their natural rights creating a sense of hopelessness through the destruction of the social contract. The loss of the social contract justifies radical civil disobedience and citizen revolt to compel society to restore the social contract so that their natural rights are properly protected. HARMS 1: NATURAL RIGHTS VIOLATED BY LOCAL POLICE All human beings have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as enshrined by the U.S. Constitution. These rights have been violated numerous times by the Ferguson police. The Ferguson police have overwhelmingly targeted African Americans for arrest and used a disproportionate show of force to brutalize and kill African Americans in Ferguson, Missouri. African Americans make up 67% of Ferguson yet police stop African Americans 86 percent of the time. 94% of the Ferguson Police are White. Over 92% of arrests are arrests of African Americans Yet according to the study conducted by the Missouri Attorney General, Whites are more likely to carry illegal contraband than Blacks in Ferguson. State of Missouri Report: http://ago.mo.gov... Buzzfeed News Overview: http://www.buzzfeed.com... Michael Brown is just the tip of the ice berg. In the St. Louis area, from 2003 to 2012, police have killed 39 people (32 of which were African American). In everyone of those 39 instances no police officer ever faced jail time. A police officer was only indicted once, but was later acquitted. According to the same report, African Americans make up over 90% of the homicide victims in the St. Louis area. http://www.motherjones.com... African Americans feel both unprotected and violated by the police. Some believe that the rioters are ignoring "Black-on-Black" violence and focusing narrowly on police violence. This is not true. Everyone understands and universally condemns "Black-on-Black" violence at every opportunity. The significant different between "Black-on'Black" and "White Police on Black Civilian" violence is that the white police never go to jail. Any African American violator (by-in-large) is quickly caught, tried, and convicted. While far less than 1% of police who kill an unarmed black men are ever indicted. Police kill with impunity. That's why people are so righteously enraged. http://colorlines.com... HARMS 2 - NATURAL RIGHTS OF BLACKS VIOLATED NATIONALLY BY EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT A. No Equal Protection Under the Law Nationally, African Americans face a dire picture that mirrors the fierce inequalities found in the criminal justice system in Ferguson and St. Louis, Missouri. African Americans are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and face a longer sentence than Whites for the same offense. http://www.crf-usa.org... African Americans are approx. 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than Whites. https://www.aclu.org... Incarceration Trends in America From 1980 to 2008, the number of people incarcerated in America quadrupled-from roughly 500,000 to 2.3 million people Today, the US is 5% of the World population and has 25% of world prisoners. Combining the number of people in prison and jail with those under parole or probation supervision, 1 in ever y 31 adults, or 3.2 percent of the population is under some form of correctional control Racial Disparities in Incarceration African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50% One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime 1 in 100 African American women are in prison Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice). Drug Sentencing Disparities About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense. African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project) http://www.naacp.org... HARM -3 / INHERNECY: Loss of Hope African Americans are far more likely to be born into poverty and increasing income inequality makes social mobility far less likely in the USA than for most of the developed world. That means the vast majority of the poor stay poor and will likely have poor children. http://www.economist.com... 45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children. - See more at: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org... Education Does NOT Solve Racial Inequality for Most This cycle of poverty is exasperated by a unequal education system that too falls on racial lines. http://www.msnbc.com... Media Discourse Does NOT Curb Racism: The Media, by in large, tends to dehumanize black people. African Americans are most often portrayed as criminals or side-characters that are often pigeon-holed into a "token" side-kicks that are only valued for wise-cracks or physical intimidation. http://www.yale.edu... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://www.youtube.com... Democratic and Electoral Avenues to Correct Abuse Often Fail... Case in point, Ferguson is over 67% African American, yet almost all of the elected officials are white and support the Ferguson police dept. The wealthiest candidates normally win and campaign money outside of an electoral jurisdiction can have a huge influence on the outcome of the election. http://www.governing.com... The violation of their natural rights: their lives by police brutality, their freedom by mass imprisonment, and their dignity by a culture that dehumanizes them has destroyed the social contract for Black America. This loss of hope gives African Americans no legal way to channel their grievances and rage in a way that will likely address these grievances and prevent future abuse. "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?..........Or does it explode?" -Langston Hughes- ALTERNATIVE: EXPLODE = RIGHT OF REVOLT "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....." -Thomas Jefferson- U.S. Declaration of Independence Riots and violent wings often lead to vital social reforms, see my rd. 2 arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections. because First of all, I would like to apologize, I should have declared if one of my questions was a clarification question. It seems that by me not declaring what questions were clarification questions my opponent got confused about what I was asking. In response to my second question he said that America is a Democratic Republic, which is a type of Republic which means that America is in fact a Republic. However in response to question 2a he says that it is not applicable since america isnt a Republic but in the previous question he confirmed that America is a Republic. In response to my third question he agreed that popular vote represents the popular majority which was a clarification question. In 3a he says that the Senate should not be ablolished because it serves the states. However, if you apply his answer of 3a to the question of 3b it would say that since the Senate should not be abolished because it protects states rights shouldnt the electoral college not be abolished because it protects state rights? And finally in response to question 3c he simply asks for me to define sentimental attachment instead of answering the question which I will do. The sentimental attachment to popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College basically means that if you have no reason to abolish the Senate even though it doesnt represent popular majority, then why only apply rights of the popular majority in attacking the electoral college? And now I ask my opponent to answer this question now that it has been clarified. In response to my fourth question he accuses me of not reading his case; however, this is a clarification question that AGREES with him. It simply asks if the burden of proof is on PRO which as he displayed throughout his entire case he agrees with that question. 4a is another clarification question...it is asking that since the burden of proof is on PRO then if one of his contentions doesnt prove that direct popular vote fixes the problem should the contention be void? I am asssuming he affirms this question considering he says that it is in his case. And finally in 4b he doesnt respond at all he simply says that I didnt read his case. However, since he agreed to question 4 and 4a in his case which means that if he doesnt prove that one of his contention fixes one of the problems proposed in that contention, it is void. Question 4b is questioning the validity of his third contention since he admitted that "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws" which means that he is implying that direct popular vote has integral flaws which means that it DOESNT fix the problem proposed by PRO in his third contention which makes his third contention void. In response to question 5 he only answers the second part of the question which was that the Supreme Court is still applicable. He also asks where this question came from. It came from my opponent's entire rebuttal to my first contention which is basically saying that the Founders werent always right and the electoral college is in a different situation now than back then. My fifth question is simply asking, if the Constitution is still applicable today (for example the Supreme Courts ruling of the Constitutionaliy of laws), then why is the Constitution not applicable only for the Electoral College? I would like to ask my opponent to briefly answer this question now that it has been clarified along with question 3c. Defenses: Founding Fathers could have seen distortion since they purposefully placed it there. Electoral College is no longer applicable, but the rest of the Constitution is? How is the Electoral College no longer applicable, we still have citizens, states and a Federal government dont we? Impact is the harmful effects of democracy. Democracy is as harmful now as it was in the 1770s. Refutations: Contention 1: Distorts our democratic process We are a republic not a democracy. a) Imbalance of power voting was purposefully placed to protect small states. b) Distortion must not be solved since it will result in the loss of small states influence in presidential elections. Contention2: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the public as a whole. That is the purpose of a Republic. 99% of electors vote accordingly to how they pledged. (U.S. Electoral College FAQ's) a) If it aint broke dont fix it. Faithless electors have never decided an election. Contention 3: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation. I agree that this is a negative impact of the electoral college; however, as stated in my second contention, direct popular vote wouldn't be able to fix this problem either which he admits to be saying "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Therefore, his third contention is void. I can only see a negative ballot for today's debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage because Thank you for accepting my challenge... To initiate my rebuttal, I will first address your claim "not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means" First, let's define the term 'discrimination' Discrimination - 1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment http://dictionary.reference.com... In this particular case, the distinction being made is in reference to the both the gender and sexual orientations of the individuals involved. You are saying "You cannot get married, because you are not like me" which in this case would be classified as discrimination. If we were to look at this from a similar perspective (ie a couple with different ethnic backgrounds), this would also be classified as discrimination. Not allowing couples to marry because of their biological sex is in fact discriminatory by definition and is no less discriminatory than not allowing couples to marry because of their ethnicity. My sources regarding gender and sex discrimination laws are below, they also apply to gays and lesbians. Gender and Sex Discrimination Laws: http://www.eeoc.gov... Marriage is a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond. However, in the United States, marriage is more of a legal process. Couples who commit to marriage must sign a legally binding marriage contract which then grants them certain benefits that are only given to those under said contract who have established some sort of bond or commitment to one another. Obviously the government IS interested in the personal relationships of two people, because if they weren't, there would be no need for a legally binding contract. Marriage is far from ever being a 'private' issue. No legal matters are private if the government is involved. And as far as the government is concerned, the relationship between the two people involved is essential when considering whether or not they are allowed to be married in some cases which is why American citizens who choose marry immigrants must go through a process of "legitimization" of their relationship before their spouse can become a fully recognized U.S. citizen. Definition of Marriage: http://dictionary.reference.com... For Immigration purposes: http://www.immihelp.com... By claiming "The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. " you are implying 1. Gay people are not capable of having, loving or raising children, and 2. Having children is some sort of requirement in marriage. Both are false. Gay couples are just as capable of raising and loving their children as any heterosexual couple. Not all heterosexual parents are 'loving' parents either. And when discussing marriage, whether or not you believe homosexuals should raise children is irrelevant. Having children is not a requirement for marriage. There are heterosexual couples who do not have children, either by choice, due to infertility or age and gay couples that do in fact raise children together. It is not the government's job to "promote" a hetero normative environment. That, once again, is discrimination. Gay couples marrying and raising children does not somehow hinder or deteriorate the survival of a society. And by saying it is acceptable for the government to "promote" this, you thereby go against your own claim that "the government could care less about what people do with their private lives." because according to you, that is the exact opposite. Regardless, one cannot "promote" heterosexuality. Whether or not gay couples are allowed to marry, that has no impact on the sexual orientation, personal lives or traditional values of other people. You add on by claiming "In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation." I assume by "married" you mean to the opposite sex, correct? Allow me to show you the error in that statement. Homosexuals are romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex, not the opposite. To say it is acceptable for a gay man to marry a woman is illogical and promotes dishonesty. What purpose does that serve and how does that benefit the couple involved? A gay man is incapable of falling in love with and having a healthy sexual relationship with a woman if he is not attracted to her. So why would a person want to marry someone if it only leads to conflict, stress, possibly adultery and eventually divorce. It would be ridiculous to think that is a good idea. You go on to claim "To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against." And what couples would that be exactly? Please specify in detail. "Now that we understand the government"s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married." No disrespect intended but clearly you do not exactly know the government's role in marriage. And none of your arguments really proved that denying gay couples the right to marry is not classified as discrimination because it clearly is under legal definition. All of your major points consisted of claims which implied that marriage is some sort of "heterosexual privilege" without any real evidence or logical argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, only biased claims. All I really got from your argument was "Gays marrying is bad for families and society because I say so and it's not discrimination because I say so and they shouldn't marry because I say so" without any evidence or specifications, which to me is not a valid argument at all. Please present an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage that is more direct and provide evidence to support your claims. I await your response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am smart. because Please extend all of my previous arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My Opponent Will Lose This Debate because I believe my opponent will lose because his task is tedious and time consuming, and he has been allotted only 5 minutes to write each round. He may claim this was unfair, but he garnered 6 wins himself using a variation of the same tactic. The time allotted to write your arguments is disclosed before you accept, and by the definition of the word itself, this is a rule he must adhere to. If he contests this rule, or attempts to argue it’s unfair, then according to rule 1, having broken rule 5, he’d automatically lose. I only said I’d copy your resolution, not every rule of the debate. And regardless, you had all information disclosed before you accepted; if you were opposed to the rules, you should have been more careful. This seems only fair since you would have had more time to prepare yourself for your own resolution. Happy Debating. :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate.org classic: FINAL ROUND: LOGICAL-MASTER VS THELWERD because [ Preface ] I'd first like to thank L-M for his participation in the debate thus far. I'm sorry he didn't find time to reduce the amount of characters in his argument -- I myself have a hard time with this so I feel his pain! But since a forfeiture of *two* rounds is necessary for an automatic win, I must post a final Round 3 argument. I would like to thank the judges ahead of time for their consideration, and again thank Phil, Johnicle, etc. [ Defining Love ] Because love can be defined in innumerable ways, I feel the debate topic at hand ought to have been narrowed down to defining one type of love (namely romantic love). Otherwise, while my opponent continued to propose numerous positive examples of the broad term, I could have easily countered his definition with negative examples of love for which the result would have been severely costly or even deadly. In that case, it would have been impossible for PRO to win. Here's why: If we accepted all variations of love as acceptable for this debate, we could consider nationalism, for instance, which is the love of one's country, or racism, the love of one's race. It is those sentiments precisely that have led to major world wars (those two examples in particular were especially deadly and important regarding the inception of WWI). Now assuming PRO had in fact conceded to debating specifically romantic love in the final round, I would have countered this in 2 ways -- One, people have done all sorts of horrific things in the name of love (i.e. raped, maimed, killed, and even started wars; i.e. Helen of Troy). And two, consider my final point of R2 in that often people comprimise several loving relationships for the sake of one romantic lover. [ Re: Love as Experience ] Even if you are a bleeding heart, die-hard romantic who believes that love is worth fighting and losing for, keep in mind that this love would have inevitably been lost as per the debate topic at hand. Moreover, the loss of that one love could have caused someone to shut down completely in terms of being open to future loving relationships. In other words, the EXPERIENCE of losing love could have severely hurt or cost one in the sense that a failed relationship could have prevented future, more successful loving relationships. Additionally, people often mistake infatuation or adoration for love. So, as I've stated, a loss of "love" could have comprimised a future relationship where 'love' actually existed. Again, this would be the concept of EXPERIENCE as working *against* PROs argument. On that note, PRO has even failed to explain how or why that experience with (lost) love is even necessary, as I've pointed out that nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that one would find love in the future after having lost it. Now, PRO has pointed out that while love can lead to one's inevitable destruction, he mentioned that one could choose to end their lives or find it not to be worth living based on sheer loneliness. This is FALSE; one cannot miss something they have not experienced. This is a huge flaw in PROs argument. Even if you buy into his infinitely broad definition of the term love, one cannot be lonely if they are ignorant to loving relationships in general, including amongst family, friends or partners. Therefore it would be better to have never experienced love at all than to know and fully understand the concept of loneliness. Loneliness can only be experienced after one has experienced a loss of love. Therefore, the contention that one would rather die than feel lonely is an absolute fallacy. Finally on this point, I mentioned how one did not necessarily have to lose something in order to gain an experienced perspective, i.e. the notion that one does not have to cheat on a significant other in order to know that it is wrong and should not be tolerated. Oh, and because I can't resist (( SPOLIER ALERT) ) --> I find it quite comical that PRO used the "recent hit film" Twilight as an example for which he notes is a "fictional story which encourages the theme of love and/or portrays love in a purely positive light" ... Um, Twilight concludes as a typical 'star crossed lovers' tale often does, in which love winds up *destroying* both characters (( END SPOILER )). [ Re: Love as Sex ] I don't even know where to begin with this flawed contention. Going back to PROs Round 2 argument, he claims that while love (sex) is not necessary in terms of reproduction, that people "mostly" choose to reproduce based on concepts of love. Well, in addition to the numerous examples which I have provided that completely dismantle this argument, let us not forget that this debate topic is structured around an ABSOLUTE. Therefore, the terms 'mostly' and 'sometimes' are irrelevant, as PROs contentions have to apply absolutely. However, once again - just for fun - let us take PROs "maybe" or "sometimes" into consideration. Recall my example of the 2 absolutes regarding sex as love. On one hand, a sexual endeavor would MOSTLY result specifically with an orgasm; a feeling of intense physical euphoria. However, on the basis that a sexual encounter SOMETIMES leads to the acquisition of an STD, can PRO defend the absolute that It Is Better To Have Loved (Had Sex) And Lost (A Lover) Than To Never Have Loved At All? Another thing - If love is defined as SEX, as PRO has argued, how then does one LOSE LOVE? You cannot undo a sexual encounter. And losing a lover - a person, a human being - is far different than "losing" sex. This is just ANOTHER reason why PROs contention was incredibly flawed and useless to this debate. [ Re-Cap / Conclusion ] Assuming PRO had not forfeited the final round, I am confident that I could have and would have argued this debate effectively until the bitter end. Clearly my points have consistently dismantled his flawed ideology. Nowhere has he sufficiently proved why it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. I have pointed out why his two contentions are not only entirely flawed, but more often than not actually helped *MY* case as opposed to his. He mentioned that character limits were a huge issue for him in the final round; While I can sympathize with that notion entirely, he also mentioned that they were spent mostly arguing the definition of love. Again, love is a subjective term. Dictionary.com nor even the highly regarded Oxford Dictionary could put an absolute definition on the term, ESPECIALLY if PRO intended to argue not one but numerous examples of love (familial, romantic, etc.) However even considering those ideals, consider also a situation in which loving a family member prevented you from loving a romantic partner or vice versa. That is just one of MANY ways which I could have and would have argued PROs point. * PRO also failed to establish how one can miss something or feel incomplete without something that one has never experienced. * Moreover, he failed to compete with my implied notion that one can gain experience regarding relationships without ever having lost love (i.e. other sources - movies, observing friend's relationships, etc.). Also keep in mind he cited a fictional story in which love led to destruction and heartbreak as opposed to happiness or achievement with his example of Twilight which he noted as a 'positive' example of love. Considering that love may be defined as sex in the dictionary, I have proven why love as sex can be unhealthy, dangerous or immoral. Therefore one cannot say absolutely that it is better to have love (sex) than to not. And finally, even if you - the readers/judges - could find loopholes with this ideology or ANY ideology mentioned within the parameters of this debate, the fact remains that PRO has not (and/or has not pointed them out, and therefore they cannot be considered). Thus, I consider this debate a clear and consistent win for the CON. Thank you. -- L <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should the US continue to have Welfare? because The welfare system in this country is not perfect and definitely needs reform. However, your generalizations about the people on welfare are incorrect. You've stated, "those who have the ability to go out and do something choose not to." Well what about the people who apply for jobs and don't get hired? What about mothers who cannot afford child care for the time that they would be working, or for whom it's more reasonable (financially) to collect welfare and stay home with their children instead (90% of adult welfare recipients are women, by the way)? On that note, what would you say to a family who's primary bread winner passed away and left no life insurance policy? To continue further, what about families that have members die and leave behind a mountain of debt? I could go on and on... What about people with mental illness, not just physical disabilities as you have mentioned? Those important (moral) questions aside, the fact remains that the majority of welfare recipients are children. Surely I don't have to go into detail about why some children can not/should not work. To get rid of welfare would mean taking money from poor children - bottom line. Since when are kids responsible for their own financial needs? If that were the case, why would laws regarding child support and child labor laws exist? In this country we deem parents or legal guardians responsible for the fundamental needs of persons aged 18 and under, unless granted legal emancipation. However I am aware that not everyone on welfare is in dire need. Some do take advantage of the system. However the "laziness" of a minority should not be reason enough to abolish a social program that has helped millions survive. Furthermore, new and improved Welfare-To-Work programs aim to assist welfare recipients rejoin the workforce to improve their own lives and benefit society. The reality is that not everyone chooses to be on welfare; a lot of the time people are stuck in a cycle of poverty and cannot find their way out. A moral and responsible nation would and should work to solve this problem, instead of choosing to abandon those in need because of their ignorant assumptions. The answer is reform, not abolition. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Balanced Budget Amendment because My opponent has failed to respond to ANY of my original arguments and ask the voters to take that into consideration as you vote. As this is the final round, I would like to make a summary of several points in this debate: 1) The federal budget is recording chronic deficits and needs to be balanced 2) The BBA fixes a flaw in democracy 3) The BBA allows leeway and exceptions for wars and national emergencies 4) The BBA allows for the national debt to be no more than 20% of the GDP - not 0 as my opponent claims My opponent has not contested any of my arguments and hereby urge a pro vote. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Moral Argument is Sound because Introduction First, I wish to thank Pro for this debate. While I think it’s clear he ran out of steam by the end of R3, I think we both share a willingness to defend our beliefs, and for that, Pro has my respect. Unfortunately though, Pro has only addressed 2 of my 8 arguments in his final round. This means that even prior to my final post, 6 of my criticisms stand, and the resolution is already multiply and unequivocally negated. As such, one is simply compelled to vote Con. In this last round, I’ll engage with the criticisms Pro actually bothered to address and catalogue the criticisms Pro fatally ignored. Remember, even if Pro were to win these points, the fact is that Pro has neglected the vast majority of my case and thus his argument fails anyway. I’ll follow the familiar format, and try to provide closure on each point in the debate systematically. Justification for P1 Readers will remember Pro offered 3 justificatory points to affirm P1 The first point Pro made was that “Objective moral values are most plausibly based in a maximally great being”. I offered 3 responses: Begging the question - Pro’s first statement here is: “Were it not for his perceived circularity Con would affirm a weak P1” This is totally false. I’ve offered 7 criticisms of P1, without even mentioning the epistemological problems or the Euthyphro dilemma. I can’t emphasise enough how absurd I find P1, and was bewildered to read Pro’s statement here. So why does Pro think I would accept a weak P1? Pro uses my words from R3 to arrive at this puzzling conclusion: “If God existed, it may well be His nature that grounded some sort of morality.” There are 2 problems here. First, I’m conceding this merely for the sake of argument (note the tentative “may”). Second, my statement simply isn’t P1. Here’s what P1 states: “If God does not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist.” While P1 is about the state of affairs would be if God DID NOT exist, my point above (which Pro quotes) is to do with what the case may be if God DID exist. These are 2 completely separate claims. To conflate them as Pro does commits the fallacy of equivocation (15). In fact, if my statement above was identical to P1, the argument would actually commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent (16)! So Pro’s point here is, well, pointless. Secondly, Pro tries a different tact, repeating what he said in the last round, that God based morality is more intuitive. But I responded to this, saying it was nothing but pure assertion, and that it neglects all the problems I’ve already spelled out with such a moral system. He doesn’t rebut any of this, he just repeats his refuted prejudices ad nauseaum, without even a hint of justification. Extend argument. Subjective moral values - Readers will remember my complaint here was that any morality dependent on a subject is, by definition, subjective. Therefore, God-based morality is doomed to produce subjective moral values. Pro’s most recent response is to complain that God is a subject unlike any other: “For although God is described as personal, a necessarily existing maximal moral agent isn’t influenced by culture, trend, parental upbringing, etc; like we are . . . “ Notice this is wholly irrelevant. If morality is based on a subject, it is subjective. Pro admits God is a subject, so it’s game over. Sure, if God existed, He would be a special kind of subject, but so what? As I already pointed out, ideal observer theory (17) grounds morality in a likewise strange source - a fictitious, perfectly rational being, but it too is still subjective. Case closed. Pro also dropped my point about his adoption of Platonism. Extend argument. As I said previously, any moral standard which is dependent upon a person is subjective. As long as God’s essence grounds morality, God-based morality is subjective, and P1 is thus necessarily false. Irrelevance - Here, I argued that the first justification was irrelevant, as it is qualitatively different from what P1 states. All Pro does is to assert to the contrary, not bothering to engage with any of the points I made in R4. Also: If God is a conditional, one cannot ground P1 in a maximally great being. If God is assumed, Pro begs the question. Either way, Pro’s first justification fails. None of this was addressed by Pro. Extend argument. As we have seen, the only 2 criticisms Pro did address in his final round were 2 of the 3 above, with even one of these a basic admission of my point. It is clear that Pro’s first justification fails dismally and my counterarguments stand. The resolution is thus negated. Pro’s second justification was that there were problems with AF morality. I responded: Atheist moral duties: - account of atheist moral duties - convergence of rational and moral oughts - finitude of life - response to Pro’s EAN - reason to doubt cognitive faculties on theism Pro failed to respond to each of these points again. Extend argument. Pro then asserted that atheists were ideologically dedicated to P1. All he offered here was a quote from Nietzsche, which I refuted in R3. No response. Extend argument. I also offered a further counterargument: What’s the problem? - Here I offered 3 reasons to think P1 was absurd: A Factually absurd B Historically inaccurate C Logically unwarranted I also noted that even Pro accepts that atheists affirm moral values. Pro didn’t respond to any of these points. Extend argument. As we can see, Pro’s second justification was pretty much jettisoned as early as R3. Given this, we can say with complete confidence that the resolution is negated for a second time. Pro’s third justificatory point was that “it's just not obvious that atheism provides as sound a foundation for objective morals”. Arguing from Ignorance - This again was ignored. All Pro did here was repeat the fallacy throughout his last post. Extend argument. Climbing Mount Impossible - Here, I pointed out that unless Pro could show all AF morality to be somehow impossible, he simply can’t affirm P1. Pro again failed to engage with my refutation of his latest points in R4, and such, this criticism also survives scrutiny. Extend argument. Lastly, Pro made some incomplete remarks in R3 about AMP, but never got round to extending them. I’ll take this opportunity to address them. He says: “For what does it mean to say 'justice' just exists (without persons)?” There are 2 points I should like to make. First, I hold AMP merely as a possibility, rather than the approach I actually take. I don‘t hold this view myself, but Pro still must rule it out. Second, justice would exist the same way Pro adopts his essentialism - in some Platonic realm. There’s nothing incoherent or contradictory here. P1 is thus undoubtedly false. Justification for P2 Moral Mirror - My first point here was actually that one could mirror Pro’s approach to justify objective morality. I responded to Pro’s comments to this in my last round. My second point was that any non question-begging affirmation of P2 will be Atheist-Friendly by definition, as P2 will have to be justified by a non God-based morality. P2 will therefore necessarily refute P1! Both of these were completely unaddressed. Extend arguments. Conclusion As we can see, Pro justifications are easily disposed of, and 6 of my criticisms here were completely ignored by Pro. I think I showed that all 8 criticisms succeed, but regardless, honesty compels all of us to reject P1 and vote Con, given the contents of the debate. Pro’s refusal to engage with almost my entire case, and his superficial objections to my criticisms necessitate that the resolution is handily negated. Given the comparative sources, organisation, S/G, as well as the fact that I engaged with every point Pro made, I also think the other points, if carefully considered, must flow my way. Thanks to the readers in advance. Vote Con! Sources 15. http://en.wikipedia.org... 16. http://en.wikipedia.org... 17. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Communism > Capitalism because Communism vs Capitalism So, in this world I've set up for the purposes of the debate, both theories exist, but neither has been exploited. We are a group of people trying to decide the fate of our society, and we have two theories to consider: capitalism and communism. I am the half that is arguing for communism, Vi is arguing for capitalism. All we have are the ideas and writings of those like Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Communism in essence, is far superior to Capitalism. It embodies a system of equality, in terms of money and power. In a communistic society, the idea of government has withered away, as there is no need for a ruling body anymore. Yes, I am saying that 'laws' have been abolished since there is no ruling body to implement them, in terms of a written decree that X is illegal and the consequence is Y punishment. The idea of money has been abolished as well, since every worker is equal and receives the same 'payment'; though I will venture to say that there is no real payment, as much as an availability to the same resources and privileges as everyone else. The idea of class, fiscally, has deteriorated as well. Since monetary superiority is not longer possible, no longer can individuals or groups, who previously had more status or money (they go hand in hand), have influence or power, over anyone else. The superiority of this theory over Capitalism is very visible. Capitalism breeds self sustainment, but also advocates a 'dog eat dog' nature, and relies too much on one's ability to do better than another; as this is wrong, because no matter how much Capitalism says, even if you work hard, if you are inherently less adept (Biologically) at a skill, ability to speak, ability to understand quickly, etc, you will not succeed; as society may value a particular 'intelligence' or skill over another. Capitalism advocates the desire for a 'better than normal life', and to have a better education in order to attain this. This breeds materialism, which is an injustice within itself and is the antithesis of what a society should be; and that is the equality of all, in all regards possible. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV. because HaHa -- is that Head On commercial real?! If so, I've never seen it... which brings me to my point that the Optimum Online commercial has much more exposure than the Head On commercial, and therefore has the capacity to 1) get stuck in your head more easily -- which tends to annoy most people, and 2) become annoying more quickly. This is also because of the most important aspect of my rebuttal: the Head On commercial only lasts for thirteen seconds while the Optimum Online commercial lasts for sixty two seconds. That's almost 5x the length of annoyingness that television viewers have to endure at each showing. I would also like to remind you of the music content in the commercial, and how most people would find reggaeton music with corny lyrics about digital cable much more annoying than a short sentence being repeated three times in a row. Another reason why the music in this commercial is so annoying (it's hilarious too) is because the song being sung is not a 'real' song, but rather a song specifically created for the purpose of this advertisement. You have to see the commercial about a dozen times before you can finally sing along, and by that time you're so sick of the sing-song phone number (that you picked up after the first viewing) and weird sea monster (the fact that you can't tell for sure he's good looking or not is also annoying! hmph!) that you would rather change the channel entirely for the duration of the commercial rather than sing along with the TV. Re-Cap: 1) You admitted that seeing a commercial repeatedly would make it annoying... and nobody can deny the amount of times this freakin commercial is shown! 2) I did specify that I was referring to currently running TV commercials; I don't believe that the Head On commercial is still playing 3) My point about reggaeton not being especially popular in the U.S... 4) My point about people not knowing most of the words to the song... 5) The trashy/flamboyant costumes and how it makes the commercial appear low-budget rather than flashy or appealing... 6) My point about the juvenile, choreographed mermaids... 7) My point referencing the dancers' ridiculous coochie pop... 8) This commercial is so much longer than Head On commercial and most other commercials in general 9) Many people feel that this advertisement is racist and perpetuates a stereotype about Hispanics and Hispanic-Americans 10) DID I MENTION THE SEA MONSTER? Don't get me wrong -- this commercial is highly entertaining because of the fact that it absolutely sucks (was there a nicer way to put it?). But after awhile, it definitely gets pretty repetitive and definitely annoying. I personally love watching it and making fun of it; however, my personal point of view has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I think I've made good points about why many people find this commercial to be extremely annoying, even if I don't. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Embargo with Cuba needs to be lifted. because "The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports." These are the words of Daniel Griswold in 2009, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. First of all, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say I want to lift the embargo. I intend to: Repeal the Cuban Democracy Act Repeal the Helms-Burton Act Amend the Foreign Assistance Act to exclude Cuba Amend the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to exclude Cuba I would also like to clarify that this is not only ending the economic embargo, but also the travel embargo. This debate will be centered around these points: 1. The Embargo has already met some of it's original aims. Those that it has not met, it will not meet. 2. This is not only an economic problem in the U.S. and Cuba, (which it is), but it is also a worldwide economic problem. 3. The Embargo is internationally and domestically unpopular. 4. Ending the travel embargo with help with a transition to democracy. 1. The Original Aims of the Embargo. The embargo was first put in place in the 60's for two reasons. The first was to punish Cuba for seizing property owned by Americans. In 2001, Cuban Officials offered to compensate those Americans whose property was taken. For reasons unknown, this offer was declined. This goal has evidently been abandoned. The second reason was to make it costlier and more of a hassle for the Soviet Union to fund and participate with Cuba. This part worked wonderfully, it is estimated to have cost the Soviet Union six billion dollars a year. However, the S.U. disbanded in 1991, so this is no longer an issue. The only plausible reason the Embargo is still in place is to try and punish Cuba until it ceases to be Communist. This has failed for the past 48 years, and will continue to fail until Castro dies. 2. Obviously this is an economic problem in the U.S. and Cuba. This seems to be self-evident and I'd rather not try to expand on it. However, I would like to explain why this is an international economic problem. The Helms-Burton Act stops any company from dealing with the U.S. and Cuba at the same time. Obviously, this company is going to choose the bigger market; the U.S. Not only does this negatively affect Cuba and it's citizens, but it also affects foreign companies. It does nothing to aid international relations, and only aids the increase of international deficit. 3. In 2009 Mois�s Na�m, Editor-In-Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine and Former Venezuelan Minister of Development, said "The embargo is the perfect example used by anti-Americans everywhere to expose the hypocrisy of a superpower that punishes a small island while cozying to dictators elsewhere." The United Nations has voted 19 years in a row over 90% in favor of ending the embargo. During the last voting session this year (2010), only the U.S. and Israel voted to keep it in place, with only three other U.S. allies abstinentating. Also, according to a poll done by CNN, a majority of Americans want the travel embargo lifted. 4. By allowing U.S. travelers to converse with Cuban citizens, it can only help Cuba to become democratic after the death of Castro. An editorial in the Boston Herald in 2002 said, "The more travelers there are (to Cuba) the more the truth will spread, and that can only help the transition of Cuba out of tyranny when the tyrant dies." Whoever accepts: If you want the source for ANYTHING I just said, just ask. I'd be happy to comply. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against David Icke's view that the world is ruled by a secret group called "Illuminati" is false because Let me note that I am aware of that interview and the Illuminati was not brought up. And that so called conspiracy theorist interviewer, is in fact a 33rd Degree Freemason and a member of a Japanese secret society. You want facts? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... An entire repository of Illuminati information? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... http://www.illuminati-news.com... You want information straight from ex-Illuminists? http://en.wordpress.com... http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com... http://www.leozagami.com... ///The masonic temple at Alexandria, Virginia (the city itself was named after Alexandria, Egypt, and is a hotbed of Illuminati activity) is a center in the Washington, DC area for Illuminati scholarship and teaching. I was taken there at intervals for testing, to step up a level, for scholarship, and high ceremonies. The leaders in this masonic group were also Illuminists. This has been true of every large city I have lived in. The top Freemasons were also top Illuminists. My maternal grandparents were both high ranking Masons in the city of Pittsburgh, Pa. (president of the Eastern Star and 33rd degree Mason) and they both were also leaders in the Illuminati in that area. Are all Masons Illuminati? No, especially at the lower levels, I believe they know nothing of the practices that occur in the middle of the night in the larger temples. Many are probably fine businessmen and Christians. But I have never known a 32 degree or above who wasn't Illuminati, and the group helped create Freemasonry as a "front" for their activities./// - Svali You want geographical locations? Supreme Council http://www.scottishrite.org... Bohemian Grove, San Francisco, U.S. Illuminati headquarters can be found in: Pittsburgh,PA San Diego,CA Alexanderia,VA Fascist government policy? Patriot Act. Marijuana Illegal. Tapping cellphones. CIA government take overs. CIA assassinations. Bush admin being pardoned from war crimes. Congress being left out of bailout decisions. Suspicious actions? World leaders attending a Canaanite pagan ritual of burning a human effigy (or real body) in front of a giant owl (also on one dollar bill) once a year. This is 100% known fact. You want pictures of the Illuminati? http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://www.supremecouncilsite.com... http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... You want their symbols? http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://911truthsherbrooke.files.wordpress.com... http://www.salaammasjid.com... http://www.thirdeyeindustries.com... http://www.illuminati-news.com... http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... You want documents? http://www.leozagami.com... http://www.leozagami.com... http://www.leozagami.com... You want footage of an Illuminati ritual? You want to see how all the secret societies fit in the Illuminati? http://doingmypart.files.wordpress.com... In the first video, you will find Zbigniew Brzezinski himself referring to the conspiracy movement obstructing their plan. As you can see, there is a gathering mass of evidence and in the coming years, the presence of the Illuminati and the wrath of the New World Order will become self evident. . <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits