text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with comunissium because I would be glad to participate in this debate Sedvodka, I have not had the opportunity to debate a topic on this site, so I took the liberty at looking at the format of other debates to obtain an idea. With that in mind, let me define the term of Communism from the Oxford Dictionary. Communism: First, it is a noun. It also has two definitions. They are as follows: 1. a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2. a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practiced in China and formerly in the Soviet Union. My first argument against your statements against communism is as follows: Why does the failure of an ideology in one country imply that it will persist in being a failure (if established in other countries)? I do not think this is an appropriate stance to take, and I will give an analogy that hopefully will prove helpful: I believe the use of currency is a more effective method for business (commerce). In current day Zimbabwe the inflation rate is about 300% and therefore currency is useless (without value). Therefore, the use of currency is not a more effective method for business. There could be many confounding variables that lead to the social and economical problems seen in Russia today (and of course in the past). There are many problems in non-communist countries today, does this mean we should abandon those systems and accept communism? I would argue that there were benefits that came through Communism in the Soviet Union; this ideology Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union in 10 years - a record pace and I doubt it would have been possible without the Utilitarianism-based Ethics system that supports Communism. My second argument is entirely without substance, but I find Communism in the Soviet Union attractive due to the schnazy Sickle and Hammer flag. Communism for our Future! -Y <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Intelligence is more important that popularity because M opponent seems to have died. That means I win, right? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Genetically "enhancing" babies (Designer Babies) because And again. Should I even post? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS because Thank you to my opponent for the opportunity to engage with some issues. A. The law forbids discrimination on basis of sex. A woman would have the same right of any natural born citizen to run for the office of President, without the additional stipulation of an invasive and irreversible medical procedure. It is indefensible under law to deprive women of the opportunity to apply for sensitive state jobs without prejudice. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 makes it illegal to discriminate "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." B. Assumption that woman would be primary carer for the child is not warranted. If she is not primary carer, then a pregnant POTUS need take no more time off work than if any President had a minor medical issue. She could work right up until the last few days of labour. C. The resolution is unworkable: If pregnancy, then other issues that could incapacitate a President. You could just as well argue that a POTUS with a history of heart disease in his family is endangering national security. Or a candidate that is particularly old. The selection of a President could become highly discriminatory. D. You cannot deny an unsterilized woman the office of POTUS on a hypothetical. Hypothetically, a male POTUS may get testicular cancer. Should we then pre-empt the possibility by insisting only on eunuchs in the White House? E. The electorate has a right to choose the candidate they see fit. If in fact the electorate voted a pregnant woman into the White House that would be their democratic right. F. Presidents can resign. This would be a less drastic, more sensible resolution to a POTUS becoming pregnant, if she decided also to be primary carer. America survived the resignation of Nixon. G. Finding the best person for the job. The battle to make employment truly meritocratic, through civil rights, is an ongoing one and has been long and hard fought. To affirm the resolution would be to take a backwards step. The resolution can only be negated. Sources 1. http://www.eeoc.gov... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should ethical dilemmas be resolved before permissions granted and actions taken? because CASE: Since it's a moral dilemma, i.e., the choices available are all EQUALLY undesirable, it is not necessary, i.e. no "should", for the group to come to a consensus before permissions are granted and actions are taken. EXTENSIONS: Burden of Proof; my opponent has made no case for his side. I await a topical argument to refute. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with America is the best country in the world because I have taken this debate, out of gratitude, to a great country, that treats all, well. My opponent commits several fallacies: 1) Uses several other countries instead of one. No one said the US is greater than all the other nations combined. My opponent takes a little from several different countries to show America is not the best. That is not logically sound to me. This, I believe, is one of the biggest problems with his argument. He should have chosen only one country that he thought is better and we could compare 1 to 1. He does seem to favor Japan and Finland, but does not make clear which one he intends to use to compare to the US. More importantly in the specific comparisons, he constantly uses other countries. Point made. 2) The news week link was discussing the best country to live in. It did not take into account important factors such as military, technology, and good work done around the world. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 312 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area and the third largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[6] The U.S. economy is the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion (23% of nominal global GDP and over 19% of global GDP at purchasing-power parity).[3][7] The United States exercises global economic, political, and military influence. It is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and New York City hosts the United Nations Headquarters. It is a member of the G8, G20, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Almost all countries have embassies in Washington, D.C., and many have consulates around the country. Likewise, nearly all nations host American diplomatic missions Military: My opponent seems to agree that with regard to military technology US is tops, but #s are more important. Quality, over quantity. Welcome to the 21st century, wars are fought with technology not just soldiers. In an all out war US will win any country hands down. One super hydrogen bomb, blows up millions of people, case closed. In an all out war, tech is what will win, no question about it. My opponent requests some statistics so here they are: US have 64% of aircraft that evade the radar. F-35 Lightning has the most sophisticated radar in the world. A Ballistic Missile from US can reach anywhere in the world. US are the only nation to have such a long range conventional missile. Russia is second with 11,500 km range. US also has 2nd strike capability. This means that US will be able to strike with a nuclear weapon even if an enemy has managed to nuke US. Only 6 nations are capable of such 2nd Strike- US, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, France and China. (The only one not in the top 5 is Israel). Not Japan and not Finland. Now for a word from Wikipedia: American forces can be rapidly deployed by the Air Force's large fleet of transport aircraft, the Navy's eleven active aircraft carriers, and Marine Expeditionary Units at sea with the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific fleets. The military operates 865 bases and facilities abroad,[63] and maintains deployments greater than 100 active duty personnel in 25 foreign countries.[64] The extent of this global military presence has prompted some scholars to describe the United States as maintaining an "empire of bases".[65] Tech: My opponent agrees that the US is tops in the tech. index. Who invented the tech the world lives on; light bulbs, radio, cars, motor, phones, planes, computers, internet, etc.? That's right, America. Wikipedia: The United States has been a leader in scientific research and technological innovation since the late 19th century... The rise of Nazism in the 1930s led many European scientists, including Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi, to immigrate to the United States. During World War II, the Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons, ushering in the Atomic Age. The Space Race produced rapid advances in rocketry, materials science, and computers. IBM, Apple Computer, and Microsoft refined and popularized the personal computer. The United States largely developed the ARPANET and its successor, the Internet. The United States leads the world in scientific research papers and impact factor.[114] Americans possess high levels of technological consumer goods,[115] and almost half of U.S. households have broadband Internet access.[116] The country is the primary developer and grower of genetically modified food, representing half of the world's biotech crops.[117] Education: According to prominent international rankings, 13 or 15 American colleges and universities are ranked among the top 20 in the world. [139][140]-Wikipedia The United States leads the world in scientific research papers and impact factor [114]-Wikipedia Economy: US have a GDP per capita of $ 42, 381 as of March 2009 (data provided by IMF). It was $37,500 back in 2003. The U.S. economy is the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion (23% of nominal global GDP and over 19% of global GDP at purchasing-power parity). [3][7]- Wikipedia US produced 300,000 jobs in one month alone in March. World influence: The United States exercises global economic, political, and military influence. It is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and New York City hosts the United Nations Headquarters. It is a member of the G8, G20, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Almost all countries have embassies in Washington, D.C., and many have consulates around the country. Likewise, nearly all nations host American diplomatic missions. Here is a comprehensive chart detailing Americas forging aid. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com... The best thing about America is that it not only allows freedom, but actually protects and supports it, at home and abroad, by providing aid to those who need it, and fighting those who wish to undermine freedom, and the rights of others, particularly small minority groups. I personally, and my religion as a whole, are indebted to America as the most benevolent of countries, of our long and difficult exile. No other country has been so supportive, and protective, Freeing us to a large extent from the anti-Semitism that has plagued us in our millennia long exile. A tribute to America, provider, and most importantly supporter, and protector, of freedom, humanity, and rights. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Polygamy should be allowed in the United States. because Polygamy - the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time http://dictionary.reference.com... My argument is plain and simple; polygamy should be allowed in the United States. America is based on freedom, and with freedom comes the freedom of choice. You should be allowed to select who you want to marry without the government telling you what you can and can't do with your life. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against CM Punk is more powerful than God. because If we define god as the being who created the universe, we see that we are not talking about anything know to man, we are talking about an ALL POWERFUL being who has the power to create universes. Proof of his existence? Does the universe exist? Therefore must then assume that its creator exists or at least existed at some point. Ok now on to the lies. Confidence does not mean truth can confidently say that i am lord master of the universe but does that that i am? no. it means that I am lying confidently. All the proof we have of CM punk's "higher power" his statement and nothing else. So he can fake punch and kick another actor? So what? The creator of the universe CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That is proof of power right there. Ok so now we shall move on to um how did you put it? how straight edge "God" is. By stating that "God" is "half straight edge" brings him down to the level of someone who is not the lord supreme creator of the universe, which "God" is Now I'd like to state my final remark. Basically as "God" created the universe and the universe created CM Punk, we can assume that God has some sort of file on CM Punk which, as creator, he can edit, which would mean that "God" has power over CM Punk, which of course means that he is more powerful than the flimsy-speedo-wearing-actor-man that is CM Punk <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against goerge bush was a good president because This is a devils advocate. "He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy" During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data." [1] So his plan didn't work. Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. [1] The tax policy center said these taxes didn't work. "He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader " The state of Iraq has done nothing in the past nine years that would in any way justify the United States in making war against it. [2] Like serioisly what did they do to us? Thre was no WMD's or anything. Also American troops have died in that war, would you give up your kids just to get rid of one dictator? Think about it, your loved kid, or some guy you vaugly remember from sunday news. "He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban " And in 2005, Bush shut down the CIA’s unit dedicated to finding bin Laden in order to shift resources to Iraq. “The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” [3] He shut down al quada by killing lower level operatives through unconitutional wars that killed US troops. "He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe " Work hard =/= results. I can work hard all I wan't getting F's no matter how hard I tried means I am a bad student. "he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it " First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation. [4] Never really tried. "he reformed immigration with more security at the border " But at a price: The troops would be paid for with some of the $1.9 billion requested from Congress to supplement border enforcement this year. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said he intends to call a hearing on the National Guard deployment "at the earliest possible opportunity." [5] That's what the National guard woudl get paid. So out 5 trillion dollar debt plus that is a downturn. So did he secure the broder no, did he help yes, did it cost money yes. So minor problem vs big money. "he made america more safe " So biggest terrorist attack happened diring his term =/= more safe. Of course, 9/11 did happen eight months into Bush's term -- after he'd received a memo warning him "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." [6] So he knew, he just was negligent to react. "the econmy was booming under him " Booming? President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. [7] So one can argue the first one was clintons fault, the second may argued as clintons and bush's, but either way that statement was false. "he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air " Yes but it had a price: It: a. hurt the economy b. had a lot of loopholes c. didn't over ALL sources of pollution. [8] "he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors " IF you ook at my source social secutiry amd medicare payroll taxes vs benifits has been declinign for a while, and it did so under bush as well. SO his reforms didn't work. [9] My arguments are liek the ones above, but I need to add 2 more: C1: The debt http://en.wikipedia.org... The graph shows an increase of debt at the very end of bush's term and a moerate increase in the midde of it. Also increase in debt 2005-9 +2,135 billion +7.1% of GDP [10] It rose under his term, his buggest decrease in debt was -0.9. Fail. C2: The wars where unconsitutional all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticized President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional. [11] It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress. [11] that = unconisutional The war in Afghanistan is an unconstitutional violent costly occupation of another country who never attacked us , Alqaeda has left Afghanistan we are now pursuing the Talibans who never attacked us , whose interest do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility ??? [12] =conclusion= I agree with you but am doing a devils advocate. Good luck. Bus is a bad president for the reasons above. And my rebbuttals where my other argments not listed in my contentions. Vote CON! sources: http://politicalcorrection.org... [1] http://www.rense.com... [2] http://thinkprogress.org... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.foxnews.com... [5] http://mediamatters.org... [6] http://blogs.wsj.com... [7] http://www.businessweek.com... [8] http://www.justfacts.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.albionmonitor.com... [11] http://ronpaul1.blogspot.com... [12] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year. because Here is what will happen to the money that the govt sends out, and believe me you do not have to be an economic expert to figure this out. 1/4 to 1/3 of that money will be used to pay credit card bills that were racked up during the economic boom. Another 1/4 to 1/3 will be used to pay quarterly tax payments back to the govt, that is where my rebate is going. Another 1/3 to 1/4 will be used to pay monthly bills such as the mortgage payment, electric and utilities, etc. None of the above things do anything to stimulate the economy. The 1/4 to 1/3 left over will do nothing if anything to stimulate the economy. The best way to fix the economy is to let it tank and let the free market correct it self. What the govt is doing will only make the correction more painful when it finally does happen. I looked to see how old you are and it explains a lot, with age comes wisdom. here is a link that you can go to which has many sub links in it and it will explain to you what happens when the federal reserve prints worthless cash and all the other countries that do the same thing. http://www.gold-prices.biz... You are betting this scam will work, I wouldn't touch that bet with a ten foot pole! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God because I look forward to this debate and hope that we all learn something from it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God is real because The title says it all. I challenge anyone to prove to me that there is no God(an impossible task, as the concept of "God" trumps all forms of empirical evidence) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fox News is the most bias new network because Let me make this perfectly clear, the FOX News Channel is not FOX News. FOX News is the news programs on FOX, and the FOX News channel. Claiming the FOX News Channel is purely a News Channel, is like claiming MTV is purely a Music Channel. Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly are all opinion shows, and have all stated countless times on the air that they are “not a news program, and never claimed to be a news program”. If you lump opinion shows in with News, you might as well also lump in Family Guy, and the Simpsons. News Programs on FOX are; Fox News Live Fox News Sunday News Programs on the FOX News Channel are; American’s Newsroom Happening Now Studio B Fox Report Opinion Programs on the FOX News Channel are; Fox and Friends Your World with Neil Cavuto The Five The O’Reilly Factor Hannity On the Record Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld Glenn Beck News and Opinion Programs on the FOX News Channel are; America Live with Megyn Kelly Special Report with Bret Baier Opinion shows are intended to give their biased opinion; that is why the viewers tune in. To count Opinion Programs as part of the bias would be an intentional inflation of the results. I looked at Pro’s sources and they only mention the opinion shows by name, not the actual News programs. This proves that his sources are themselves biased, inflated and unreliable. Now with all due respect to my opponent, quoting Rich Bond, is like quoting Joe Biden. Sure it's a funny foot and mouth quote, but the chances of it reflecting reality is slim to none. Rich Bond is one of the 3% of conservatives who think the media has a conservative bias; most likely because he only listens to talk radio, or opinion shows. My opponent claims there is no Liberal Bias, but most Americans agree there is a Media Bias, and most that see a Bias, see a Liberal Bias. According to Gallup Polls, "The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media are "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically." With that said, is FOX News the most Biased News Network? I think not! They are merely the most Right Wing Media Network. MSNBC is probably one of the most Left Wing Media Networks, and they are by far more biased than FOX News. I went to MSNBC.com and clicked US The 1 st 5 stories were; Occupy Wall Street shows muscle, raises $300K (occupying wall st.) 2 teen girls die after being hit by train in Utah (Tragic Death) Active duty gays say coming out has been non-event (Don’t ask don’t tell) Man in wheelchair shot to death by Phoenix police (Police brutality) Feeding the masses, fueling a movement (occupying wall st.) That is a 4/5 Left Wing bias, and a 0/5 Right Wing bias. Now I went to FOXNews.com and clicked US The 1 st 5 stories were; Three Die in Small Plane Crash in California (Tragic Death) Student Says School Held Him Back Because of Religion (Religion) Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy (Civil Rights) Peer-To-Peer Lending Lets Small Business Owners Avoid Banks (Free Market) The Week Ahead: 7/17 (Obama) That is a 2/5 maybe 3/5 Right Wing bias, and 0/5 left wing bias, possibly 1/5 Left wing bias. I say a possible 1/5 Left Wing bias because in the Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy highlights, they was mostly praising Obama, and the speech he made; oddly enough. Thos hosts also were advocated affirmative action in the highlights. The the possible extra Right wing bias is due to the small business Peer-To-Peer Lending segment. So I would say MSNBC is by far, more bias than FOX News. Now here are also some quotes straight from hosts on MSNBC. "My first night here ion MSNBC, was the President's state of the union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there was actually people, that were in the news room, that were booing the president; basically from the beginning to the end." ~ MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, 2007 "The president and I are finally on the same page, go vote! And when you do keep him in mind would ya..." ~ Kent Jones, on MSNBC's the Rachel Maddow Show, 2008 “The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.” ~ Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, September 23, 2009. “Reagan [at the 1984 D-Day commemoration] was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something.' I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above — above the world. He's sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together.” ~ Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to host Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, June 5, 2009. On the September 7 Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, followed up a clip of Obama by saying: "I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me, every time I hear those words. I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, that’s me. He's talking about my country and nobody does it better." “‘What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound and maybe to a lesser extent Ruby Ridge?’ Well, obviously, the answer is talk radio, specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio....Limbaugh claimed others would have blood on their hands in the event of future right wing terrorism. Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now, and you have had it for 15 years.” ~ MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19, 2010 Countdown <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because Vote PRO, because PRO clearly won, by rule 5. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Morality MUST be objective. because I thank my opponent for this debate and would like to point out that although there may be bad blood outside of this debate, I shall make this a conscious effort in not only debating seriously, but hopefully in educating both myself, my opponent, and the audience in techniques of debate. My argument shall take the following format: 1. A discussion on what makes an argument an argument 2. The significance of a logical fallacy on the truth of an argument 3. A logical recap of my opponent's argument 4. Why my opponent's argument is logically fallacious 5. Cleaning up extra points made by my opponent 6. Conclusion WHAT MAKES AN ARGUMENT AN ARGUMENT? In the attempt to discover truth, we construct explanations from what we already know. Premises are statements of something we already know, which we string together using logic in order to develop a conclusion of what we want to prove. This is the manner by which we develop new truth from preexisting truth. An argument is sound when all the premises string through properly to the conclusion. An argument is valid when it is both sound, and when the premises are themselves truthful. Thus, there are three main ways that an argument can fail: It can either have incorrect premises, it can not follow logically, or both. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A LOGICAL FALLACY A man with HIV appears normal to everyone else. It is only after a blood test that doctors can diagnose him with HIV. Similarly, we use logical arguments in every day situations. Most of the time, they are phrased in obscure ways that appear true, because we do not look at them with enough specificity. Examining an argument for logical fallacies is like applying a blood test. You catch things that bypass common sense, which is usually wrong. By scrutinizing, you can see whether or not a person's argument is flawed even if it seems truthful. LOGICAL RECAP OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT My opponent's argument is called a "Reductio Ad Absurdum", where we attempt to select true premises along with the thing we want to prove (assuming it is true) and show that IF it is true, then a logically fallacious situation will occur. http://en.wikipedia.org... Take this example from wikipedia: ASSUME X is an even prime number greater than 2, and follows the basic laws of mathematics. 1. X is divisible by 2 2. X is divisible by 1 and X and nothing else 3. X is not 2. 4. X is not divisible by 2 (since X is only divisible by 1 and X, and X is not 2). Combining some of these derived statements, we may conclude: X is divisible by 2, and X is not divisible by 2. This leads to a logically contradictory statement. Therefore, from this, we can say that there can be no even prime number greater than 2. My opponent's Reductio ad Absurdum argument is as follows: ASSUME Morality is subjective 1. Hitler's morality is subjectively valid 2. Mother Theresa's morality is equally subjectively valid 3. Hitler's morality is as valid as Mother Theresa's morality This is a logically fallacious situation. Therefore, Morality must not be subjective. WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS There are several things that are wrong here. HIDDEN PREMISE/BEGGING THE QUESTION First of all, there is a problem with the declaration of absurdity. Whereas the example by wikipedia showed that X is divisible by two AND not divisible by two and declared it absurd, my opponent is declaring it absurd because Hitler's morality cannot be subjectively equal or greater in validity than Mother Theresa's morality. However, it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid. This is a "common sense" assumption made by my opponent, a premise he suggested but did not prove. Furthermore, if we assume as a premise that Hitler's morality was less valid than Mother Theresa's, this would be an assumption of Moral Objectivity. Moral Objectivity is defined by my opponent as a moral set that is intrinsically correct. Thus, my opponent's logical argument reduces down to this: ASSUME Moral Subjectivity given Moral Objectivity 1. Morals are subjective 2. Morals are objective 3. Morals are both subjective and objective This is logically fallacious. Therefore, Morals must not be subjective. We can see that this argument is invalid because he begs the question as a premise. Thus, while his argument has the appearance of one that is valid, it is not. CLEANING UP EXTRA POINTS I have clearly shown that my opponent's argument is severely flawed. Thus, in this section, I will clean up any extra points, pieces of evidence, or analogies my opponent has brought up along with his main argument from top to bottom. 1. Definitions: My opponent copied and pasted definitions but has not specified any. Thus, we will use common sense definitions as the debate has already started. 2. My opponent talks about "morality in the real sense". This is undefined and has potential for a logical fallacy. Morality exists because we can distinguish as individuals between right and wrong actions. This debate is about Objectivity vs Subjectivity, whether that ability to distinguish is justified on one scale, or only on the individual scale. 3. My opponent then says that we cannot decide what is subjectively better or worse with moral subjectivity. That is the definition of moral subjectivity. True moral validity is equal across the board. However, we as a group decide what actions are more or less moral from popularity. Much like how Blue Jeans come into fashion, or how females tend to wear pants more and dresses less. 4. Tea analogy: My opponent's tea analogy is just a declaration that the true objective morality is the first morality to develop. However, this is flawed as I will demonstrate using his own analogy. Tea was probably the result of an accident, as were many inventions of the past. The "true" tea may have been so bitter that no one wanted to drink it. The second tea might have been acceptable and thus, became more popular. However, there is absolutely no reason to say that any cup of tea is the right cup of tea (even the very first). Was the first computer better than the computers we have today? Was the first lightbulb better than the ones we have today? Was the first telephone better than the telephones we have today? If the first morality is used as the benchmark, it doesn't show that it is right. Objectivity is not having a standard. Objectivity is claiming that the standard IS the best, or is the correct one. Simply having a comparison for something does not show that there is objectivity. The fact that the first ice cream flavor was "Cream" does not mean there is Objective ice cream flavor preference. CONCLUSION I have not only shown that my opponent's logical argument was completely flawed, but have also addressed each one of his extraneous points as well. My opponent has nothing outstanding. In addition, I have made small arguments for moral subjectivity throughout my analysis of Moral Objectivity. Based on this, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion because :: vi_spex said, "so your position is true in saying that i just looked at my dog? that is a true position for you to have?" Yes. My reasons for believing so is that my judgement of your character tells me that you are unlikely to lie. I cannot be certain of that you own a dog, but I believe that you do. :: vi_spex said, "belief is false thou, so you can agree with me that you wont stick a knife in your leg" I will not agree with you; by your logic, a belief that I *won't* stick a knife in my leg is also false, because it is a belief. :: vi_spex said, "only sensory experience is true" * "know=i dont have to imagine it" Again, an optical illusion. You have to imagine that it IS an optical illusion when you are looking at it. Your sensory experience can be FALSE as well. :: vi_spex said, "i am certain that i see an optical illusion when i see it" What does that mean? If you look at an optical illusion when you are unaware that it is, you say you always know that it is an optical illusion? I highly doubt that. Regarding the cake thing; we form our opinions from the evidence we have gathered. Obviously, tasting it is the strongest form of evidence here. However, if *everyone* I knew told me that the cake was fantastic and it was on the news as being fantastic, I would believe that the cake is fantastic because that would be enough evidence to convince me that it is true. The rest of the arguments are useless because we do not have a foundation of common definitions. I will respond to no more of this argument until the basic requirements are met. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro) because Three hours left, Good lord help me. Rebuttal's to the Rebuttal's of my rebuttal's (Keeping it going): Te outright failure of the Communist States in the world needs not be sources, it simply is a fact, only two communist states in the world stand left. I can see where you are headed on the Joseph Stalin claim about his atheism being a motivating factor in the killings, the only problem is that he is not the only communist leader to have slaughtered people, so that would make that claim untenable in that respect. The effects of Capitalism in China are beneficial, you are viewing the $5 dollar a day part from the perspective of a Western Person, to us $5 a day is nothing, to them it is so so much more. In 1989 when China began the switch to a Capitalist Economy, the average income per year was just barely over $300 dollars a year. [1] Since the switch to Capitalism the average income has blossomed to almost $7000 dollars a year. [2] This is a tremendous rise in income from the utterly pitiful amount of the $300 of the "equal income" of the broken and corrupt Communist state. The fact that so many people living below the poverty line can be attributed to the fact that even now almost 50% of the Chinese population lives in small underdeveloped villages. [3] It can not be blamed solely on the slow effects of Capitalism in such a massive country. Recognition of the Individual: Okay now that we have settled the argument of greed, we move to societal focus. (Am I interpreting that correctly?) Capitalist societies yes have there corrupt people, in every society no matter what type we try there will be corruption, it is an inevitable fact, so what if the top 67 billionaires own as much money as 3.5 billion, they worked for that money, it (I will admit for the most part) is earned and not inherited. There is little proof that this is draining essentials from individuals, and who says that they are not philanthropic as well? Why Communism will fail: There is little that is actually subjective about the statement that communism hasn't succeeded, it's a fact, lest you can name one country that is better off because of Communism, under these states, millions died, economies collapsed, and once superpowers such as Russia, are reduced to limping stagnate economies. I don't believe that a poll taken in the current dictatorial stances of Russia, especially with the way that Putin has been behaving and the influence he has had in the last 20 years, is trustworthy, period. The idea that Communism never succeeding is not really speculation, it is fact, again, unless you can provide me with unbiased numbers that show that any Communist country has succeeded for a very long time, I will not seek to budge on the point. For your Ukrainian poll thing, unless any hard data is provided that point will go on as considered invalid. Now for North Korea, sure sanctions have hurt, but if North Korea's little boy was actually interested in improving the economy and not expanding his wealth, North Korea might actually have some cash on hand, same with Cuba. Both could trade with Venezuela, China, Ecuador, and each other and do fine. Now my claim was not quite that severe, but looking back on the Space race thing, I poorly explained it. After the Soviet Unions initial launch of a living being in space and then a man, they mad several failed attempts at putting a man on the moon, and so they really didn't do anything crucial after that. [4] To date only 12 people have landed on the moon, all Americans [5] truly attesting to American Superiority over the Soviet Union, now back to Economics. Finally It is not economically possible for a country to avoid recession, it just can't happen, and to further state that the Soviet Union never had a recession is a bald-faced lie which you have convinced yourself to be true. That statement was only retracted somewhat, but the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union, was because of Economic Collapse and Recession!!! [6] So the argument that there was never a recession in the Soviet Union goes, out the window. Concluding Statements: First off I would like to thank my opponent for a interesting debate, secondly keep the rebuttle thing going would yah? The idea of Communism on Paper is as you described, but in action, the idea that communism values individuals is a false statement. The reason America Remains in a Ressecion is on account of the fact that we have a President who can't do anything correct if his life depended on it, causing growing inequality, skyrocketing college, and only part time jobs. You know the "unemployment rate" is only at 5ish percent, wrong the man we call out President (well I do I think you're Canadian?) has been fudging number and trying to provide this free Health Care and Free College [7]. Truth is, it ain't working and even me, behind a computer :D, can feel it, I still cant get a job because that man is such a disaster. That is why the U.S. is still in a recession. So anyway, please challange me in a debate again, this was very interesting, hope to hear from you soon! 1- http://data.worldbank.org... 2- http://data.worldbank.org... 3- http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4- http://www.history.com... 5- http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu... 6- http://www.sjsu.edu... 7- http://www.alternet.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should we put constraint on media for national security because I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I hope that it will be a educational and entertaining debate for the both of us. I would also like to thank the voters for voting based upon the arguments, and not based upon the debaters themselves. To the debate at hand: The resolution is about whether or not we should put constraint on media for national security. My job is to affirm, and say that we should, and my opponent will try to prove we should not. My opponents points: He argues one point. He says that we should allow un-restricted access to anything at affects the public. REFUTATION: 1. Under your world that you suggest, the media will have access to anything they want. My arguments that I'm about to make will directly counter this, so keep reading. C1. The government will become less effective. You can't be effective as a governing body if you are constantly having to look over your shoulder and worry about what the media will think. The media will become a block to society, and intead of providing more information, they will become an issue of the government's effectiveness. That leads me to my second contention. C2. The governmet has to protect some information, but if the media has unrestricted access, that could jepordize national security. Information about war, battles, logistics, and other matters of national security could come under the scrutiny of the media. This poses a security risk to any country, since their enemies only have to look at the media for their opponents next move, or number to troops, or how much we has spent, etc. C3. This sets a deadly precedents because nations will never feel safe with anything they do, knowing their enemies will be watching all their moves. Thats it for now, but theres 4 rounds left. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion because Thanks for the debate. That sounds like a fair definition of an abortion. Is this a fair definition of person? Person=df individual substance of a rational nature. And how about murder? Murder=df intentional killing of an innocent human being. If I understand right you want the first round to simply be about definitions. Let me know if this is okay. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Famous Poems: Poetry Competition because Greetings! I thank my opponent for accepting. I wish him the best of luck! I shall then start with a poem of my favorite lyrical poet: William Butler Yeats. The poem uses extensive metaphor, and allusions alongside powerful imagery combined with powerful verse. Aedh Wishes For The Cloth of Heaven Had I the Heavens’ embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue, and the dim, and the dark cloths Of night, and light, and the half light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. I am tempted to leave this poem without any analysis, so well does it speak for itself, and yet I find myself writing out what is surely blasphemous with regards to this poem. Let us then start with the title of this poem; by the title we may determine that the narrator of this poem is Aedh. This is significant, since we know that W. B. Yeats was Irish[1], and Aedh is a god in Irish mythology.[2] In fact Aedh is the god of death, and it is said that anyone who should hear him play his harp shall be doomed.[3] Why would then Yeats use Aedh to narrate this love poem? Does it seem right that death itself is narrating a poem? Well firstly the allusion is rather deeply rooted in Irish mythology. Aedh's mother, angry at Lir (his father) turned him, and his siblings into swans who shall roman the English Channell, here it is said that Aedh picked up on all the lanuguages of Ireland, as well as learnt the Arts, so much so that he created the harp.[4] Yeats then uses Aedh to attempt to show to us the personality of the narrator (which Yeats himself identifies himself). The narrator is perceived as cold, and is yet passionate: he is pale, lovelorn, in the thrall of "la belle dams sans merci". For one who would be Aedh how great would the cloths of Heaven be? Connection it with the allusion, Yeats moves on to use powerful imagery. The poem begins by the narrator wishing for the "cloths of the Heavens" note how it uses the word "Heavens" instead of "Heaven" once more reinforcing the universality. This "cloth" is a symbol which could mean many different things, but since its comparison is with "dreams" later on, it would suggest that this cloth is the aspiration of Heaven itself. I take this to mean that Aedh says had I been so great, not so forlorn, not so pale, that I had the aspirations, the "cloths" of Heaven, which would have the majesty of the Heavens, for the cloth is "enwrought with golden and silver light", and would yet be universal, and without pretense, for they would have not only the majesty, also symbolized by the color blue, but would be "universal" with the "night, and light", and of twilight. This imagery has been used to show the cloths to be the most precious things in existence, majestic, universal, without pretense and with grand beauty. This was the first of three parts of the poem. It starts of with a wish, it starts off by contrasting the dead, cold appearence that Aedh might have by showing him in the light of ardent desire and passion. It then moves on, and becomes an offer. Here the beauty of the beloved is emphasized, for they are taken to be even more precious than what the narrator originally wished for, so much so that Aedh would have been willing to "spread the cloths under your [the beloved's] feet". Again the passion even in one who is supposedly emotionless is shown. Aedh proudly declares that should he have that which is most precious he would not hesitate to put it under his beloved's feet. "But I, being poor, have only my dreams" How can I explain it any better than it explains itself? The emotion, the passion, the bitter-sweet tone. At once Aedh affirms his own poverty in such matters. He affirms that he does not possess what is worthy of the beloved, that he is poor when it comes to all such things, for he was cursed. He does however has his dreams. By this for him, his dreams are as important as the cloths of Heaven. He says he has laid his dreams under his beloved's feet. The last part of the poem is a request, now that the poet has given all he had of value to his beloved, he begs that they be careful. "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://digital.library.unt.edu... [3]Ibidem [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because Seeing that our definitions are both the slang sense of negativity, there is no topicality conflict here. 1. I Am a Ginger Carry this argument because my opponent agrees that it is theoretically impossible for a non-ginger to feel more unhappiness than a ginger. 2. jdog2016 is the Prince of Jordan A. His show is all a show. My opponent has been spotlighted on multiple occasions on CNN, Fox News, BBC, and the Weather Channel trying to pretend that his royal life is all a miserable experience. However, many insiders have reported my opponent plotting to frame His Majesty the King of Jordan for child abuse in order to take away his throne. The truth of the matter is that when people buy into his stories of child abuse, his life only becomes better. Because people in Middle Eastern countries buy dat dump, his life becomes increasingly better than mine. B. False. My opponent states that the royal palace of Jordan only has one bathroom. False. "The royal palace in Jordan is absolutely beyond belief. The building spans 500,000 acres wide, there is an indoor shopping mall of all things, and you can't go anywhere in the complex without being at least twenty feet away from a bathroom." - The Great Philosopher Mick Jagger Once again, my opponent has made up malicious libel. C. Air Conditioning My opponent thinks his life is so freaking terrible because he has no Air Conditioning. Think about this. I live in Northeast South Dakota. There is still snow on the ground in April, and we are so separated from civilization that heat and food has become even more scarce than air conditioning in Jordan. On a good day, we only lose two relatives to hypothermia and one to excessive diarrhea. On any other day, Cousin Eddie and Grandpa Sittingbull might just poop themselves to death on the same day. Recap: My heart sucks happiness out of me, so in theory no one can have a better life than me. The royal pains my opponent experiences are all frauds. There are multiple bathrooms in the royal palace. My climate situation is far worse. PRO WINS. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against September 2009 Public Forum Topic because In case you don't know, the September 2009 Public Forum topic is "Resolved: The United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty. I'm done debating this topic, so I don't really care if you take my case. I do care, however, if you join this debate just to get arguments. As the CON, I am for amnesty. The PRO would have to argue attrition. Please refrain from posting any arguments until Round 2. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS because I will leave it to the voters as to whether my opponent is attempting to equivocate on the meaning of "sterilization". I maintain that my opponent has affirmed that sterilization of a female POTUS is unnecessary, as a pledge will achieve the same purpose. For the sake of completeness, I will briefly cover my opponents points in round 2. It is inconceivable that the POTUS would voluntarily become pregnant with the intention of raising children during her term of office. I suggest to voters that any argument based on voluntary incapacitation be discounted on the grounds that it is not a realistic scenario. Besides, my opponent maintains that the issue is "readiness" of the President. So it does not matter whether incapacitation is voluntary or involuntary. A. The argument that discrimination in the workplace is justified by toilet ettiquette is a novel one. I move we close the lid and flush it. I suggest my opponent may be aware that toilet ettiquette is NOT discrimination. That women and men use different toilets does not justify discrimination in the workplace. My opponent suggests that discrimination law should not apply to POTUS. However, discrimination law exists to protect everyone from sexual discrimination. Sterilization is not a reasonable request, for it is a permanent and drastic correction for a problem that does not exist at time of employment. Such a measure would constitute unlawful discrimination against women. The assertion that civil rights should not apply to the President is an interesting one, but fails due to the fact that POTUS is a citizen, not to mention that the office is an example. What a poor example to set if the highest office were to discriminate against women. "the legality of the issue is not relevant to the argument" I agree in as far as my opponent has already conceded the debate. If they had not done so, I submit they would need to find a reason why a civil rights law should be wiped off the books. B. My opponent assumes that POTUS would take six weeks maternity leave. This assumption is unwarranted. E. "What if the electorate saw fit to elect someone under the age of 35 into the White House? This is an impossibility because of laws that prevent such an occurrence. The electorate does NOT have the democratic right to elect such a person to the office of POTUS." Granted and irrelevant. The electorate might still see fit to elect a pregnant woman to the White House. F. "Again, resignation is a choice, one that the POTUS can easily not make. Could America have survived if Nixon did NOT resign? THAT is the real question." My opponent wishes to make extreme provisions in case the President acts unrealistically unreasonably. Since the resolution has already been negated by my opponent, all that remains is to vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Christian Bible does not promote evil because first off god commands genocide multiple times in the bible. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and goat". samuel 15:3 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain". Deuteronomy 2:34 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and goat, with the edge of the sword". Joshua 6:21 "So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded". Joshua 10:40 "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them". Deuteronomy 7:2 this is condoning evil acts because god in the bible ordered it and the soldiers who did it were considered righteous and favored in the eyes of god. god also condones murder. "You should not let a sorceress live".Exodus 22:17 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."Leviticus 20:13 "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death". Exodus 21:15 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death". Leviticus 20:10 "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death". Leviticus 21:9 passages such as these cannot be regarded as anything but evil if the bible contains things like god ordered genocide and murder for witches, gays, kids who strike their parents etc its safe to say evil is condoned in the bible. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't. because "To burn an American flag in protest is to burn the heritage and history of America, and is an insult to all Americans in America, which most likely includes the flag burner in question." I don't see where an insult to the government or the citizens of America warrants an arrest and amendment to the constitution. People who protest the government are thrown in jail in countries like China, or hitting more at home with America's plights, Iraq or Afghanistan. As a nation that supports and protects our free speech, our right to petition the government, the United States should surely let us exercise our ability to think for ourselves (we don't need to hold the government's hand to make decisions), we should allow our citizens to burn the flag. We should be a strong enough country to accept criticism; especially from our own citizens. My opponent brings up that burning the flag is an insult to the citizens (including the flag burner them self), heritage, and history of America. What my opponent doesn't realize is that banning the ability of an American citizen to burn a flag openly on US soil is a much greater insult. This would be a slap in the face to America's image as a free country that embraces criticism from its citizen with an open mind for change in order to fix the problems such a drastic act as burning a flag might have sparked. This would be a much bigger insult to America's first amendment. If such an amendment as making illegal flag burning were to occur, it would be the first time in American history that a citizen could purchase an item he could never legally destroy. Say a citizen has a sun-faded American flag bumper sticker, or a senator gets his American flag cake cut for his guests - what an amendment against desecrating an American flag would bring is legislation against people who desecrate the flag in "anti-American" fashions. So, the law is punishing thoughts, not acts, and this makes it a much more dreadful piece of legislation. The flag stands for the freedom each American has, including the right to burn that very symbol. What a law prohibiting its desecration would do is mandate respect for a flag. America shouldn't be a land of mandated respect. This respect would only come through the threat of imprisonment and is neither earned nor deserved. I await my opponent's defense of his only argument. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb. because Con just copy pasted my arguments....I think I won <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Superman's abilities are WAY too overrated! because well, looks like i win! Vote labrat228, my opponent didn't bring anything to the table. (100 Characters) (100 Characters) (100 Characters) (100 Characters) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Evolution Is Not Proven because Thanks to my opponent for a punctual response. Before I continue, I'd like to remind readers that I am not trying to prove that Evolution is false. What I am doing is showing how the following claim is not proven: “ All extant life descended from a common organism via mutations and Natural Selection. ” I ask that you please keep that in mind as you judge my arguments. In the last round, I said that if all animals evolved from a common ancestor via mutations and Natural Selection, there should be transitional fossils documenting the gradual changes. As examples of the glaring lack of expected fossils, I showed how there are no transitionals between bacteria and the Kimberella mollusk, to which my opponent has effectively conceded. To excuse the lack of expected transitions, Con assumes that “ conditions required to form fossils are incredibly rare; were [sic] luck [sic] the fossil record is as good as it is. ” This is just an excuse made without evidence, and does nothing to prove the certainty of Evolution (as defined previously). Analogy time! What if I were a Creationist, and I got into an argument with an atheist. I claimed that God can perform miracles and defy the laws of nature. My opponent calmly responds by pointing out the glaring lack of miracles to substantiate my claim. Cornered, I reply, “ Well, conditions required to observe miracles are incredibly rare; we're lucky the biblical record of miracles is as good as it is. ” That wouldn't be very convincing, would it? Nope, and it hardly proves that miracles exist. Con mentions archaeopteryx . I doubt he was trying to argue that this is a convincing transitional between bacteria and mollusks, so I'm just going to leave it be. Con also posted a photo of an Ediacaran fossil. It wasn't labeled, but I think it's Dickinsonia . Anyways, I'm not sure why he felt he needed to demonstrate that “ we do have fossils of soft bodied creatures from the Edicaran ”, since I never argued we didn't. In fact, that's a major point in my own arguments: soft-bodied creatures do get fossilized! Con says the “ cambrian explosion ” isn't “ quite as impressive as it sounded in Darwin's time ”. I don't think I ever argued about how impressive it sounds. I will admit, though, when you add the word “explosion” to the end of anything, it does add a nice bit of emphasis =D Con claims that “ recent evidence suggest that the diversification [of the Cambrian Explosion] was no more rapid than other evolutionary radiations. ” I have to thank Con here for using the word “suggest” instead of “prove”; since I'm not arguing that Evolution is false, only that that it is not proven, his statement has no bearing on my case. Con goes on: “ [T] he cambrian explosion is marked largely by the sudden appearance of skeletons and shells which fossilize much easier than the remains of soft bodied animals so it's likely that the cambrian explosion was actually the "sudden" appearance of shells and exoskeletons causing us to find more fossils at the beginning of th cambrian. The phyla that supposedly appeared probably were formed sometime before the cambrian before shells became abundant. ” (emphasis mine) Thanks again to Con's generous use of qualifiers such as “likely”, “supposedly”, and “probably”, his argument has done nothing to refute my case. Remember, I'm not arguing that Evolution is false, or even unlikely. I'm just arguing that it isn't proven. Con again: “ Bacteria are not made of things that fossilize easily and virtually nothing before the cambrian has shells. ” I know right! And that is the problem right there: virtually nothing before the cambrian has shells. Unless you want to argue that mutations and Natural Selection can produce complex creatures with intricate shells in a single generation from bacteria, this lack of plausible, shelled ancestors poses a huge problem. This problem needs to be overcome if Evolution (as previously defined) is going to be proven. Just to be clear, you aren't arguing that this mollusk: ...was born of a one-celled bacterium, are you? Con continues: “ [W] hile bacteria CAN fossilize it's not very common. ” As I already demonstrated, this is not a valid argument for excusing the fact that not a single transitional between bacteria and that mollusk has been found. A bacterium did not suddenly give birth to a fully shelled mollusk. That's not how mutation and Natural Selection work. Neither did a sponge, nor a tiny worm give birth to a mollusk. Millions of transitional organisms should have existed to bridge the evolutionary chasm between bacteria and mollusks (were Evolution, as previously defined, true) but not even one has been found. Saying that bacteria are too small and soft to be commonly fossilized is not a sufficient argument. Not all transitionals between bacteria (no shell) and mollusks (big, intricate shell) would have been soft, or even small. In fact, there would have been millions of transitionals with large, hard parts. Con: “ [M] olecular clocks and bio-markers SUGGEST that sponges existed well before the cambrian edicaran [sic]” (emphasis mine) Many thanks again for using the word “suggest.” Again, suggesting is not proving, so this claim does not damage my case. Con: “ Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected; also the ancestors of mollusks and worms were likely around during the edicaran but shells started to be seen in the cambrian. ” I agree, gaps in the fossil record are to be expected, but not chasms . Are you telling me that the absence of any transitionals between bacteria and mollusks is to be expected , even though mutation and Natural Selection require millions of generations to accomplish such a feat? And that's just the gap between bacteria and mollusks. You seem to imply that the lack of transitionals between this (relatively) simple mollusk, ...and this majestic creature, ... is to be expected. If you want to prove Evolution, you'll have to do better than that. Further, any argument based on the idea that “ animals without shells rarely fossilize ” is useless when trying to explain the lack of transitions between the shelled mollusk and other complex, shelled life. In his summary, Con says “ All of pro's above arguments are based on the absence of transitional fossils between single cells and multi cellular organisms and the rapid appearance of several major phyla in the cambrian. ” That's misleading. It wasn't “ several ” major phyla that appeared in the cambrian; it was at least 20 . Con's last major argument: Con: “ That; my friend is what we call punctuated equilibrium-basically in periods of environmental stability animals stay mostly the same in a phase called stasis, but when a large environmental disruption evolution occurs rapidly(within the amount of time the cambrian explosion occured) in a process called Cladogenesis which creates a large variety of sister species over a short period of time(geologically speaking.) ” That was in response to: “ over 10 brand new phylum suddenly appear in the Cambrian, with absolutely no gradual transition! ” Con's extremely simplistic rebuttal is not sufficient. It doesn't even make sense. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn'texplain the sudden emergence of 10 major phylum, and has no relevance. Blaming some vague “ large environmental disruption ” hardly counts as trying. Also, labeling the Cambrian Explosion (as Con calls it) as “ Cladogenesis ” does not explain anything. Cladogenesis is just another way of describing the divergence of clades from a common ancestor. It's no more an explanation for the lack of transitionals than the phrase “ God works in mysterious ways ” is an excuse for life's difficulties. Con: “ Also that comment about the differences between a goldfish and a woman not being enough to warrant different phyla is an argument from personal incredulity; a logical fallacy. ” I'm sorry, but informing my opponent that a pet goldfish and an attractive woman are in the same phyla is not a fallacy; it's a simple statement of fact. Over to you again, Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homosexuality is helping to curb overpopulation. because I negate. My opponent's argument rests on two faulty assumptions: (1) homosexuals cannot and do not have children, and (2) there is an overpopulation problem. I will refute both assumptions. 1) Homosexuals cannot have children (a) In the not-so-distant past, in countries like the United States, there was a significant stigma to being homosexual. Most homosexuals entered normal relationships with opposite sex partners and procreated with them, as was expected of them at the time [think Don Draper's 1950's or the gay husband from the show Masters of Sex]. It is estimated that *even today,* as many as 3.4 million women are married to gay men. [1] Conclusion #1: in the past, when social stigma was much higher for gay people, most gay people procreated because they did what was expected of them by society in order to stay closeted. (b) In modern times, now that social stigma is lower and homosexual relationships are more acceptable, reproductive technology has caught up so that gay couples can have biological children. In a lesbian relationship, either woman (or both!) can have biological children through in vitro fertilization. In fact, many lesbian couples are using one woman's eggs and implanting them in the other women so both can share in the pregnancy process. [2] Gay men are using surrogacy in order to have biological children. [3] Conclusion: the assumption that gay people do not have biological children was faulty both in past times and in modern times. In past times, gay people entered straight relationships and had children (because many were closeted). In modern times, gay couples are having biological children through the use of reproductive technologies, which are becoming cheaper every day as more people use them. 2) There is no overpopulation in countries most likely to house openly gay couples There has been a recognized demographic trend that poor countries tend to have really high birth rates (in part because children are a form of valuable labor and in part due to the need to compensate for high infant mortality rates), whereas wealthy countries tend to have really low birth rates (in part because women face a higher opportunity cost for having children since they have more options outside the home and in part because the cost of raising a child in a developed country is really high, for example due to the cost of education). The result is that developed countries, like the United States, Japan, and the UK need *more* children, not fewer. A country needs to maintain a birth rate of 2.1 children per family in order to be at the replacement level, meaning that enough children are born to make up for the number of people who are dying. Nearly every developed country in the world is *below* that threshold. The U.S. has a birth rate below 2.1 and is only able to maintain its population size through large amounts of Hispanic immigration. [4] "Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 . . . Holland: 1.8 . . . Belgium: 1.8 . . . Spain: 1.4 . . . Italy: 1.4." [4] France is so desperate for people to have more children that it will literally pay you to have kids. [5] The moment you give birth the government will write you a check. Why do countries need to be above replacement level? A shrinking population is bad because the health of a country's pension system depends on having a large enough population of young people to support the population of old people. The health of a country's retirement system is measured by the ratio of young to old people. However, in Europe, the number of retired people is set to *triple* by 2060, while its population of young people is set to *decline* by 6 million. [6] Commentators have called this depopulation trend in Europe and Asia a "demographic time bomb." [6] The fact is, developed countries *need* more births in order to bring their population growth rate above replacement levels and ensure that they have a healthy retirement system. In the U.S., Social Security and Medicare would collapse if the birth rate significantly fell. So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Homosexual relationships are generally only considered acceptable to the most developed countries, which tend to have the most liberal systems of government (because development is a necessary precursor to a legitimate liberal democracy). For example, Russia - a rather poor country - is very anti-homosexual, as anyone can see from the Sochi Olympics coverage. Most African countries are very homophobic. For example, Uganda recently made it a crime - punishable by life in prison - to engage in homosexual acts. [7] Conclusion: in countries where birth rates are above replacement, homosexuality is so stigmatized that homosexuals are likely to stay closeted and continue to have children in straight relationships (to avoid persecution, prison, or even death). So in countries where the population is *growing,* homosexuality is so stigmatized that there is no way that it is helping to curb population growth. In countries where homosexuality is acceptable enough that it may curb population growth, there is no overpopulation problem. In fact, there is the reverse problem - those countries need *more* children. Thus, I urge a negation of today's relation because (1) gay couples do reproduce - either in a closeted relationship (to avoid persecution) or through the use of reproductive technologies (in countries where homosexuality is seen as acceptable). Countries that accept homosexuality have no overpopulation problem and in fact need *more* kids. Countries that are so anti-gay that it would be extremely risky not to stay closeted are the only ones with a potential overpopulation problem. But even in those countries, high infant mortality rates are doing more to curb overpopulation than infant mortality. tldr; Homosexuals can have kids (surrogacy, in vitro). And in developed countries where homosexuals can be openly gay, those countries actually *need* gay couples to have kids to avoid "depopulation." Also, my opponent can't refute anything I say (since it's a one round debate :P). So just for funsies: I assert that every time a gay couple has sex, a child is spontaneously generated in India. My opponent drops (concedes) this argument by his failure to respond, so by the rules of debate, you as a judge must accept this as true. So homosexual sex actually leads to reproduction (at least in the confines of this debate). Hope you had fun reading. <3 Bluesteel [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com... [3] https://www.ihr.com... [4] http://www.forbes.com... [5] http://www.learnvest.com... [6] http://www.economist.com... [7] http://www.brookings.edu... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate because I will respond to Pros arguments by numbering the paragraph i respond to and ask that he numbers his arguments next round to make reading the debate easier for the gallery. 1. I asserted it is Pros burden of proof, and seeing as he disagrees i will explain why. His statement is an absolute "its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using" absurd as i defined in the previous round is clearly a complete extreme and if i can provide a single scenario where their is the slightest bit of wisdom to defining words his argument is negated. if pro wants we can leave it at that and avoid a semantic debate over the word burden. 2. Debate is an art, through experience we learn what types of words will be the subject of semantic disagreement. If we do not define words that are of semantic significance than we risk spending rounds arguing over what we actually agree on. 3. Generally i just define words in my resolutions or major one line arguments, that risk being subject to misunderstanding, English is not a precise language, and in one context a word can mean two similar but critically different things. 4. Above i hope i have answered you rhetorical question. In response to your argument , words are defined to prevent people from using different definitions of the words. 5. I explained i position of the burden in point one. in response to your arguments, We would have to be using radically different definitions of the word absurd for my case to be define everything. Con appears to see only two possibilities, define everything or define nothing. I admit that defining words can be taken to the extreme, which i have seen, but so can repetition, which is your substitute provided in your second to last paragraph. The standard is something that is acquired with experience, knowing the types of words that get you into a semantic debate. Once again one would rarely know if they do not understand a word because they do understand it, just differently, and it is that difference that debaters try to avoid. 6. under my understanding of the word absurd and your resolution "I think its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using. It makes no sense." You have to prove that their is zero logic in defining words, all you have been arguing is that there is little logic. 7. wasn't shortening arguments your argument against defining words. Redundant examples feels like it would make your debate longer and give them even more to sift through. 8. How do i know what words to look up, or which dictionary to use. I guess we just need to define a dictionary in round 1, as well as a list of words to look up, or just look up all of them. I realize i just used your black and white logic, hoping to convince the gallery that that logic goes both ways, even though i disagree with it. Is your last sentence a general argument, or a comment about my method in round 1 If it was referring act one: Your first round was almost pure satire so i had no arguments to negate, and because your resolution clearly states their is zero logic. You are the absolute, and if you are the absolute, then you have the burden. so i can mount a purely defensive tactic, which requires something to defend against. This is not an attack on your style for opening the first round, i would ask you not to attack mine. A. onto my own argument, as i have demonstrated above if there is any amount of logic to defining any word then Pros resolution is negated. Look at the actual debate found at http://www.debate.org... the two sides spend the entire time arguing about the definition of new. I admit that it was that hole in Pros logic that made con willing to accept the debate, but if not for that hole con would have had no argument. Therefore there would have been a slight bit of logic in pro defining 'new', and slight is very different than zero <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny pictures debate because Accepted <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should we be involved in the war in Irag! because Marine_to_be: first off, congratulations on your decision to join the armed forces. I think that being a part of the military is an important and honorable career -- cheers! Now I will attempt to address each of your individual points mentioned in your argument. First, yes I do remember 9/11. But I don't remember Iraq being any more involved than the United States were. If I recall, it was members of the Taliban from Afghanistan that were responsible for the tragedy in my hometown of New York City -- not Iraq. In fact, Afghanistan (nor Muslims in general) was not responsible for what had happened. It was the result of one extreme religious group in particular - not every Muslim nation. Not every Iraqi is a terrorist; to think so is completely ignorant. So what exactly does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? If you're claim is that the Iraqi regime has helped to fund terrorism, then obviously my rebuttal would be SO HAVE WE. It is common knowledge by now that the United States has helped supply Osama bin Laden himself with weapons, money and technology to help fight wars in the Middle East. So we are just as guilty ~ what's your point? You've mentioned that the media only portrays the bad things happening in Iraq and fails to show servicemen providing aid and supplies to the Iraqi people. My argument is that we don't need a war to provide relief to people in need. You concluded with the fact that your biggest gripe is not with people who disagree with the war specifically, but with people who do not support the troops. My statement back to you is that perhaps people DO in fact support the troops, and that's why they want them back home instead of off to die unnecessarily. People can support the fact that American soldiers are over in Iraq doing the job that their superiors have assigned unto them. However, supporting the troops while they do their best to survive their noble career is much different than agreeing that America should be involved in a war that is catastrophically expensive and detrimental to the economy, alienates our allies, and puts our soldiers at risk. Plus, how can you expect the American people to trust the government after we were lied to repeatedly about the imaginary WMDs? Bottom line: There are both pros and cons to the war in Iraq, but the cons far outweigh the good. And being against the war is completely different than being against the troops. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy IV: WTC 7 because Here is the definition of a building footprint: http://www.answers.com... WTC 7 might have fallen slightly sideways but it did not lean very far at all as both your own pictures and the video prove. Here is a link to the official explaination for why WTC 7 came down: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com... Their opinion is that only fires and not exlosives or damage could have brought the building down in the way it collapsed. This doesn't make any sense. Here is another article that references a new phenomenon as to why WTC 7 collapsed: http://rawstory.com... These official explainations do not mention the damage that you do as a main cause of the collapse. In fact, some of the "official accounts" seem to contradict each other or site different reasons. If the collapse of a WTC 7 was so simple, wouldn't the explaination be the same no matter who investigated? Wouldn't it be easy to understand? There are enough questions surrounding WTC 7 to provide more than reasonable doubt, which means that your case and your thesis are not affirmed. Please vote Con, because even if you personally believe that WTC 7 collapsed on its own you must admit that there are enough questions, bizzare occurences and inconsistances surrounding the event to pose reasonable doubt. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My opponent has just lost the game. because Sorry, I'm a little short on time, so I just read your last argument. "By rebutting this statement, she agrees she has read this statement. If she does not rebut this statement, she concedes this point." I'f read that statement, but I cannot rebut the fact that I read it, because I did read your round 2 argument. Sorry, my lack of time means I still haven't read the title, nor the opening round. Was this argument 2 related to the resolution? If it was, then I probably lost, but if it wasn't, I don't see any issues with my response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against It's nearly impossible to win a one round debate. because I'd like to thank my opponent for offering such an interesting (and ironic) debate, however I must stand in firm negation of the topic. My opponent is completely correct in that the instigator of a one-round debate is more than likely going to be disappointed in the outcome, however, that's not what this debate is about. We're debating that "It's nearly impossible to win a one round debate." This is inherently false, as debates have one winner and one loser (unless we consider ties, which I'll touch in a little bit) For now, let's assume that ties aren't possible. Someone is going to walk away a winner and someone is going to walk away a loser. Nearly impossible to win? On the contrary! It's nearly impossible not to win (or conversely not to lose) because SOMEBODY has to lose... Now when we throw ties into the mix, the debate becomes a little more vague. However, using empirical evidence from this very website, I've found a statistic that makes things a little more clear. Using records of "Post Voting Period" debates, I checked debates until I found 10 one round debates. These 10 debates are the ones listed below http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... *Note: I, dvhoose, am not responsible for any lost brain cells in the above 10 debates... From the above debates, there were winners in 10 of them. 10/10 (or 100%) of one round debates have a winner. While the above may represent only a small selection of one round debates (although I had to search through 200-some-odd debates to find 10 one round debates...) I highly doubt the percentage changes and implore you, the reader/voter to search more if you are still skeptical. With that, I'll conclude the debate, after showing that 100% of one round debates have a winner, thus making it not "nearly impossible" to win but instead "nearly impossible" to tie. Resolution NEGATED, please vote CON <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Was the athenian democracy a real democracy? because If you look into the laws, they give equal justice to all. The Athenians were people of the free. The Athenian democracy was actually very successful. The system completely improved society, giving people, as a whole, a better life. I promise you, that this was NOT an Oligarchy. I've done my share of research, and what came with oligarchy was: A government in which a SMALL group exercises control ESPECIALLY for CORRUPT and SELFISH purposes. The Athenian's democracy was nothing of the kind. It improved the life of the people, and the laws gave everyone equal rights. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Peta because My opponent should note that I do not support PETA, I am merely advocating that they be allowed to exist. An organization is simply a group of people with similar goals or ideologies. These may be positive or negative ideologies. The members that perform illegal acts should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the law. While PETA may have odd, and even stupid ways of accomplishing goals barring their existance is unconstitutional. I will now point you to the KKK, an organization that has done much worse but are still allowed to exist. This is because of the first amendment. These people may do things that you don't like, but that's no reason to abolish them. In the eyes of the law actions matter. It is indiiduals, not organizations that perform actions. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should illegal immigrants be given pathway to citizenship? because I thank my opponent for allowing me the pleasure of debating him today. For this debate I shall be arguing from the stand point of why we should allow it, from the purposed status quo of total deportation. I have recently changed my views on this, so I will be arguing from Devil's Advocate in this debate. Economic Factors In this section I will address the economic factors of deportation and how it would destroy the US economy. According to the American Immigration Consil, when it comes to taxes, illegal immigrants pay their fair share. In fact, they have paid a total of $11 billion in taxes. [2] Recent immigration reports have shown that just from last year, the illegal immigration has increased taxation in that year alon by over $2 billion. [3] We can see that the illegal immigration pay taxes and though $11 billion does not seem like much, it is still a huge profit for the federal government who's budget is in a world of hurt with the US debt clock over $19 trillion. The US can use all of the tax money they can. A study by CATO institution found that my opponent's deportation plan would shrink economic growth in the US by $250 billion a year. [4] This is a sure way for the US to sink back into the recession. This would also hurt people at the bottom as for those without high school diplomas and low skilled laborers would have to fill the jobs formerly held by illegals and would drive the wages, as well as the dollar down. Now what does inflation and devaluing the dollar mean for the economy you may ask. Well, people would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [5]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [6] Wages The next key thing we have to look at here is the illegal immigrants jobs as well how they affect the everyday American. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve showed that illegal immigrants, mainly from Latin America, had accounted for a sixth of the US economic growth from 2000-2007. [7] While in the US, illegal immigrants have been supporting their families back home while in the past year, illegal immgirants had sent home $63 billion. [8] This shows that they are not as "heartless" or "lazzy" as my opponent claims they are as it is impoosible to send that much home if you're living on welfare. The CBO reports that if we are to allow illegal immigrants work in the US, they will raise wages in the long hall, but deportation will lead to a decrease of our wages by 0.6%, which despite not sounding like much, is still a significant loss. [9] Deportation With this being my final point I will review the final costs of deportation. If we were to deport ALL illegal immigrants in the US our nation's GDP would drop by $1.6 TRILLION! [10] This is a huge effect on the economy that would sink the US into another Great Depression not to mention all fo the other impacts that I have brought up this round. There is no logical reason why the US should deport all illegal immigrants, but should instead grant amnesty to those here. Sources 2. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 3. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 4. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 5. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 6. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 7. Alan Greenspan, PhD, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, stated in his Apr. 30, 2009 testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security 8. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 9. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) 10. ( http://tinyurl.com... ) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against this is the best conservative estimate of how many planets have complex life like ours: 1429 planets because Another disappointing forfeited debate. Realy if you want a one round debate, just make it one round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not win this debate. because My opponent's counter-plan is to give himself three points to make the debate a tie. However, I shall make sure that he is not online when I post my final argument, so that when I do, I shall immediately be able to give him the three points for Convincing Arguments, as up until that point, he would not have won this debate, and therefore, he would deserve the points. However, once he receives the points, he suddenly no longer deserves them, as the resolution would be negated, and I would instead give the points to myself. After this, I would consider conduct, spelling, grammar, and sources, and allot myself those four points, which means that my opponent really has no chance of a permanent victory, as even the most generous person would have to give me four points and my opponent only three. In conclusion, my opponent shall win this debate immediately after this debate concludes, and therefore, the resolution will be negated, and I shall win this debate at any point beyond that. In fact, my opponent has no hope of permanent victory. Whenever he is winning, the resolution would be negated, and I would deserve the votes, while whenever I am winning, he was already winning, so the votes would stay with me. It's a Catch-22, in which my opponent can't succeed, as temporary victory in this sense would not even be a real success. Well, I've rambled on long enough. With that, I give the floor to my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable. because Thanks to Royal for the debate. I will defend my case and explain why an Aff ballot is in order. My opponent for whatever reason wanted much of he debate to center around the word "desirable" and burdens. Royal writes: "Desirability is about what is ideal, not what is the “best” of all bad alternatives...I also think that it’s unfair for me to have to defend an alternative because there is literally no way to measure the impacts of another country taking power or of a multipolar state." First of all, like the very first round explained desirability is decided by real world application. Desirable is whichever option brings us closer to the ideals we would like to achieve since true perfection is impossible. My opponent and I (thankfully) avoided the values debate, but it should be pretty clear that policies saving lives and promoting economic strength are desirable. Judge the debate on the effects of hegemony. Secondly, her argument regarding her burden is silly. There are lots of arguments in favor of multipolarity, it isnt my fault she chose not to run those arguments. Sure we can never know for certain what the effects of a new hegemon/apolarity would be, but we can speculate with a high degree of certainty. Recall that few if any of her arguments apply specifically to the US and none advocate a competing worldview--they just pick apart perceived weaknesses in US policy with no broad anaysis. I apologize to the readers and voters for having too much of the debate about what desirable means. Multipolarity Royal makes the silly argument that I havent proven that no country could replace the US claiming it was just asserted. Nevermind the fact that she hasnt shown my argument to be false (because it isnt--she cant just say "well Thett MIGHT be wrong" she must prove so), military experts know that the US could annihiliate virtually any other country in a war, including its nearest rival China[1] who's military is 20 years behind the US[2]. She tries to turn this argument, but she again shows no economic impact of military spending and doesnt weigh this against the alternative, and doesnt prove that the US could not have hegemony with lower spending--military spending has declined 5% so far in 2013[3] with no adverse hegemonic effects. Refer also to the empirical fact that military spending has *declined* since the US has solidified its hegemony over the soviets. Her argument about socialism is silly given that US tax rates are the lower now than they have been in nearly 30 years[4] and even the "socialist" policies of Obama, namely healthcare, force citizens to purchase insurance from *private* companies and doesnt seem to understand that the widespread export of US media, companies, and values (like democracy) represent cultural hegemony. She tries to argue that multipolarity is good. First, extend the Arbotav evidence which explains that without a hegemon to put its foot down and each nation having a viable chance of regional hegemony, conflcits including nuclear ones will increase. In fact, Royal makes virtually no response to any of my analysis on this point so you can literally extend it all. Her concession here leads to an Aff ballot--a vast increase in the probability of nuclear war follows multipolarity. Her only argument is that a hegemons allies will use their power to be abusive to other countries: A. This is not a US specific impact, B. This still occurs in a multipolar system, as the great powers will abuse weaker nations more in order to gain hegemony, a typical example would be the scramble for Africa in the late 1800s. The US does exploit nations in rare circumstances, but these are isolated incidents that happen in much lower frequency than they did in multipolar systems. C. She doesnt weigh this at all. Nuclear war and perpetual conflict is a far greater impact. She then argues that multipolarity is inevitable. First, this has no relation to its current desirability. Her only argument is that the US should give up hegemony so that it can "ease the transition" with no plan or explanation as to how to do so, and no impact. Second, actually read her evidence please. It specifically refers to an economic trend of growing GDP in other nations that they forsee CONTINUING to at least 2025. The word hegemony is not even used, all this shows is that other nations have economic power too. Recall that hegemony is over all power, and she agreed that we're talking about the status quo where the US has hegemony. She gains literally no ground here. Her arguments about other countries stopping conflicts shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Other nations definitionally have a lesser ability to solve conflicts because they dont have hegemony--their soft and hard power is weaker. The UN only intervenes successfully with American backing and just because the US doesnt solve every conflict doesnt mean it doesnt solve many more than other cocuntries would be able to. Recall also the (dropped) analysis that the power vacuum would cause an increase in conflicts. Her only actual argument is that the US is stopping Palestine from being recognized as a state--as if statehood would end the millenium old conflict between Jews and Muslims; plus this isnt impacted. Democracy Royal totally drops the unique character of the US and the historical comittment to democracy over autocracy. Her only argument is the historical wrongs the US committed--as if these things still apply to a nation with a black president thats rapidly approaching minority-majority status. When I say egalitarianism I was referring to the equal status of all under the law, a cause the US has done much to further with its cultural hegemony and democracy promotion. Royal gives literally a single legitimate example, but I can concede that that was a dumb decision without undemrining the fact that the general trend of US intervention is strongly democratic. Royal also simply asserts that US hegemony makes western ideology look bad, apparently unaware of the vast liberalization of the eastern bloc and Asia that occurred after the US gained hegemony and doesnt quantify this at all. Moreover she argues that I havent proven that other hegemons will commit genocide, except that I never claimed to prove that they WOULD. My argument was that the countries most likely to take over after the US have committed genocide in recent history and have less accepting cultures than the US so the *probability* of a genocide/exploitation increases. There is simply absolutely no substance behind her arguments here. Prefer the analysis of actual historical facts I offer to her unsourced conjecture. Trade My opponent again misunderstands the nature of the argument because she doesnt understand WHY nations engage in protectionist policies. They do so to protect their industries against foreign competitors and to secure economic advantage over other nations. This would obvously increase with no hegemon. The huge positive effects of free trade come in the long term, and thus are better realized when you have a hegemon encouraging free trade like the US. Compare this to other potential hegemons like China who have huge protectionist policies[5]. Royal also drops the peace impact from this point, so extend that. Her worldbank evidence is irrelevant because A. She doesnt explain it, its completely non-responsive to the argument and B. It isnt referring to multipolarity in the sense of international relations, and it only mentions developing countries, not everyone else. You have a clear path to affirmation. My arguments can all be cleanly extended and are of far greater impact than my opponents are. I have come full circle with my argument,I have demonstrated the necessity in the status quo for a hegemon and why the US is the best and only nation to fill that. Thus you affirm. Thanks again to Royal for the debate Sources: http://www.debate.org... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing because Assuming 9/11 never occurred, we cannot be sure exactly just how well a president GWB would have been. Obviously his decisions and actions would have been drastically different in some cases, and terribly similar in others. Therefore all we can do is examine his policies during his tenure as President thus far. I'll admit I was a little apprehensive about the topic of debate when I first came across it, however, after reading Round 1 it became pretty clear what my opponent's position and main arguments in this debate would be: "George W. Bush's legacy, his performance, and his reputation are all the products of the unfortunate events that took place during his administration. The events that we had little if any control over // George W. Bush's administration performed poorly because Bush was given a unexpected task that he was unqualified to accomplish..." Although I agree that Bush's legacy (as a horrible president), performance and reputation are all the products of unfortunate events, I disagree that "we" a.k.a. the Bush Administration had little to no control over them. Furthermore, I do not agree that Bush's poor performance should be attributed to the fact that he was given an "unexpected task" that he was "unqualified to accomplish" as my opponent has pointed out. The President of the United States of America; the Commander in Chief of the greatest army and greatest super power in the world, SHOULD be *qualified* to accomplish any unexpected tasks. If not, they are not a good candidate for the Presidency as the topic of debate claims. I also disagree that the attacks of 9/11 were unexpected. Buzzflash.com cites upwards of 40 articles from various credible sources that claim Bush did in fact know about the attacks, or at least had fair warning. For example, "CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden's intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press's John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools — a warning that went unheeded" ( http://www.inthesetimes.com... ). Because of all the undisputable evidence (even the White House couldn't refute it), it is more than fair to say that Bush - at the very least - failed to take appropriate action given the situation prior to 9/11. I think this dismantles my opponent's claims that the attacks that destroyed Bush and his credibility were unexpected and out of our control. In that case, obviously Bush was not a "good candidate" because he allowed the terrible tragedy of 9/11 to occur in the first place. Taking a look at the country today and the country before George W. Bush's tenure in office, my opponent noted some of the successes the U.S. had going for itself including the growing economy, high employment rate, and record number of home ownership. Today, Bush and his policies have spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury (he acquired the biggest annual deficit in history), over 2 million Americans lost their jobs during the first 2 years of Bush's presidency (not to mention he cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans), and he presided over the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period. Now my opponent has said, "We needed a president who could maintain and even feed our success." But obviously Bush didn't feed our success at all or even sustain it. In fact, he set us back big time... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If Pro wishes to argue that a lot of our spending has been dispersed to the military due to our involvement in Iraq, very well. I would agree with him, obviously. However how does that tie into the "unexpected" event of 9/11? Bush's choice to go against the U.N. and proceed with the war was a choice that he made and one that I argue contributed to the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that claimed going to war with Iraq was his goal all along. Throw into the mix the Halliburton scandals and the fact that the Pentagon admitted there was absolutely no relation between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and al Qaeda, and it all leads back to the fact that GWB made awful decisions that hurt the U.S. both abroad and domestically COMPLETELY UNNECESSARILY... meaning he would have made poor and hurtful decisions regardless. Thus my point is that even if the attacks of 9/11 WERE unforseeable, Bush's response was the wrong one and his actions, in fact, *did* hurt America so why should his "legacy" say otherwise? I don't believe that he had an "unlucky break" but rather did an incredibly bad job at leading this country both before and after the attacks of 9/11. His actions were and are full of corruption, lies, deceitfulness, scare tactics and scandal. And a President who is willing to go to any extreme to promote their own agenda is a BAD candidate for the Presidency regardless of the times. On that note, I would like to move away from 9/11 and Iraq and focus instead on domestic issues since my opponent stresses that this is GWB's supposed strong point. Because home ownership foreclosures are a huge problem in this country at present, I would like to include a fellow debater's stance on GWB's chosen policy on how to go about helping citizens. "Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers" - HandsOff. Bush's decision to assist those in said situation is just one of many in which Bush's ideology opposes that of most Conservatives, making him a bad represenative of the party. In fact, GWB set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending INCREASES, more than any president in US history. That is clearly not a Conservative position. Perhaps a Republican being elected to office in the year 2000 would have been great for this country, but *NOT* George W. Bush. Moving away from the economy (though it's hard because he made countless mistakes in this area), some other Bush failures include setting the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television, signing more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history, presiding over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed, presiding over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have, dissolved more treaties than any president in US history, presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world, refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions (I do consider this as a domestic issue)... [Source: http://www.buzzflash.com... ] Now, I gotta be honest. My intention for the rest of the round was to go on listing dozens upon dozens of broken promises, mistakes and failures of George W. Bush. All domestic, all relavent. But what's the point? We all get the jist of it. He sucks. And granted many presidents before GWB have screwed up in the past. I agree with my opponent that GWB is not the worst president in US history as many people ignorantly assume. However the Pro's argument in this debate about GWB just being an unlucky guy is absurd. A president should be prepared to take on everything that comes with the position, the good and the bad. Also, many of GWB's F-ups had little to nothing to do with foreign policy. In conclusion, if we stray from my opponent's argument for a little bit and examine GWB just as a presidential candidate, I feel we should also note that "[Bush] became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of [his] fathers appointments to the Supreme Court." - Kelley Kramer. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Intelligent Design should be taught in school because School- a large number of fish, porpoises, whales, or the like, feeding or migrating together. Just kidding. I will however start by defining what my opponent has failed to, and go over his observation. He is now limiting the debate to Biology classes. This foul play, and overly abusive to the negative side. Was "biology" in the resolution that I agreed to debate? No. The negative cannot now throw in this curve ball. School- An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age, offering a variety of courses. Should- must; ought Taught- to impart knowledge of or skill in Intelligent Design- The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. My argument will be brief, and to the point. In schools, the course of Theology, or the like, is often offered as an elective. At schools, children are to be instructed by their teachers in their respective subjects. In Theology Class, one must be instructed in ID if one is to understand modern Theology. If a student was not taught ID, the teacher, and the school would not be achieving their goals to instruct. Therefore, ID MUST be taught in schools, else the system fails. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because Definitions - Humane: Characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed. Rights: Entitlements. Some rights (human rights) belong to everyone by virtue of being human; some rights (legal rights) belong to people by virtue of their belonging to a particular political state. 1. Animals do not have rights and it is highly unlikely they will ever have rights. This is because they are incapable of being rational. Fair enough, there is nothing that can be done about it. 2. Rights are Man made. If it wasn't for Man, there would be no need for 'Rights'. Rights are put into place to ensure the civility of human-kind. 3. Animals have something called 'Freedoms'. These are not 'rights' but moral guidelines for people. They are guidelines to ensure good animal welfare. A human (as they are conscious) should abide by them, as no human should want to hurt another living being, human or animal. The 5 Animal Freedoms: 1. Freedom from discomfort. 2. Freedom to express natural behaviour. 3. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. 4. Freedom from pain and suffering. 5. Freedom injury and disease. Docking and cropping defies the point of these Freedoms. 4. Animals, by definition, are indeed amoral. However, humans are not. Dogs are the owners responsibility. Docking and cropping is inhumane. 5. Cropping ears in many cases leads to infections. Docking tails can lead to genital problems if done incorrectly. Any type of surgery to remove ears or tails holds a high risk of infections and disease. This will inevitably cause the dog pain and suffering. 6. Docking for medical reasons is justified. Docking for the sake of it, is not. -- Owners are responsible for their pets. Dogs are amoral; however, their owners are not, which makes the decision of docking and cropping purely for aesthetic reasons inhumane, therefore immoral. -- <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against fairy vs demon because Thank you for finally taking up this debate. 1. Wikipedia, however, also offers us that fairies were: " Demoted angels A third belief held that they were a class of "demoted" angels. One popular story held that when the angels revolted, God ordered the gates shut; those still in heaven remained angels, those in hell became devils, and those caught in between became fairies.Others held that they had been thrown out of heaven, not being good enough, but they were not evil enough for hell. This may explain the tradition that they had to pay a "teind" or tithe to Hell. As fallen angels, though not quite devils, they could be seen as subject of the Devil." (This implies that fairies are not as impure as demons, but still to impure to remain in heaven. Note: the resolution is fairy vs DEMON, who, as an evil angel and member of the devil's party, is not the same as the devil, or the trickster, himself. Nevertheless, that is why fairies might be more powerful than demons since as a demoted class of angels who neither fear the church bells (" Disassociating himself from such evils may be why Oberon, in A Midsummer Night's Dream , carefully observed that neither he nor his court feared the church bells"--Wikipedia again) and possibly neither the cross, or holy symbols as much as demons. William Shakespeare depicts Oberon, the king of the fairies, and Titania as having immense powers who while debating with each other over the Indian boy she has taken. Titania mentions how: "Therefore the winds, piping to us in vain, As in revenge, have suck'd up from the sea Effect on wind and air Contagious fogs; which falling in the land Have every pelting river made so proud That they have overborne their continents: The ox hath therefore stretch'd his yoke in vain, The ploughman lost his sweat, and the green corn Hath rotted ere his youth attain'd a beard; Power over agriculture and land The fold stands empty in the drowned field, And crows are fatted with the murrion flock; The nine men's morris is fill'd up with mud, And the quaint mazes in the wanton green For lack of tread are undistinguishable: The human mortals want their winter here; No night is now with hymn or carol blest: Therefore the moon, the governess of floods, Pale in her anger, washes all the air, (Power over water and tides and floods?) That rheumatic diseases do abound: (power over diseases?) And thorough this distemperature we see The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts Far in the fresh lap of the crimson rose, And on old Hiems' thin and icy crown An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds Is, as in mockery, set: the spring, the summer, The childing autumn, angry winter, change Their wonted liveries, and the mazed world, By their increase, now knows not which is which: And this same progeny of evils comes From our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. (Act 2, Scene 1)" It is clear that fairies aren't the little girls who "mended pots and kettles" or had a dialogue "the sounds of a tinking bell". Nor are the demons truly that powerful either. Wikipedia also states that fairies may also be: "Another theory is that the fairies were originally worshiped as gods, but with the coming of Christianity, they lived on, in a dwindled state of power, in folk belief. In this particular time, fairies were reputed by the church as being 'evil' beings. Many beings who are described as deities in older tales are described as "fairies" in more recent writings. Victorian explanations of mythology, which accounted for all gods as metaphors for natural events that had come to be taken literally, explained them as metaphors for the night sky and stars.According to this theory, fairies are personified aspects of nature and deified abstract concepts such as love and ‘victory’ in the pantheon of the particular form of animistic nature worship reconstructed as the religion of Ancient Western Europe." (Wikipedia, the "unimpeachable source). Dictionary.com states that a "god" is: a supreme being according to some particular conception and who presides over human affairs. A demon, drawing again from the same unimpeachable source, Wikipedia, it is said that: "Demons are believed to have the power to physically or mentally hurt people, but only within the boundaries of what God will allow. Demons can destroy any material on the earth; these supernatural powers are always inferior to the power of God. God may use His will to cancel or destroy any effect the demon chooses to invoke. According to the gospels, Jesus also had full power over demons, and they always obeyed his commands when he told them what to do, as opposed to a more general sense in which demons only do that which God tells them to. Demons, assumably, are granted permission to test, bring about trials, and to tempt people through the use of their destructive powers, to make people prove their faith, sometimes as a means to carry out the will of the Lord." There are many implications that one can make from this quote from Wikipedia. First is that a demon is not supreme, but flawed, especially in its boundary to inflict harm on the grounds of the Lord. (This limits all of their abilities, including the ones that you quoted about: planting seeds in virgins, witchcraft, invulnerability to fire, commanding or shooting fre, coercion, soul stealing, in what the Lord permits as a part of the Grand Design. I do not see how the Lord would permit, if we accept this, the demon to harm fairies, who are either demoted angels or even pagan gods that have submitted to his own rule. The power difference between the pagan god and the demon is somewhat firmly established. I call the myth of Lamia, regarded as the equivalent to Lilith, the bird woman (?) of Gilgamesh, who was cursed by Hera, the goddess of the heavens and the wife of Zeus, to kill her own children, while given by Zeus the ability to remove her own eyes in and out. (Wikipedia, "Lamia"). If we were to accept classical mythology (which was why I called the debate "strict",, meaning that it pertained to only certain parts of mythology and interpreation), then it seems that the pagan gods are more powerful than the demons. (And, the examples of the power of the pagan gods include control over natural world (sun, moon, nature, river, and so on--all a part of animism) and so on. So it seems that fairies weren't always so goody goody or weak, CON. By the way, I will give a contradiction of my own that I will let the voters resolve. In the opening argument, I asked Con to adhere to the fact that "remember, this is a purely strict debate. Classical mythology, and other religious mythologies, may be used to back up one's claims. In the end, the ultimate goal is to provide enough evidence whether or not older mythologies (not that of shows or comics--please) demonstrate which of the two, the fairy or demon, is more powerful and superior." CON disobeyed this by introducing the image of Tinker Bell and modern interpretations of fairies as "miniature cute girls with wings", both of which are not found in "classical" (from ancient to Renaissance times) mythology [Tinkerbell is from the 1911 novel Peter Pan.] I hope CON uses more traditional sources later on in the debate. I look forward for CON's argument and rebuttal. [Fairies' vulnerbility to rowan is not necessarily hindersome. There are several churches and monasteries in North America (which: Mexico: 95% United States: 79% Canada: 77%) And it is a common feature for holy symbols and possibly even the Scriptures in the homes of the pious. So maybe being afraid of holy objects isn't such a "big deal" after all.] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them. because I thank my opponent for his response but I would like to point out that he broke his promise. Again, he has devoted the majority of his argument to deliberately mislead the audience and repeat arguments that I have already debunked. My opponent has also decided to comment on the layout of my argument, claiming that it is unclear. Thankfully, it is not my job to continuously reduce the level of my response to suit my opponent's ever decreasing bar. Since I am certain that the audience understands my layout and that it is clear enough, I shall thank my opponent for his advice but opt not to change my style. The layout of my final response shall be as such: 1. Final comment on "Epistemology" 2. Final comment on "Fossil Interpretation" 3. Final comment on "Transitional Fossils" 4. Darwin's History from Round 1 5. Conclusion EPISTEMOLOGY My opponent has said many things on this topic. Mostly, he has been rehashing his argument over and over again, with practically no changes. By rehashing his argument in mild amounts and accusing me of misunderstanding it when I clearly did not, he avoided responding to each and every single one of the fallacies I pointed out. Here they are in order: Fallacies: R1. Non Sequitor-Our senses need not direct us to ultimate 100% unquestionable certainty Flawed Premise- The fact that we cannot trust our existence/senses is irrelevant because even if we decide to accept God as validation that our senses are perfect, that does not erase the fact that people still do suffer from imperfect senses. R2. Begging the Question-My opponent says that humans would not deserve knowledge if they evolved from lower life forms. However, this runs under the assumption that knowledge is not a natural thing, but a supernatural thing. Assuming the supernatural is begging the question. R3. Flawed Premise I- My opponent says that we cannot trust our senses because we are individuals who have evolved, and that since we are individuals, we cannot rely on technology to validate our experiences. However, evolution deals with the species, not the individual, thus, this argument fails. Flawed Premise II- The above argument also has a premise that is unsubstantiated. There is technology that we can discover as individuals, thus, my opponent's restriction fails as well. Red Herring- My opponent brings up children thinking simple thoughts when this does not apply to his resolution. This has nothing to do with God or Evolution. INTERPRETATION OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE My opponent has also rehashed this argument several times. First, he says that fossils are useless because they do not provide exact information, only interpretable information. Second, he says that it is fallible because fossils have proven that dinosaurs and man have coexisted. In this round, he starts off stating that his proof stands, while completely ignoring the sources I cited showing that his dino-claims are completely false. He then cites that T-Rex blood shows that dinosaurs existed up until recently, and that tracks near trilobites fossils show a young human history. This section is more based on lies than actual logical fallacies. I will list them here. 1. Evolutionists struggle with fossil evidence- FALSE. There is no controversy or struggle, because science corrects itself. 2. Fossils represent just the individual organism- FALSE. Finding multiple fossils structured the same way and with small differences in strata of several hundred thousand years time shows that a fossil represents the species, not the individual alone. 3. The Taylor, McFall, and New Mexico trail show humans existed with Dinosaurs- FALSE, I have provided many sources debunking these. 4. The geologic column provides evidence for a global flood- FALSE, I provide many examples and a source detailing all the ways that it shows a geologic flood to be IMPOSSIBLE. My opponent only provided assumptions with no source or citation. 5. T-Rex blood has been found, showing that dinosaurs were not extinct that long ago-FALSE, this is the source my opponent did not cite, but has forced me to research on my own: http://www.talkorigins.org... The hemoglobin was not intact, neither was soft tissue nor complete blood vessels. This is a complete and total lie, the bone was fossilized with remnants of what could have been hemoglobin fragments and an insignificant portion of organic material. The researcher himself said that all of the discoveries were tentative and should not be taken too seriously. The bone was also dated back to regular T-Rex age by amino racemization, a complex nonradiometric technique: http://pubs.acs.org... 6. Trilobite tracks were found preserved in stone. This is again completely FALSE. Here is the source I needed to find myself http://www.talkorigins.org... The tracks are nothing artificial, and were produced by natural processes. In addition, if it were a global flood causing this fossilization, the tracks would have been washed away by the flood. 7. There are fossils of creatures giving birth, fighting, and eating, thus, the flood must be responsible- FALSE. Things are dead before they are fossilized I don't recall any evidence of what my opponent describes. However, we know that his explanation is wrong because if the flood were the cause instead, all fossils would be of things DROWNING, not giving birth, eating, or fighting. 8. Fossils are misplaced, so the geological strata must be a lie- FALSE, things will shift due to natural occurrences. There are only around 200 fossils that are "misplaced" out of 250 MILLION fossils found and dated correctly, and of those 200 fossils, most of them are explained. TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS: My opponent refuses to clarify on a scientific definition of "kind", basically because there is none. A species is scientifically defined and evolutionarily relevant because with nearly no exceptions, life cannot produce fertile offspring outside their species. The designation of "kind" has absolutely no scientific or objective impact, thus, it has no barrier. My opponent's analogy of walking vs flying is a bad analogy because we can tell the difference between walking and flying. What limits microevolution from turning into macroevolution? Absolutely nothing that my opponent has stated. His final piece of evidence, that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species, is useless because I never argued that it was. My source also did not cite it as a transitional fossil. DARWIN'S HISTORY Logical Fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem http://www.nizkor.org... My opponent's argument is an attack on Darwin's personality and history, not an attack on Darwin's scientific contributions. 2. False analogy http://www.onegoodmove.org... My opponent's parallels between Adam and Darwin are similar but not exact. Any logical conclusion to be drawn between them is logically invalid. 3. Flawed Premises and Biased presentation Darwin's father ultimately gave permission after he was convinced by his brother-in-law Josiah Wedgewood. http://en.wikipedia.org... Darwin never concluded that there was no God, so my opponent's claim of Atheism is a lie. In addition, the death of Anne Darwin had no relevance. This source indicates that Darwin blamed natural selection more than God because he was concerned about inbreeding as he married his cousin. http://en.wikipedia.org... *** And thus, my opponent has absolutely nothing left. Not even his introductory Darwin history. There is not a single point I have not completely debunked and provided evidence for, even though my opponent has decided to ignore over 75% of my sources. Since my opponent has not met his burden and I have made my point clear, I urge a CON vote. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Illuminati Existance Debate because My opponent has failed to provide any arguments once again. Argument extended. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should we put constraint on media for national security because I think I can extend all my arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Electoral College is Misrepresentative because I thank my opponent for his response. My opponent is attempting to argue something completely absurd. The resolution clearly states that we are discussing the following issue: "The Electoral College is Misrepresentative" I am arguing on the CON side, the electoral college is *not* misrepresentative of the current system of electing a president to office. The current system of electing a president to office is via electoral college. Therefore, to say that the electoral college misrepresents itself is to suggest that it is in some way muddy, ambiguous, or erroneous in its calculations. I have shown that this simply is not the case. http://www.howstuffworks.com... While I agree that there was a slight technical difficulty in the 2000 election, it was only because the election was so tight. In addition, a conclusion was reached and the results were clear: The electoral votes were spelled out clear as day. The votes were tallied according to state and voila, you have a very clear-cut picture of how the electoral college is represented. And here is the list of electoral votes for the 2000 election, crystal clear and in black and white. http://www.archives.gov... As you can see, there is no misrepresentation. Each electoral vote was tallied and accounted for, no electoral vote went missing, and no electoral vote was counted twice. There are no errors, no misrepresentations. My opponent only has one counterargument, which is more a question than a counterargument: "How can the electoral college be representative of the American people when it fails to elect the President more Americans voted for?" The answer to this question is painfully obvious. Our method of choosing a president is based on the electoral college, not on the popular vote. This is common knowledge. So as an obvious conclusion, the Electoral college is representative of the American election of a president because it is THE METHOD by which we elect a president. My opponent has not offered any other counterargument and I have upheld my burden. I await my opponent's final response and will conclude. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because Hello again and much thanks to my opponent for his nimble footed rebuttal and his answers to the final set of questions. I think it is obvious that Pro is not being entirely honest with us in his claim of mistaken identity regarding communist writer Karl Marx. He has admitted as much in the comments section and I think the idea that a young American (with a lot of interest in politics but whose idea of good music is Jimmy Buffett) would be more familiar with the 20th century composer than the revolutionary thinker is clearly ludicrous. Further circumstantial evidence can be found from the fact that it is the Marx of Marxism that my opponent's Wiki link actually leads to rather than the Marx known for his choral compositions. The fact that a link posted to the composer actually redirects to the philosopher clearly demonstrates who is more well known. I've tried reposting the link to the composer's page myself, it doesn't work. I suggest readers navigate through the top entry on this link: http://www.google.co.uk... Moreover I think I could reasonably argue that Pro's answer to the "Do you agree with anything..." question rules out his agreement with ANYONE bearing the name Karl Marx as I have already demonstrated at length. In the interests of humouring my opponent I shall however now prove that, according to several of his answers, my opponent does in fact agree with Karl Marx the composer (hereafter referred to as KM-C) on many things. KM-C was a devoted student of natural science before deciding on a career in music. As such he would definitely agree with my opponent on the following points: Q. Is the world round? A. Yes. Q. Does gravity exist? A. Yes. As a devout Christian who wrote many choral pieces in worship, I am also sure KM-C would agree with the following too: Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? A. Yes. Q. Do you sin? A. Yes. I can find no information on whether KM-C was pro-choice or pro-life but it is fair to say whichever position he holds he must agree with one of the following: Q. Are you pro-life? A. Yes. Or, Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? A. Yes. As a sometime supporter of National Socialism KM-C would also surely have been Pro-labour unions and Pro-death penalty as well as believing that all people do not have an equal right to life. My opponent has clearly contradicted himself because there is no doubt that he agrees with all people called Karl Marx on at least one thing. No matter what our beliefs are, we can all find common ground somewhere, to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction. ---- In addition I believe Pro has broken the rules in his last post. By answering "I don't know" to questions he could easily have researched on, Pro has failed to answer these simple questions or provide an explanation why Yes or No is not sufficient. According to the rules this means he should automatically lose, although he already has of course due to his contradictions. --- A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God, not the imperfect and flawed NKJV. "Footnotes: 1. Exodus 20:13 The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence" http://www.biblegateway.com... The Hebrew word 'XRC' or 'Ratsach' (spellings of transliterated Hebrew may vary) that is used in Ex 20:13 does include the concept of murder but is clearly a much wider term for almost any kind of killing including as an act of vengeance and clearly including execution. http://www.biblestudytools.com... If a Hebrew writer wanted to specify murder or unlawful killing they would have used the word 'GRH' or 'Harag'. http://www.biblestudytools.com... My opponent also ignores the issue of the death penalty going against Jesus' message of forgiveness. --- "I can be Pro-Life for innocent lives, but Pro-Death for guilty ones." I maintain that this is a clear contradiction and Pro did not qualify his pro-life stance as only applying to the innocent, he merely answered yes. Further more he has compounded this contradiction as he already claimed that the living (all guilty to a true Christian) have more right to life than the unborn (innocent). Q. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn? A. Yes. --- I urge voters to click on my opponent's Merriam Webster definition of human: http://www.merriam-webster.com... They will see that the definition he picks out is the last and most obscure definition (the only one that needs an example to explain the context). It is actually a sub definition 'b)' tagged onto the following: "having human form or attributes". Clearly in any conventional sense of this definition as well as the other two more standard ones, true Christians believe Jesus was human. Also, he may never have sinned but the whole point was that by becoming human he made himself "susceptible" to sin, pain, death and all the other attributes of the human condition. His ability to resist temptation was significant for the very reason that he was "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature". ---- I don't believe there can be any doubt that my opponent has lost this debate/game, although that will of course be up to the voters to decide. Thankyou. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable because The proposition is certainly not negated. 1. Con parades over the fact that I did not comment or respond to his claims of historical societies being temporarily sustained by unregulated "free markets". The reason why I did not respond to his remarks is merely because I do not see how historical basically ancient societies that existed before the birth of the modern corporation can have any relevance towards our current capitalist society. 2. If free markets so willingly acknowledge the role of government, then why do they constantly breed the activity of disregarding and undermine governmental regulation and legislation. (Let alone undermine our democracy) http://www.poclad.org... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The modern day corporation is what my opponent advocates. A corporatist society. Globalization.. His only contrary examples for comparison to his ideal economic system that being the deregulated "free" market, are the systems that which were under Mao.. Which in reality is a system of fascism, not at all in relevance to communist philosophy. Con uses this as a means to de-bunk regulation and all it represents. However let me list a couple examples of where regulations do in fact matter and are indeed a major force of good. Regulation for nursing- Require fair and ethical practices. Protects health, safety and welfare of the public vulnerable from unsafe practitioners. Regulations for daycare- Make major contributions towards improving child development and quality of care. http://www.childcareonly.com... Fallowing regulatory agencies that have improved the standards of living. *Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service* *Consumer Product Safety Commission* *Department of Veterans Affairs* *Employment Standards Administration* *Environmental Protection Agency* *Equal Employment Opportunity Commission* *Farm Credit Administration* *Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy* *Food and Drug Administration* *Nuclear Regulatory Commission* So indeed when con goes off on how poor contributions to society regulations make; con is in fact false. In addition, here is an article on the general base of regulation and the public interests. http://www.bsos.umd.edu... *This an extremely dangerous combination of characteristics that create an unsustainable society. FACT: The United States makes up approximately 5% of the worlds population and consumes up to a horrifying 24% if its resources. This is a direct result of the modern day "deregulated free market society". A society based upon self indulgence, and no sense of collectivism is not sustainable for society. Source for claim: http://www.mindfully.org... Here's sources for the same claim in case con wishes to challenge its legitimacy .. http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.theinsider.org... FOR THE RECORD: I have in fact listed several arguments WITH mind you an overwhelming amount of sources for said claims. Con admittedly replies that he simply declines to bother to glance at any of my sources. "Pro invites me to read a bunch of websites and make a valid case for him. I decline." Now lets move on to the focus of the modern day corporation. For this artificial immoral entity is what makes up this unsustainable deregulated free market. For starters, the corporation is a power hungry force that was created under two very simple premises. To make as much profit as possible and at the same time have as little as accountability or liability for its actions. The corporation is an antagonist of an entity that is self-destructive and flat out harmful to society. To help con meet eye to eye with my perspective I will use the words of his own idol; The Nobel prize winning economist Milton Freidman "Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be." THIS quote completely debunks the idea of corporations being a identified as a legal person. However in the eyes of the law they have been in fact given the legal status as a person. A long time ago, corporations used to be a force of the community to build infrastructure. (Publicly controlled) Corporations were not allowed to buy and sell virtually anything! But all of that changed during the civil war to industrial revolution. The modern corporation was born.. During this time, newly free'd slaves have be benevolent on the current liberation. Unfortunately what they did not realize at this time was that the United States government was being undermined by a specific group of lawyers.. These lawyers were representing corporations. For what purpose you might ask? For more power.. And at this time I'm sure there were a lot of people like Roy who most likely felt this was a time of great "corporate liberation" but in reality this was a time enslavement against the underclass of society and the further aggravating oppression against workers all across the nation. Richard Grossman, the founder of POCLAD, (Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy) elaborates on the harms corporations have contributed to manipulate late and further corrupt our democracy. http://www.poclad.org... In defense of the corporations, I think it is in fact appropriate to distinguish those who contribute to society from those who don't. Yes it is true that there business leaders in the world today who are not consumed with money, and whom do care about the environment and do care about societal issues. And have indeed made very beneficial contributions to society. HOWEVER, these select few of the corporate world are completely made insignificant when analyzing the rest of the multi-national corporates harms. On top of that, let me add that its not the individuals in particular whom I claim to be unsustainable, its the system. Top business leader and captain of industry, Ray Anderson, founder of Interface Global Leadership Team recognizes that our current system is indisputably unsustainable. For more info : http://www.interfaceglobal.com... *THE BIG PICTURE* In conclusion, we are currently living in a society that has a veil of ignorance. A world filled with great injustices at every corner. A world filled with poverty, war, pollution and manipulation. The deregulated "free" market is the direct source of all these problems. Corporations care nothing to fight poverty and those whom advocate it do nothing to combat it as well; Matter in fact are manipulated to the point where they view fighting poverty is wrong. Without a doubt the previous statements I have just most likely made Tea baggers giggle with joy. And to them I just want to say, that I'm not alone.Like it or not culture objects this system. From the injustices towards are gross and sickening income inequality in this country, to the exploitation of workers all across the world, too even our fricken source of food which have become genetically modified and extremely unhealthy for our society just for the sake of cheaper costs.. Con brags about the quote "cheaper prices" corporations bring him and fill him with absolute joy.. Well those prices are low for a reason, they're low because they pay their workers sh*t and do not make products with quality in mind whatsoever. And finally, to those whom object government and object regulation.. I'd just like to say that you're ALLOWED to participate in your government, you are not however allowed to participate in corporations actions. (They are NOT democratic) So don't fear government..You live in America.. Be happy.. Believe in PUBLIC interests not PRIVATE, and you will have achieved sustainability. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pink Floyd, The wall vs Dark Side of the Moon. because Accepted, I just feel we shouldn't have to create a new debate for sources. I feel writing "sources in comments" should be fine. Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons because oh get lost , you make rediculous statements , " people that rape aren't required to use protection , believe it or not " ...... high schoolers have children yet they are not sterilized , you idiot , if this high school pupil is I guess below 18 then its illegal ! But you cant sterilize them , or you wont have a next generation... When will you realise I am not insulting somebody who is mentally retarded , but merely pointing out the facts , These people deserve a great life , we owe it to them I guess . One thign they should not be allowed to do I'm afraid to say is have children as for some reason you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED ME why a child should be born into this kind of life , huh ? answer me . Why should a child suffer being born to two mentally retarded parents dn he himself might be also mentally handicapped ? Get off your political correct bandwagon and open your eyes , what are you going to say next , all blind people have the right to drive just like everybody else ? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Saitama is stronger than Goku. because Opponent forfeited <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because With everything that's done comes advantages and disadvantages. A person must see whether there are more advantages to something before deciding on whether or not to go through with it. In this case, if IVF is done, the couple (or woman) undergoing the procedure know the risks that come with undergoing the procedure. Since it IVF is known to be a rather expensive procedure, people partaking in it are told the risks. Sher Facility's founder, Dr. Geoffrey Sher, also gives treatments to women who are undergoing the procedure and having difficulties with it (Sher). Sher, Geoffrey. "IVF Case Study: Recurrent IVF Failure - Embryo Banking | IVF Authority." Sher Fertility Clinics. 2011. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://haveababy.com... . <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable because It appears I'm going to have to make some clarifications.. 1. When stating there being an alarming growth of an intertwining system of both the private sector (i.e. Wall street) and the government.. That addresses the issue of a too powerful private sector and NOT government. But con simply does not view it this way because he clearly is a lover the Reagan mentality of government. (Little side track:Probably one of the most overrated U.S. presidents...ever) Meaning that, no matter how overpowering of a hold corporate America has on it's federal government, he does not, will not, nor will he ever view this as a problem of private enterprise. He will view it as a problem of federal government. Thus showing this little feud is really just a matter of misconception. 2. Con stated the markets hold producers accountable because apparently in every "free market transaction", both parties benefit. Yikes. I would hope that con really was meaning for that statement to be directed to domestic transactions, if so, that he may have a point. However, on foreign transactions, occurring between impoverished nations and our dangerously overpowering private sectors I'm afraid he's wrong. Certain terms come up when talking about foreign transactions with our private industries.. Slave labor.. Human Trafficking.. Terms that really I would hope that the general public would consider bad and certainly NOT a benefit by any means. I hate to over use an example but hey when talking about the harms of the free market, of course your going to come across Walmart quite frequently. http://humantrafficking.change.org... Also some other great links with relevance to labor- http://www.humantrafficking.org... http://ihscslnews.org... http://www.free2work.org... http://www.hrea.org... And thirdly Con has expressed his feeling about my comments towards Tea-Baggers fallowing up with an unnecessary rant about Obama and I'm guessing insinuating that I am one of his "Pinko-Commi Allies" and there for, should be outed as such. Well, to clarify I did not mention the president ONCE in my opening statement nor did I ever applaud any particular action under his administration. Matter in fact, I happen to think Obama is quite the poor president as well, but for obviously very different reasons. Yes Obama is a major tool to Wall street that's a pretty well known piece of knowledge. And as far as foreign policy goes, the difference between him and bush are practically invisible. I'm sure con believes Obama is a "far-left" president with a "socialist" agenda.. Well I'm here to tell you, as someone who considers them self to be a pretty far left individual and have a rather socialist ideology, that President Barrack Obama is not far left by any means. He is bullsh*t artist of a politician, who is a horrible centrist and is in fact a faux-liberal and runs under the title of being a "revolutionary". To say that Obama is a tool to corporate America and Wall street, and at the same time call him a socialist are two very contradicting claims. He CLEARY favors big business just as usual for every American president. And if you think just running my mouth, here's an article of out spoken ACTUAL socialists who debunk that notoriously retarded of a claim. http://www.politicsdaily.com... Now lets get back on topic: Is the deregulated free market sustainable? In order to believe that it is in fact sustainable for humanity then you must have some certain beliefs. You would have to beleif that profit motivation is the best means of motivation for society. I argue that it's actually quite unhealthy for society and leads to very unnecessary problems. Another mind set one must have in order to defend the deregulated "free" market of being sustainable for humanity is to have a major distrust towards government and a love affair for private enterprise. (Might I point out a government that has a constitution and a promise to promote the general welfare.) I'm going to summarize a short list of examples that will elaborate my "grass-root" argument of making the case that the deregulated free-market is in fact UNSUSTAINABLE. a. Grows a manipulated generation of masses that in affect harm society and do not participate nor practice democracy. http://tvnewslies.org... b. Has a repeating history of anti-trust violations and sound frequency of unlawful acts to society. http://www.corporatewatch.org... c. Places profits before people. http://www.personsinc.org... d. Manipulates the public opinion and the very aspect of the life. http://www.adbusters.org... e. Uses think-tanks and lobbying to in a sense create a war on democracy. http://www.prwatch.org... f. Undermines journalism. http://foxbghsuit.com... g. Breeds poverty. http://www.socialistalternative.org... Now as a last statement, I would just like to point out that to see proof of our current system not being sustainable can be done by just a self evaluation. Look at your life, how big of a role do corporations play in it? And ask yourself, In a world were we slap prices on LIVING NECESSITIES, (emphases on the LIVING aspect..) is that by any means just or moral? And can we pursue such a society that primary revolves around the almighty dollar? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The egg came before the chicken. because First off, I do believe that my opponent here was believe to be quoting Genesis 1:20 not Genesis 19:20. Next is the plausibility of my previous statement that chicken-like (or what are now going to be refereed to as Proto-chickens) created the first chicken egg. It is actually highly plausible and accepted among a vast majority of the scientific community as factual information. Chickens became chickens through a long process of evolution and at a point proto-chickens produced an offspring that had mutation within its DNA. This DNA mutation made this proto-chicken offspring into the chicken we know today. What I am saying is that proto-chickens gave birth to an 'official' chicken. And since that chicken came from an egg that, even though laid by a proto-chicken, did not produce a proto-chicken means that it is a chicken egg not a proto-chicken egg. And since that egg is a chicken egg, that means that the egg did in fact come before the chicken. What I am saying revolves around scientific facts, what I do not want this debate to turn into is creationism vs. evolutionism. You may believe that God created chickens that then laid chicken eggs, but that is not fact, that is opinion. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against .9999 repeating = 1 because Lets get down to business. And to make it easier I will number the arguments 1.Is infinity a number? Infinity is a finite number. All it is the largest number that you can have most people don't conceder it to be a number because you can never count to it because as soon as you the next number would become infinity, but this still means that even if you can't count to infinity it is a number and is finite. To use an example of how infinity can be a finite number, there are infinite number of decimals, fractions, and ratios that are in between the numbers 4 and 5. Now in this example 5 would act as infinity because if you counted each individual value in between these numbers you would never be able to count to 5 because the values would only get closer and close but never becoming 5. Now I hoped that most people got that example but it proves how infinity can exist even if you cannot reach it. a.My opponent's first is attack is against my statement "The first thing that we have to understand that infinity is (despite its name) is a finite number...". Now first I would like to clarify that is statement was meant to ironic and funny not to be a real point. But I can still defend it, the reason that it is called infinity is because we think of it a something that can't be reached even though it is a real number. b.Next my opponent tries to argue that my source doesn't support my claim but I think this quote should work just fine "In mathematics, "infinity" is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number". Also you can cross apply my example from my overview that infinity can be represented as a number in sets. Next he try to say that my sources is so I decided to find some more sources that support what I am saying this also explains the example I give in the overview http://www.c3.lanl.gov... http://www.mathacademy.com... 2.Right hand side left hand side is flawed. With the fact that infinity is a finite number as I explained above this proves that the rhs lhs theory is flawed because when the decimals reach infinity they would stop and by multiplying it by 10 would cause it to have one less decimal causing it not to be equal to 1. And even if you don't believe that infinity is finite I can still prove that the same problem would happen in the rhs lhs theory with an infinite infinity. a. Power of infinity- when it comes to infinity there are different values of infinity. Go back to the example I gave in the first overview about how there a infinite number of values in between 4 and 5, now there is also a infinite values between 4 and 6. But how can there be the same number of values between 4 and 5 and 4 and 6 if the second set contains the first set and should be bigger, that because it is the set of values between 4 and 6 is a higher power of infinity and is bigger the first set. Now when you apply this to the rhs lhs theory he you multiply the .999999… you will still have an infinite number of 9's after the decimal but it still is 1 less the what you originally had because it is a lower power of infinity 3.Why my opponent's math is wrong In this part we have to understand one quick fact and that is that 1/3 does not = .333333…. repeating. This is because in our base 10 system we have no why to represent a 3rd thus when we try to divide 1 by 3 we get a repeating series of 3 but because it is never can divide evenly it will never = 1/3. Now with that said I will attack my opponent's theory, because as I stated above the 1/3 does not = .3333… it cannot be apply in the equation that my opponent uses, instead we have to look at from the only why that we calculate this equation is to use the only way to evenly divide 1 by 3 and that is by using remainders. (for the people who have forgotten how remainders work here is the wiki to remand you http://en.wikipedia.org... ) When we do the same equation with remainders this is what happens 1/3= .3333 remainder 1 1/3 x 3= .3333 remainder 1 x3 1= 1 Because when you multiply the remainder 1 by 3 it allows you to evenly divide it and would cause the last 9 in the sequence to become a 10 because of the added remainder which cause the next 9 to become a 10 because you would carry the one and so on and so on till you get one. This proves that not only is my opponent's flawed it only further proves that 9999… doesn't equal 1 4.More reasons that 9999… doesn't equal 1 a.The number line paradox- if you where to graph both 1 and .9999… they would not be in the same place even if you had the .9999's go to the infinite place it would never be in the same place as one there would always be an infinitely small gap between them that would prevent them from being equal b.The law of the function- a function is a equation that has one value of y for each x. now if .9999… was to equal 1 it would cause 1 value of x being 1 to have 2 y values the first at .9999… and the second at 1 this would cause a problem because that would mean that our number system is not a function. This would prevent .9999… from being 1 because it violates the fact. 5.The burden of proof- earlier my opponent claimed that I have failed to meet my burden of proof this has one major problem and that is that I'm con I don't have a burden of proof the pro does all the con has is the burden of refutation. This brings us to has meet their burden my opponent has attempted to proved proof but have refuted it by showing how his math is flawed and how theory disproves the resolution with substantial evidence to minimal proof that my opponent has proved, because of this you as judges have only one option and that is to negate the resolution that .99999… =1 and vote con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny pictures debate because Lol <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: free family pigeons kept for racing. because It was said that the pigeons owners, Olivia's cousins, were cruel to their animals; however, that "cruelness" came in the form of keeping the pigeons solely for racing instead of as pets. I say - who cares? My opponent writes, "Keeping the birds only for racing and not at all as pets seems to needlessly exploit the animals." Okay, so what about people who own animals solely for show (a fancy fish tank)? Or how about race horses? They're worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - would it be okay to free them from their "cruel" owners who keep them solely to race? People own pets for a lot of reasons, and as long as those pets are kept safe and comfortable, nobody has the right to take those pets away. If Olivia's cousins owned dogs and used them in dog fights, that would be inhumane, as the dogs only exist to fight and kill. However pigeons are not dogs and pigeon racing is not dog fighting. There are only so many ways you can play with a pigeon. Frankly I'm not sure I would even notice if a pigeon was kept as a pet or only for racing. Birds stay in cages. If Olivia's cousins keep their pigeons safely in an appropriate cage (which Pro's opening argument implied that they did), then who cares if those pigeons aren't being... played with enough? If we can remove someone's animal because they intend to solely race it instead of keeping it as a pet, does this mean we can raid every farm and/or slaughter house and take THOSE animals too?! Those animals aren't kept for racing - they're kept solely for us to kill and eventually eat. Something tells me that the practices of slaughter houses are far more tragic than those of Olivia's cousins, yet to consider releasing those animals is - for the most part - considered out of the question. Yes, animals and nature have a value that people must protect, but the question is: to what extent? People also have rights including the right to property, and as far as I'm concerned, those pigeons belong to Olivia's cousins -- to free them would be a terrible injustice to responsible pet owners. Though a little cold (or maybe they just don't like pigeons), the cousins have done nothing to warrant taking their property. Not only have they kept and trained and maintained the livelihood of a few racing pigeons, but they are also very nice people (note the amount of times it was pointed out that Olivia's cousins are nice to her). I'm not a religious person, though I do believe it is quoted somewhere that "Thou shall not steal." In fact, this is commanded. For those of us who are a little more secular, consider the words of our Founding Fathers who spoke of our right to property. Are these pigeons not property? The problem with Pro's case is that he suggests Kant's philosophy of encouraging duty and honesty and Mill's idea of the ends justifying the means (wasn't that Machiavelli?). Well here's what I have to say about that. I do believe that utilizing Kant's ideas of duty and honesty, Olivia should not set the birds free. This example calls for her to choose between her moral duty to her cousins and her moral duty to a few racing pigeons. Based on the facts (i.e. her cousins are nice to her, they are not cruel to their animals other than keeping them solely for sport, etc.) I would say that Olivia's duty to her cousin surpasses that of her duty to the pigeons. In terms of honesty, lying to her cousins about what happened to the birds would not only be hurting her cousins, but also herself and her own conscience as well. Mill, who was greatly influenced by Bentham, followed the concept of utilarianism: within reason, one must always act to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In this scenario, if Olivia sets the birds free, only she is happy and her cousins (multiple people) are dissatisfied. So by Mill's logic, she should not set the birds free. Another part of this philosophy includes Mill's expansion on the subject to oppose Bentham's thinking. A good example is Bentham's suggestion that "Pushpin is as good as an opera." In other words, Bentham contests that if equal or more people get the same kind of happiness from pushpin as some people get from an opera, pushpin is not of lesser value than opera. Mill disagrees, and notes that people only receive such happiness from pushpin because they have not been exposed to opera. Had they had a chance to compare the two, they would favor the opera... the point is that the "little things" tend to be favored by those who have no experience with anything else, and therefore they are not in a proper position to judge. So by this logic, Olivia is judging her cousins for their actions, without having kept pigeons solely for sport herself. Had she been included in their endeavors, she may not have had the same perspective. Either way, she is in no position to make the call to rid someone of their rightful belongings. Animals have souls but they are still considered property. Also, if Olivia is still upset about the birds, maybe someone can remind her of Mill's philosophy that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." :P <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against should college sport players have to pass the same criteria as the rest of us? because Hello again :) and good luck. Once again I assume first round is acceptance and I accept. Lets establish a few things. "normal" people - Refers to people who are not college athletes. "Same criteria" - Same academic criteria such as grades, college essays, volunteer hours, etc. "Should", and this is important - Should as defined in a legal sense NOT in a moral sense. If you disagree with any of my interpretations please correct them in the following round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with COD is better then Halo because I see your points I do but I still think that COD is better if you look at the reviews all the COD is amazing but Ghost wasn't there best I don't think I mean yes Halo is a good game but why just play it over and over with the same theme based game at least COD changes locations and doesn't make you do the same thing over and over Halo you have the same mission almost all the time to get rid of the Covenant it gets boring after a while if you think about it at least in COD it gives you different people and different Missions and gives you different back grounds look I know all ready I'm gonna lose this debate and I don't care my opinion is out there and that is that COD is way better <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Soda Drinking In Schools because Thank you for creating this debate, crackofdawn. I appreciate your position, but completely disagree with it. < > According to law, children cannot consume alcohol, even with a parent's consent, so they should not have a say in this matter when they are clearly not present to monitor their child's behavior. << If it's not allowed then don't give your child money for school. If he has to pay his own money to get a soda they'll not only appreciate the value of money but also be less likely to splurge themselves.>> Some children have the means of generating their own incomes (i.e. newspaper route, babysitting), so that won't eliminate the problem. < > By this argument, illegal street drugs should be legal to all because some people can handle their drug usage responsibly. This logic is unacceptable. It is better for all to restrict the consumption of soda during school hours. Students should not need chemical stimulation during the school day. More often than not, caffeine boosts and sugar rushes cause young students to be disruptive in class. If a class has thirty students, it is unfair for a teacher to maintain order within his/her classroom while one student acts out as a result from drinking soda. Also, drinking soda is not conducive to good learning habits. It is no healthier to drink soda than it is to drink water. There is no evidence that drinking soda improves any aspect of importance in the learning process. Soda drinking can be done after school hours, where underpaid teachers do not have to babysit the hyperactive children of others. There is no call for it during school hours. I look forward to your rebuttal, crackofdawn. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God Failed in his Duty as a Protector because I thank my opponent for his response. However, my opponent did not address my responses and I do not want to spend time with rebuttals if he is not willing to refute my arguments again. o Jesus came back in human form o Jesus eating o Reliability of witnesses o Disciples being shocked; Jesus asking why they are surprised I will refute the arguments of my opponent once he addressees my own, otherwise it will be a debate where I bring evidence and he does nothing to refute it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is homosexuality wrong? because "Gender (or sex) is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. What I am saying concerning my point here is that there is a clear distinction between men and women and they fulfil several important roles to society." But no one person has a "unique" gender. "Doubtless that homosexuals can contribute to society, but even if homosexuals can contribute to society, it does not neglect the uniqueness both on roles and contributions the natural man and woman can do to society." Even if I agree with this, this argument does not show homosexuality is wrong. "Some men may act effeminate but it does not eliminate their status as of being heterosexuals. Can't men choose to be soft or emotional at some times? Yes of course, because it's there to show a healthy sign of being a human and a man. I may act effeminate, but it does not neglect that I am a man of course. I will act at times effeminate and times masculine. Same as a woman may act like a man at some times and act like a woman at some times, but this does not place her sexuality in doubt- it's a sign of heterosexuality- acting girly at some times and acting manly at some times does not lead to doubting your heterosexuality." No, it certainly does not, but this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is wrong. "So wait- you claim yourself to be an atheist, so how do you know transvestitism is not "morally" wrong? What basis you have to prove transvestitism not "morally" wrong?" This question makes no sense to begin with. Regardless, I am a consequentialist. Transvestitism doesn't have clear negative consequences, so it is not morally wrong. "Transvestitism or homosexuality, it does not matter. Both are a clear distortion and perversion of the natural sexes in each humans. It goes beyond the boundary of sexuality and rejects the natural sex of the host, pretending to be someone when they aren't." This presumes homosexuality is wrong, rather than proving it. As I do not consider homosexuality immoral, I have nothing here to respond to. "Plus, I am saying here really of those people who acts consciously against their conscience and their sexuality." To describe homosexuality as "acting against your conscience" presumes homosexuality is wrong. Again, no argument to respond to. "Same chair;different colours, both homosexuality and transsexuality is about transgression against your natural sexuality and breaking the boundary lines between that of man and woman." My opponent distinguishes between a man acting effeminate or woman acting manly, and trying to "break the boundary lines between that of man and woman". These two are the same thing. Besides, this is begging the question. "Any explanation that seeks to justify what is wrong and what is right will always be circular-you'll always appear to a definitive Standard to justify that." Indeed, a definitive Standard (which my opponent has not provided) is needed, but this doesn't mean one must presume a specific action wrong. "Yes, you may point out there is a flaw in my reasoning to say that we can explain things why there are wrong because etc. etc. etc." This is not a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that you argued from the assumption homosexuality is wrong rather than justifying your stance. "Inadequate answer for justifying homosexuality." I have no idea what my opponent is referring to here. "You contradicted yourself here, on previous round 2, you acknowledged that homosexuals suffered more from HIVs and AIDs too unprotected sex (this by the way is the consequences of embracing homosexual lifestyle). I am not sure why you demand me of showing sources to show that homosexual lifestyle is a disease-ridden- only to cast it upon the breeze. It is not harmless, did you just ignored those medical reports about homosexuality?" Homosexuals are taught by society that their sex will lead to STD's, meaning they have less incentive to use protection or cautionary measures when having sex. As a result, they have more unprotected sex and get more STD's. Correlati=/=causation. "No, this is not pointing to you but to society- what basis can we justify homosexuality and as well as other moral matters as well? This is the real issue of homosexuality- how do we know really it is "normal" and right"? What justification have we to do so?" I believe consequentialism is the best standard. Note that my opponent has not offered any standard of his own. "If you ignore religious arguments, what choice have you but also ignore those other reasonable arguments that I have stated as well?" I don't ignore them because they are grounded in reality rather than ancient unverifiable texts. "You can't help it but why we have this idea of "sanctity of human life" which is a religious concept, equality and universal brotherhood which is based on a religious concept, why humans are so different from animals a religious concept, or that marriage is between a man and woman is too a religious concept, even individual rights are a religious concept (the ancients are more of pluralism than individualism), why is it also the rule of law is also a religious concept? http://creation.com... science is based on a metaphysical foundations! http://nwcreation.net... ; Humans based their religions on what they wanted to be the case. They did not want to be murdered, so they created sanctity of human life. They didn't want to be worse off than others unjustifiably, so they created universal brotherhood. And so forth. Marriage between a man and a woman does not have these simple secular justifications. "The analogy is flawed, so what you get on your weigh may be objective but you forgot also that your subjectivity may also affect how you got your objective weigh results. It maybe you wanted to eat less and exercise more, so that is why you got your result." This has nothing to do with what I said. You may have taken actions that made you feel something, but what you feel is still objective. "To say you don't like this because it is scary may be objective, but the idea where you got it from is subjective." Correct. "You said , 'You either have them or you don't'- so does that spell true also for you? If you said to me, I don't have emotions or I have them- then do you have them or not? It seems to imply in your statement of "You do or you don't" means that you either have emotions or not- so do you have emotions? Do you have them or do you not have them?" I've already explained this. You either have a specific emotion or you do not. You are either happy or you aren't/ "Not only you are confused with your writings- but throwing down a tantrum here!" I haven't thrown down any tantrum. Try a better ad hominem next time. "No, you affirmed that thoughts can be restrained- now a choice is this- either you do it or you don't do it- simple. So based on your previous admission, to state that thoughts can be restrained implies it is a choice- either you restrain them or you don't. Do you agree? For if there exists an option to restrain, then that means there is too an options of not restraining it as well!" No. A choice requires control. I can get hit by a car or not get hit by a car, but I don't have the choice to get hit by a car. Involuntary thoughts can be restrained only by other thoughts-not by choices. "Before one could make a case for his position, he has to assume his position is true before he does argue for it. You have to believe homosexuality is not "wrong" in order to argue that it is not wrong!" I believe homosexuality is not wrong because the evidence points to it. However, I never argued from the assumption that it is. "So you brought presuppositions then in this debate, you ignored religious arguments because you presupposed that all religions are false." Correct. However, I did not presuppose the very position I was trying to prove while trying to prove it. "Not only that, but if we brought up from evolution, should we expect order and rational thoughts to flourish? Since we are products of only atoms- what basis have for our thoughts then? Evolution has to invoke naturalism in order to be true." Totally irrelevant. "Jesus lived in Nazareth, which is Judea, which is In Israel, which is populated by Jews. You seemed to confuse their language which is Aramaic but culturally and ethically, are Jewish." I stand corrected. I did not know the location of Nazareth. "Few? I am sorry, but the LGBT are so insensitive about their beliefs and anyone opposing them. The LGBT are fighting for their own meaning of "equality"." The LGBT are fighting for their own right to marry and have sex with any consenting adult of their choosing. They generally do not like those who oppose them much, but that is typical of a civil rights movement (for example, people who are seen as racist tend not to be well-liked by others). "Ad hominem is personal attack, sarcasm can be seen a form of downplay and insult to other people." I didn't insult you personally. "More like violent protest maybe, sending death threats to Christian families that they'll die and bringing everyone along the ground if anyone supported them is suppression." You can find crazy people and jerks advocating for any position, not only LGBTs. My opponent also implies that these groups were attacked for being Christian-rather, they were attacked for discriminating against homosexuals. You have, atheism. http://creation.com... ; "I have no idea what my opponent means here. "Stance-attacking IS Ad-Hominem too." Nonsense. I can't debate you unless I attack your stance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments because This "he said/she said" argument can be resolved with a few facts: >> "Though one must ask, what would be the motive to lie about such a thing if no financial benefit is involved, and, if anything, damages your reputation." In a signed confession delivered in person to APRO Headquarters in Tuscon, AZ, the summer of 1969, Carlos/Carl Allende/Allen writes: "All words, phrases, and sentences underlined on the following pages in brown ink are false. The below page and the top part of the following are the carzyist (sic) pack of lies I ever wrote. Object? To encourage ONR Research and to discourage Proffessor(sic) Morris K. Jessup from going further with investigations possibly leading to actual research. Then I feared invisibility and force-field research; I don't now." This, of course, exposes the very root of the conspiracy as a simple lie. >> "Why did the entire rest of the crew involved receive discharges from the Navy for being medically unfit?" The interesting thing about this claim is that no site that makes it can provide verification for these discharges... >> "Why were the families of several crewmembers being told that their relative sailors died that night?" This claim is repeated on conspiracy sites in some form of "If the ship had simply remained safe and secure in the harbor as the Navy claimed, there is no apparent reason for the families of several crewmembers being told that their loved ones, the sailors from the crew, had died that night." However... no site actually has any sort of verification for this claim. In both cases, a prima facia claim is made. In all instances of prima facia claims, they cannot be accepted without corroboration. ********************************************************************** Some quotes from still-living members of the USS Eldridge on 26 March, 1999: Ed Wise: "I think it's somebody's pipe dream" Ted Davis: "It never happened" Bill Van Allen: "I have not the slightest idea how these stories got started" Ray Perrino: "When people would ask me about it, I would play along with them and tell them I disappeared. After a while they realized I was pulling their legs" Mike Perlstien: "I tell them I know nothing about it. I've seen the movie, and it's a good movie, but there's no truth to it" (Philadelphia Inquirer) As you can see, the crew of the Eldridge considers the whole notion of the Philadelphia experiment to be false and in some cases, even humorously so. ********************************************* Furthermore, it can be conclusively demonstrated that Al Bielek has lied about several aspects of his past: 1) Ed Cameron never existed ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ). 2) He took some parts of his story from Burger & Simpson's book "Thin Air." ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ). 3) Neither "Ed" nor any Duncan Cameron served in the Navy during that time period ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ). 4) Larry James is never put his soul in Ed-Al's body ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ). Also, isn't it HIGHLY suspicious that Bielek's memory of the event only returned in 1988, after the movie concerning the Philadelphia Experiments came out in 1984 ( http://www.imdb.com... )? In a report concerning the Philadelphia experiments found here ( http://www.scientificexploration.org... ), Bielek is described as: [according to himself] "...one of two sailors who fell through time from the 1940's to 1988... and alien technology was used by secret government agencies to erase [Ed Duncan] from his own time track and give him the body and background of Al Bielek." Right. Because people really fall through time and have alien technology used to transport them into another body. Law of parsimony states that Bielek is lying. *************************************************** Readers, as you can see, the debate is hardly a he-said / she-said sort of dialogue. It's more like He-said / Liars-say. The evidence for the case that nothing unusual happened is here, well presented. My opponent references sources that simply make unverified, sensationalist, and obviously false claims. You decide. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Worst [best?] way to die because That's pretty sick, I'll try my best. You're strapped to bed. Your mom comes in, but she's naked. She comes up and hits you in the face, and then she hits you again but this time it like totally stings. You say "Why mom?" but before you can go on she is rubbing her titties in your face. You try to struggle but then your dad (who has AIDS) comes in and starts sodomizing you. After your mom and dad are done with you and you've been infected, they just let you be for a few months and let the AIDS kick in. Afterwards, when the disease has kicked in, your mom comes back and starts poking you in the eyes with a rusty needle until your blind. After that's done your dad rips out all your nails after shoving bamboo chutes up them. Your dad then calls "Jimmy the mobster" who breaks your kneecaps with a baseball bat and then forcibly sodomizes you again. After giving you like 2 hours to recover, mom and dad return to sprinkle you with drop of sulfuric acid, which literally sears through the skin and eats through organs. Mom and Dad do this until you die, but not before calling over a group of japanese men to perform one last act of bukkake. Good luck to Pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against rap battle because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Creation vs. Evolution because To start off I would like to state that this is my first debate. I would also like to say that if my opponent would please use no profanity, no bashing, and please if the comments would be clean also. To begin I would like to state that as a committed Creationist/Christian I think that there is no real solid proof for Evolution, as carbon dating is proven to be very faulty. For instance an article in an Answers In Genesis magazine [For my source I'm going to use AIG, Ken Ham and other creationist leaders] some scientists put a hat that had a Nike brand on it ,that was found in a collapsed mining tunnel, through carbon dating. The computer read it out as 100,000 years old. So, if you believe this article then that means that dinosaur bones found by carbon dating to be millions of years old might be only thousands. If my opponent will please respond to this then I will continue the debate. Vote Pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Men should be allowed into lesbian bars. because I'm running late for a dentist appointment, so we'll see how this goes... I find my opponent's comparison of myself to Margaret Thatcher to be quite comical if not offensive. Hahah! Similarly, I reckon that my opponent's style of humorous debate reminds me of Monty Python, for example, relying mainly on its British accents/undertones/figures of speech to achieve any real comic effect (for us Americans). In other words, a comment like 'Lez It Up For The Lads' seems almost funny to us because we can imagine a bunch of drunken Englishmen shouting something like this in a B-rated movie as the token foreigners for comic effect. If Brian were to have said, "Lez it up for the guys" like we would say in the States, it would not have been nearly as entertaining. With that out of the way, let me try to address my opponent's points within the next 10 minutes. Argh! First, I would like to clarify that I in no way believe discrimination to occur only within the workforce. However, my assessment of that possibility was linked only to the provided and agreed upon definition. You can't blame me, as a debater, for pulling out all the stops. More importantly, however, is this concept of morals and what 'should' be allowed. Brian feels that it would be immoral to discriminate entrance to one's club based on gender (or ethnicity, for example). I may agree that to some extent, discrimination based on these factors is wrong, however, that does not necessarily mean that it should not be allowed. For instance, say I had $100 in my pocket and passed a bum on the street who asked me for some cash. Perhaps I *should* give it to him based on the moral concept of generosity. In other words, it would be a nice thing to do. However on the other hand, why should I give it to him? There is something to be said about rights of ownership, and I argue that it would be immoral to force an owner of a lesbian club to admit men. Granted that this debate is focused on what 'should' happen and not just legality; however, I have already established several good reasons as to why admittance of men should not have to be the case. As a reminder: The owner of an establishment presumably owns not only the place of business, but the property as well. If you owned a piece of property, say a home, nobody would expect you to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry in off the street. Rather as a home owner, you would have the right to choose whom you wished to let into your home. Similarly, say you're a bachelor and 3 beautiful women wanted to come into your place. You might want to let them in and you have that right. Now suppose that 3 good looking men wanted to come into your home -- you might be a little peeved if not disinclined to grant them admittance. However in this situation, nobody is arguing that 'should' let the guys in, because... why should you? Simply because they want to come in? It doesn't add up. Moreover on this point, say a distant son wanted to visit his dying father on his death bed. The doctor doesn't think that it would be good for the father's spirit to be riled up by the son's presence. However the son only has the very best of intentions for seeing his dad -- shouldn't that matter? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that letting him see his father would necessarily be the right thing to do. So you see, in my first example, I have established why property rights in this case take precedent over one's desire to enter upon another man's property. In my second example, I have proved how one's intentions really make no difference regarding the right course of action or what 'should' or should not be done. Now, offering up the contention that once Men Only establishments in the UK are now forced by law to also allow women is fine and all; however, it does not effectively argue my point that there are still plenty of other places in which segregation by gender is not only allowed but preferred, such as regarding fraternities. My opponent did not respond to this point or any of my examples, so you must and 'should' extend my arguments on this platform and grant this a point in my favor. Or should I say favour. Regarding my 3rd point, Brian's response was that he and his mates would probably spend more money on alcohol at the establishment than the other women in attendance. That might be true. Say Brian and his friends had 10 drinks each while 3 other women only had 2 drinks each. Certainly 30 drinks vs. 6 is a great discrepancy. However considering that the bar was a place for LESBIANS, we can reasonably assume that there would be more women to men (especially since they seem to not like admitting men), so if there were 30 women at the club that night all drinking 2 drinks a piece, then the ending ratio would actually be 30 drinks bought by the guys vs. 60 drinks bought by the ladies, meaning that the women, overall, would have in fact spent more money. If at this point you regard Brian and his friends as some type of drunken Brits who spend all of their Euros at the local pub getting drunk as all bloody hell, and therefore assume that they might actually buy 20 drinks instead of 10 (equaling the amount of drinks that the ladies might buy), the response to that is that THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL. In fact it is easier to presume how much Brian drinks because he has told us; however, we have no idea how much a bunch of rowdy British lesbians drink. Some seasoned butch may even be able to drink Brian under the table for all we know! Nevertheless, my opponent has disregarded the female/lesbian prerogative of wanting to spend time in an all-female environment by suggesting that Starbucks is always an option. Hah. Clever. However women and gay men does not = lesbians, therefore the sole demographic of this entire debate has been ignored. Additionally, there are plenty of places for Brian and his friends to befriend lesbians other than the Candy Club, such as a women's basketball game, for example. There are also plenty of other clubs for him to attend and drink, I suppose, so all-in-all there has really been no proof of why men should be allowed into lesbian bars other than the fact that they wish to be admitted. Finally Brian ends his argument by stating, "I believe that, in a modern, liberal-minded society, women can only progress on the basis of having a truly equal playing field with no special privileges accorded to either gender." That's swell and all, but just because we live in a modern society does not mean that we live in a liberal one. Not everyone believes in gender equality, and some people would even argue that it's an immoral concept. Further, how does a female-only club for lesbians give women special privileges? To equal the playing field here, a club for gay men could choose to not admit women, and then this entire argument would be dismantled. Like I said - a club's management SHOULD be able to admit whomever they want, so long as they are willing to accept the consequences, whatever those might be, i.e. loss of profit, a negative stigma in the media/society, etc. If we live in such a liberal minded society, then people would recognize the immorality of the practice and choose to not attend the Candy Bar. But if people recognize the rights of property owners and patrons alike, perhaps Brian and his friends shouldn't be telling people what they should do... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Social Effects of Sin in America because Homosexual behavior and apostasy As to my defense of the idea of homosexual behavior and apostasy as sins, I do not think it is actually important for our discussion to prove conclusively what particular acts constitute sins and which don't. For that we would have to take too specific a viewpoint. If looked upon from a Catholic perspective, for instance, contraception would be a sin; this is not the case from the perspective of most protestants or for Buddhist. The same goes for the eating of pork. Most religions are fine with this, Judaism and Islam, however, see it as something prohibited by God which it is a sin, therefore, to consume. What I will attempt to prove in this debate is that if sin is a valid concept its effects on society will always be detrimental. I will, however, defend my definition of apostasy. The dictionary does not take the viewpoint of a particular faith, so they opted to describe apostasy as the leaving of a religion. However, as it is religions that define sin and not Oxford linguists, it would be enlightening to see what different religious groups define as apostasy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines apostasy as "the total repudiation of the Christian faith" (1) Islam, however, defines it as the abandonment of ones previous faith by a Muslim (2). They disagree about the definition of apostasy simply because they disagree about which religion is true. Con is quite right to mention the fact that there are many different religions who all make truth claims. This, however, is not entirely germane to our conversation. For my side of this debate to be considered upheld it is enough to prove that in principle sin is bad for society, it is not necessary for me to prove which religious viewpoint on the matter of sin is the correct one. Whichever is true, the very fact that it is the truth makes it of greatest value to society. "Judgmental" God and society I fail to see how this is relevant. You mention bullying, which is also a sin, causes higher rates of suicide. This may be the case, but the case of a sin (bullying) against a person for committing a sin (acting on homosexual tendencies) causing a sin (suicide) -or if we do not accept homosexual behavior as a sin then the yet more terrible case of a sin against an innocent person causing a sin- is simply the very best example of my position. Sin is terrible for society. Truth Matters I do not see how my statement contradicts my logic. I pointed out there are reasons behind the belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and then I say that whether or not it actually is sinful is irrelevant to the matter of the effects of sin on society. Con also mentions the statement that "a society which does not turn its back on truth but lives according to it will be better off" is ambiguous. Let's try to clear it up with an example. Let us say that my opponent is correct in saying homosexuality is not a sin. This would then be the truth. A society that accepts this as true, does not put undue pressure on innocent people for their sexual orientation and is generally accepting of homosexuality and homosexual persons would be a more just society than one which does not. On the contrary, if I am right and homosexuality causes harm to both the individuals and society, then it would be a mistake not to separate the necessary respect for individuals from the harmful promotion of an objective harm. In either case, the truth of the matter is of vital importance; were society to get it wrong it would create an objective injustice. It is true that a sin is a "bad choice", it is also a bad choice to listen to Britney Spears when you have the option of listening to Jimi Hendrix, but it is not a sin. "Bad choice" is also connotatively negative (it has the word "bad" in it, you can't get more negative than saying outright something is bad), the difference is that sin is rightly seen as something far graver than having bad taste in music. We are speaking particularly of the terrible choice of turning your back -by word, action or omission- from the ultimate Good. Sources (1) Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2089: http://www.vatican.va... (2) Apostasy in Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org... Fun experiment: Do a word search on the word "sin" on this page. This is getting ridiculous. Does anybody know of a decent synonym? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is the best team in NFL History the San Francisco 49ers? because I would like to thank the academy for letting me accept this challenge. Good luck to all. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot because "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England." When William Shakespeare wrote these immortal lines in the late 16th Century Europeans were first establishing colonies in North America. Back then, the Bard surely couldn't have imagined that centuries later immigrants from that continent would cross the Atlantic in the other direction and settle in this green and pleasant land that we Englishmen call home. Some years ago, when these visitors first came to our clouded hills and pastures green they were welcomed as treasured guests but, unfortunately, when we gave them an inch they took a mile. Since then they have spread disease, driven much of the indigenous population off their land and shown scant regard for our precious countryside. These Americans tend to be bigger than the locals and they are also very aggressive, especially the black ones. Now it's time to say "enough is enough" and rid our fine country of these unwelcome pests. Prince Charles wants to see these vermin "eliminated" and I believe the most effective method of achieving this would be to shoot them. We must act now before it's too late and the decedents of the grey squirrels that our Victorian forefathers imported from the United States completely decimate England's native red squirrels. Thank you. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because 1st question was answered -yes- you consider yourself a moral person (according to the definition I provided). 2nd question was answered 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' Questions: 5.) Which god? (be specific, provide a definition) 6.) Is there *empirical evidence* for the existence of 'god'? (if no go to conclusion. / if yes provide evidence and answer question 7.) 7.) How has 'god's' morality been demostrated? Conclusion if the 6th question was answered with 'NO': You have answered 'NO' , which clearly indicates a contradiction. Allow me to explain . You claim your morals are derived from God. There is no evidence for God. You said '...morals are absolute and come from God.' When the source of the morals are negated, the morals must logically follow. I am in no position to judge your morality, and I have no doubt that you have them, but, your morals were not derived from God. Your morals were most likely derived from family, upbringing and the conditions of the society you live in. Our morals are derived from where we are and what we do with our lives. A child who is loved and nurtured their entire life will most likely become a loving nurturing parent in the future; whereas a child who is abused runs a higher risk of being abusive toward their children in the future. Think about it, our parents are our first guidance in life, before a person even knows about God, they knew who Mom and Dad were. I claim victory: You have clearly contradicted yourself. I await your rebuttal. Your only way out of this dilemna is answering questions 6. and 7.. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate me about anything because I win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Official Debate Tournament: Badger is a Retard/Troll because ever harder what with the comments :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable. because Thanks to my opponent for accepting. To clear up a few general facts before the debate starts. My opponent agrees to these things when she accepts: -Hegemony in this debate means over all dominance economically, militarily, and culturally. It does not mean that the US has ultimate power or can do whatever it wants, but rather that the extent of its power is of a far greater scope than other nations. -In the status quo, the US has hegemony. -Desirable entails a real world application--that is, to affirm or negate we need explanatory analysis of how the change in the status quo (US hegemony) would effect the world. Standard rules apply. No silly semantics, shared burden of proof, no new arguments in the last round. My opponent can refute my case in her opening round if she wishes, but does so at her own risk given the shared burden of proof. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Faith Can Help To Heal Sickness because Since in the first round, it was defined that we were not allowed to add rebuttals, I will make new arguments for my position. I will show that praying, or using faith to heal someone else does not work. In 2006, there was a study conducted to answer the question of whether or not prayer helped. He looked at over 1800 coronary bypass surgeries. This was a controlled experiment. Groups 1 and 2 was told they may or may not be receiving prayers, but only groups 1 was really receiving them. Group 3 was told they were receiving prayers, and were receiving prayers. Groups 1 and groups 2 died at 51% and 52% respectively. This is not significant enough to draw conclusions in either direction, as the groups is not large enough to escape such a minor margin of error. 59% of those in group 3, who knew they were being prayed for, died. [1] Many explanations for the increase in death experienced by the groups who knew they were being prayed for have been speculated. Richard Dawkins, the author of the god delusion, states that ""It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: 'performance anxiety', " [2]. A person involved intimately with the expiriment offered a similar conclusion; "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?". I personally feel that it is more likely that there is a more significant margin of error, and the 8% difference between those that were told they might be receiving prayer and did and those receiving prayer is not significant enough across 1800 people to draw the conclusion that one of these three methods makes a true impact on your chance of surviving. What it does show at the very least, is that prayer did not help these people. The group that did best received prayer, but were told they might be receiving prayer, and did not do much better then those told they might be receiving, but did not. It is quite possible that Dawkins and the other researcher are correct, and the nocebo [3] effect was in play. The nocebo effect refers to a harmless, or not beneficial treatment, wherein the patients suffers negative effects due to the belief that it is harmful. It is quite plausable that the nocebo effect played some role in the varied effects of the study. There is a reason why people use placebos in expirements. Often times, as I shall demonstrate below, people get significant health benefits, simply because they believe they are getting health benefits. To test the effectiveness of a new treatment, doctors test the treatment against the belief that you were given a real treatment. It is generally agreed by all, that psychological conditioning plays a significant role in ones recuperation. However, the psychological patterns that faith gives to a patient that may benefit them, can be eisily repeated by other circumstances. "Because the placebo effect is based upon expectations and conditioning, the effect disappears if the patient is told that their expectations are unrealistic, or that the placebo intervention is ineffective." [4] Since strong belief is slowly fading in the modern world, and atheism and agnosticism is on the rise (19.7% are unafilliated and steadily rising. Of them 5.5% of the percentage are Atheist and agnostic and rising), the faith placebo is becomming less and less effective over an increasing number of patients. Rather, other psychological factors can be of much importance to the psychology of a patient. Confident doctors and nurses, as well as showing that a doctor is experienced, and a lack of general worry surrounding the operation can be shown to have positive effects on the patient, regardless of whether the doctor is truly more experienced or skilled. [1] Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, et al. (April 2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer". [2] The God Delusion by C. Richard Dawkins [3] Kennedy (1961), p.204 [4] Montgomery GH, Kirsch I (1997). "Classical conditioning and the placebo effect". [5] CIA American Religious Statistics. Last update to publicly accessible data unknown. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abel Would Have Killed Cain because Resolution Abel Would Have Killed Cain Background Watching the movie Noah got me thinking about some of the Genesis stories, most of which are exceedingly brief. The story of Cain and Abel occurs over the course of 16 verses in Genesis 4 ( https://www.biblegateway.com... ); essentially, God looked upon Abel's offering with favor and not Cain's, which drove Cain to kill Abel. The question I ask in this debate is "what if God looked upon Cain's offering with favor instead of Abel's? Would Abel have killed Cain?" I believe the answer is easily yes. This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to argue CON, please PM me or leave a comment. Rules This debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of conduct - f orfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples . If you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i.e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here: ( http://www.debate.org... ) The core, undebatable hypothetical assumption for this resolution is that God looked upon Cain's offering with favor and not Abel's. Given that this resolution is a hypothetical, burden of proof (BoP) is shared. Both PRO/CON must present a convincing hypothetical case for their respective positions given that God looked upon Cain's offering with favor and not Abel's. 4 rounds 1st round: acceptance 2/3 rounds argument and rebuttal 4th round: closing arguments, rebuttals are ok, but no new sources. 5000 character rounds <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Puerto Rico should become a state because My arguments would refute yours. If I have space I will refute: C1: ALLOWING THEM IN WOULD LEAD TO ECONOMIC DETRIMENT Puerto rico has high unemployment and allowing them it would increase the deficit through wellfare cost. [1] The puerto rican delegation would be twice the size of west vigrginia so they would have leverage to increase cost towards them, increasing costs further. [1] Their income per capita is 8,509$, thats much less then the american average, allowing them in would increase poverty rates. If allowed to be a state they would have the 25th biggest state via population, also that would lead to more social security costs, increasing deficits. Money spent on puerto rico is money that cannot be spent in other areas i.e medicare and medicade and other programs that help the other 50 states. We cannot afford a 51st state. [2] C2: Language Their language is english AND spanish. Many people in PR (puerto rico) do not know english and the only official language of america is english. This is a fundamental problem. [3] Only 20% of PR's population speak english fluently [3] the language used in PR houses is spanish 95% of the time [3] C3: Politics People might like this argument (if your democrat) but it's the principle of the thing: Pr would have at least 5 members to congress and PR is predomonatly liberal. [4] But a PR commonwealth rep dissagrees (so this is a benifit to republicans): 78% are pro life, 91% oppose SSM, and 30% are evangelicals. They also supoort spending and tax cuts [4] So it may go either way, but it would without a doubt help someone, hurting swaying the other 50 states views. in my opinion it would be a republican benifit. C4: they are already considered americans They are already US citizens that can travel in and out of all 50 states, except their wellfare programs are local not american federal. [5] So they are US citizens, but don't drain our already empty treasury. C5: the people of PR do not want it. 1950 PR vote-didn't pass [6] 1967-fail 1998-fail recent-you yourself said they denied it the fist time. Polls: In the last status plebiscite, in 1993, 48 percent of voters chose commonwealth status, 46 percent said they supported statehood and most of the rest favoured independence. [7] So most support independence, so be it. Refutations: "The people of Puerto Rico have been U.S. citizens for since 1917 yet, they are not represent in congress and cannot vote for president. They are effectively second-class citizens. If we are to preach democracy and fairness across the world we must be fair to all of our citizens." Sicne they aren't currenlty a state then they do not get either, they get noon voting reps that try to persuade congress. I don't know if that works but they have something. [8] they have 1. Your first argument isn't an argument it is just backround. It is just an I hope they vote state and other backround info. ==end== SOurces: http://englishfirst.org... ;[1] http://www.nopuertoricostatehood.com... ;[2] http://www.nationalreview.com... ;[3] http://www.prfaa.com... ;[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com... ;[5] http://en.wikipedia.org... ;[6] http://www.latinamericanstudies.org... ;[7] http://www.house.gov... ;[8] <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Metaphysical Solipsism is Most Likely True because I accept <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with kakashi is strong enough to fight itachi because Kakashi is strong enough to fight itachi because of his years of experience, his vast arsenal of ninjutsu, his improvement of kamui against obito and madara, and lastly his intelligence which allows him to adapt to any situation. (first argument here goes nothing cheers to my opponent) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I am richer than you because Pro says contend I am unequivocably better than you Con is burden of proof to say I am not better than you I am unequivocably better than you because I am smarter. My family is unequivocably rich due to the fact that my father is unequivocably earning 1.5 millions of dollars a year. Seeing as that is more than most people gets, I am richer than people, and am richer than you unequivocably. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth. because Parents can always tell them no, and/or take the movie/game(s) away. Most, (not if all) violent movies are rated R, and games are rated M, meaning someone 17 or 18 years old or order have to purchase them. Parents can easily avoid there kids becoming more aggressive by just not buying them, and buying movies/games that are age-appropriate for them. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity because Extend my arguments. since he did not respond, no new information can be brought up int the next rebuttals. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself. because *Alert!* My opponent has contradicted himself. With the two questions that he truly answered, he has contradicted himself. (1.)"After all, for an atheist like myself there are no real moral truths." "28. Religious tolerance is a form of justice." Justice is "the quality of being righteous" http://www.yourdictionary.com... , and righteousness means "morally right" http://www.yourdictionary.com... . Being morally right implies that there is something to be morally right about. If there are no moral truths, then there is no such thing as justice. So, my opponent acknowledges justice but earlier claims that it does not exist. This is a contradiction. (No further questions). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life because Thanks again to my opponent for this interesting and enjoyable debate. "I am not debating the human's life cycle, rather the reason for the human's life." Me too and as I said survival and reproduction are reasons for the continuation of human life. Organisms exist so that cells can duplicate themselves more effectively. This is a reason for life. "Pleasure is a temporary experience, and is forgotten almost instantly, and when one dies what did his pleasures matter?" Pleasure is not purely temporary. Recalling pleasurable experiences can bring renewed pleasure. Long lasting pleasure can be achieved through a loving relationship, through childbirth as discussed previously and also through less tangible means like the satisfaction of past achievements. People often talk about one's life 'flashing before your eyes' when you face death. In this instance a life filled with pleasure would surely give more satisfaction and meaning than a life filled with self-denial and declined opportunities. "According to my opponent's arguments, a sterile person has no meaning to his life." Childbirth was only one of several ways I suggested that a person could find meaning in life. While a sterile person's life may have no biological purpose, it can still be filled with meaning. Also by adopting or otherwise raising a child as your own a person can experience all the emotional life-affirming benefits of having children of their own, not least the satisfaction of nurturing and caring for an individual who may go on to have kids themselves. "TEMPORARY desires are meaningless" No, permanent desires are meaningless because they can never be attained. "The words of King Solomon are complex to the extreme-there are many opinions as to what he is trying to say. I will go by the view that says as follows..." As my opponent accepts that his interpretation of 'The Philosopher's' words is only one of many and I have provided a perfectly valid alternative interpretation, I don't think he can build much of a case around Ecclesiastes. Negated. ---------------------- The meaning of life is of course totally subjective and I think arguing that any one thing is the only true meaning of life is intrinsically flawed as well as impossible to prove. One's life has meaning only to the extent that one applies meaning to it. My opponent has not explicitly stated what he believes the meaning of life to be, but as he states that it precludes atheism and everything temporary, I can only assume that it is something along the lines of 'serve God so you can go to Heaven'. The problem with this is that a life lived for this purpose only has meaning if your beliefs are in fact true. Imagine there's no heaven (RIP J.L.) If this is the case then a life devoted to reaching Heaven is entirely meaningless. All people of faith must experience doubt at some point and I would have thought that these doubts would become most acute when death is immediately anticipated. If you hold the conviction that there is no afterlife then a life of duty, devotion and sacrifice to religion is pointless and without meaning, as I argued regarding Ecclesiastes. To conclude this debate, I will draw on the work of some of the many philosophers who have considered this age old question and come to conclusions that are completely at odds with my opponent. These are all from Wikipedia (lazy I know) but can easily be backed up elsewhere. "In Platonism, the meaning of life is in attaining the highest form of knowledge, which is the Idea (Form) of the Good, from which all good and just things derive utility and value. Human beings are duty-bound to pursue the good, but no one can succeed in that pursuit without philosophical reasoning, which allows for true knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org... "Camus made a significant contribution to a viewpoint of the Absurd, and always rejected nihilism as a valid response. 'If nothing had any meaning, you would be right. But there is something that still has a meaning.' Second Letter to a German Friend, December 1943. What still had meaning for Camus is that despite humans being subjects in an indifferent and "absurd" universe, in which meaning is challenged by the fact that we all die, meaning can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by our own decisions and interpretations." http://en.wikipedia.org... "the Cynic philosophers said that the purpose of life is living a life of Virtue that agrees with Nature" http://en.wikipedia.org... I believe that if the whole meaning of your life is to ensure survival in the afterlife, then your life itself has no meaning. It exists only to reach that end. If you think you've led a good life up to now and your only reason for living is to serve God and enter Heaven, then presumably you would not object to your otherwise meaningless life ending right now. For most theists this is not actually the case. However meaning can be found in life through many things, from reproduction to artistic achievement and from altruism to hedonism. We give life meaning by giving it value. "I urge the voters to vote not for what they believe, but for who made more respectable arguments." I enthusiastically second this proposal, although unfortunately it is seldom the case in religious debates on this site. Thankyou. (My opponent is not Christian but I hope the second video does not offend any Christians reading the debate, the intention is levity not mockery.) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Most offensive funny joke. because whats the most confusing day in harlem? fathers day. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb. because Thanks Con. Dumb is defined as: " lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted."[1]. Certainly must be defined an assertation we take to be true. I'll list numerous reasons that Con is dumb. 1. He can't spell. Round 1 says it all. 2. He started a debate as "Con", which is dumb because when you negate something you're affirming it's opposite, IE, my opponent is affirming: "I am not dumb", which is what he should've been doing. 3. Con is probably trying to trick me by pretending to be dumb in his first round to essentially "bait" me. This is a dumb debating strategy for a few reasons: First, I'm well known as the king of noob sniping[2], he should've blocked me to keep me from accepting the debate, and secondly baiting is viewed as abusive by most if not all debaters (because it is), so my opponents attempt to do so is a dumb thing to do on this site when public opinion is against it. 4. Con is dumb for making this an open debate, because brilliant and highly intelligent debaters such as myself (ok, exaggeration) can accept it and easily defeat him. 5. Con admits it, look at his username. 6. Con made this round have a 12 hour response time, which will likely lead to forfeits. A dumb move. 7. Con is almost certainly trolling, which is dumb. 8. We have to weigh factors in debate rounds based off the information in the round, thus we need to compare my opponent with the only other person in the round, me. Intelligence is relative, so if I prove I'm smarter than he is, I win. I have an IQ of 189, got a perfect score on both my ACT and SAT test, have 3 Post-doctoral degrees, worked on the international space station, have won a Nobel Prize in all categories, am an advisor to president Obama, and I am the voice of a generation[3]. I think I've met my burden. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://tinyurl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Moter-boats should be banned. because I shall accept this debate, as this is the acceptance round, I will wait to let you provide an argument. Best of luck to you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Civil Unions should be legal in the United States because I would first like to say good luck to my opponent (who ever he or she may be) I understand that gay marriage is a highly charged issue in the United States, and I would like to first point out that I am not in favor of gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and the government should not be able to tell churches what they can and cannot do within the church. However, I also understand that I am not the whole country and I do not represent everyone. I believe, that in the United States, a country known for freedom and rights, civil unions should be fully legal. 1) Homosexuals deserve no worse rights than Heterosexuals. Know one knows why some people are homosexual. There are two possible reasons. Either they were born homosexual, or they choose to be homosexual. If they were born homosexual, denying them civil unions would be synonymous with denying African Americans or Hispanic Americans civil unions. An individual cannot change what they are born as, and it is not fair to punish someone for something that is beyond their control. If homosexuality is simply a life choice, it would still be unfair. Should we stop people who shop at Walmart instead of Target from having civil unions? Of course not. There is no reason why homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in a way that they deserve less rights. 2) It violates the Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to civil unions. If civil unions are not legalized, homosexuals are not open to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, such as victim recovery benefits and joint leases. The 14th amendment states that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Slavery was considered a violation of the 14th amendment because one group was treated better than another. Now I would just like to conclude with a little more analysis on the topic. We aren't debating what the United States is currently, or what it ever will be. We are simply debating what SHOULD happen. I would like to wish my opponent good luck and wait for his/her response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against animal Rights because First, I would like to thank you for joining Debate.org and welcome you to it. Second, I thank you for starting this debate and wish you luck. On to my contentions. You states in your second round arguement that, "the only reason they should kill animals is when they are hurt and need to be put down." I wish I could agree with this, but I simply cannot. Your first sentence says that humans are just like animals and should be treated just as if they were humans because they have feelings too. Well, you contradict yourself because by saying that you want to give animals the same rights of humans, you are actually giving MORE reasons to continually out them down. When a Police Officer is threatened, he must shoot the attacker, however, if the dog is the attacker, the Police Officer must still shoot. You contradict your whole argument by saying you want to treat them like humans and want to only put them down if their hurt. We cant do both, its either only kill humans when their hurt, or kill animals when it is necessary because a human is killed daily because it was necessary to do so. I urge a CON ballot <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Climate change because Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental experiment. At this moment there is near consensus between scientists that global warming exists and is human induced[1]. The scientific model is quite simple to understand and makes sense. It is clear that the weather is influenced by many factors, and some are more powerful than others. The greenhouse effect is a powerful factor as shown by the super greenhouse effect on Venus. [2] Green house gases have increased at the highest level in the last 650 000 years after the industrial revolution. [3] To bring the scientific argument down to the human level and to avoid an authority argument i will point out that ice caps are already melting, the first drowned polar bears were found, more violent weather is happening etc. What is more, the arctic ice shows an increase in carbon concentration and temperature.[4] The mental experiment part is more complex in the sense that it involves the concept of positive feed-back. The oceans trap carbon while they are cold, when they heat up they release carbon. This a positive feed-back loop and it means that things will only get worse.[5] . Humans have reached a level where they can affect the climate. Acid rains and other city related weather are examples of humans influencing weather. In conclusion, from the scientific, factual and mental experiment arguments I conclude that global warming exists and it is human induced. Looking forward for a good debate. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu... [3] http://news.mongabay.com... [4] http://www.heatisonline.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy IV: WTC 7 because the video you posted was the same as I posted. As you can see in both videos the building follows the path of most resistance and falls in it's own footprint, despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane and was only the victim of fires. This is unprecidented in the history of steel frame buildings. As far as Mr. Silverstein is concered, for more than a year he refused to explain what he meant by the term "pull it". It was only after several news articles came out pressuring Mr. Silverstein that he came up with the story that "pull it" meant to withdraw fire-fighters from the building. However, the term "pull it" is a well known term used in construction to demolish buildings, it has never (that I could find) been used as a term to evacuate a building. Here is another video: This one shows a BBC report of the collapse of the Soloman Brother's building (WTC 7) before it actually did collapse. Now the BBC claims that they were not told what to say, though they claim they no longer have copies of their reporting on 9/11. They also claim that this was merely a mistake, however it does seem odd that neither the reporter in studio nor the reporter in New York city would recognize the error. Especially since the building was clearly visible behind her. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid because I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my counterargument. My opponent's argument is as follows: 1. DNA is a code 2. All codes come from an intelligence 3. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligence. I will try to be as clear and concise as possible in offering my refutations. I must note however that I need not abide by my opponent's rule on HOW to debunk him. I just shall. In actuality, the most powerful disproof for this is a rather complicated one, one that I am sure he shall not understand. However, I will use these more elementary disproofs for this debate and may post my complicated one either in the forum after this debate, or in my last rounds. Refutation 1: DNA is a genetic code, not a regular code. Regular codes work by way of symbols, something arbitrary and without meaning is GIVEN meaning by an intelligence. DNA genetic code works without symbols. Each nucleic acid is a thing in and of itself and combines to create larger chains. These chains interact with proteins that bind to them and form smaller amino acids that chain into new proteins. There is no meaning and no intelligence involved in the interpretation of DNA. Refutation 2: DNA is not a code, because it does not have arbitrary rules. All codes and languages are governed by arbitrary rules. Grammar and spelling evolve alongside a language. The rules for pig-latin were developed artificially. DNA is governed by the laws of physics, which neither evolve alongside it, or were developed artificially. SEE VIDEO IN CONJUNCTION WITH REFUTATION 3 & 4 Refutation 3: DNA may possibly resemble a code now, but it did not resemble one when it first developed. All codes and languages symbolize something even at the first utterance. DNA originated as amino acids inside a primitive membrane that merely bound to each other and replicated via physical force. Refutation 4: DNA is not a code because all codes could only have been made via intelligence. No known code could have possibly developed naturally. It is possible that DNA arose by way of the video above. Thus, DNA is not a code. Refutation 5: The "code" in Pt. 1 is not the "code" in Pt. 2- Equivalence fallacy. There are different definitions for the word "code". We classify DNA as a code because it shares some similarities to what we view to be codes. The information in DNA is not really information. DNA is not really a code. The notion that codes need to come from an intelligence stems from inductive proof of the actual term "code", not things that are similar to it. Refutation 6: All codes can be used by humans in order to express their own meanings. We can use English words, French words, Spanish words, morse code, and even binary in order to express ourselves. However, we cannot use the mechanisms of interpretation of DNA to send messages. Thus, DNA is not a code. Refutation 7: This argument is invalid because it is not scientific. http://en.wikipedia.org... The argument that my opponent plagiarized is not a proof, but a theory, since it is inductive in nature. Inductive proofs can only be useful as theories and theories need to be falsifiable if they are to be valid. The original author of this argument provided only 1 way to falsify the theory: Find a naturally occurring code. Codes, by definition, have meaning and there is no objective meaning in nature. Thus, the only way to falsify this "theory" is to find a meaningless code, and that is an oxymoron. Since there is no way to falsify this theory, it is not a valid theory. I shall offer these right now, I look forward to my opponents response. Thank You. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should Donald Trump become President because Rebuttals: #1: "For your statement about the veteran healthcare situation, that is not factual." --- Well his website as I listed in my sources state that directly. If he became president he would do what he stated there. How is it not factual? #2: "For instance, he has said on live television that he was pro-life then a month later discusses that he was pro-choice." --- Not true. He was pro-choice as early as 1989 and later explicitly stated in 1999 on Meet the Press (1). He switched to pro-life with exceptions around 2011 (2). #3: "he has praised Saddam Hussein..." --- He only praised his ability to quell terrorists within his country. According to CNN, Trump called Saddam "a bad guy." Trump isn't referring to the guy himself but his ability to keep extremists down (3). SOURCES: (1)- https://www.youtube.com... (2)- https://www.washingtonpost.com... (3)- http://www.cnn.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Evolution Is Not Proven because Thanks for accepting. On to my opening arguments. 1. Gaps in the fossil record Were all life to have descended from a common ancestor via mutations and natural selection, the fossil record would consistenly show gradual transitions from simple organisms to far more complex organisms. However, this is not the case. The fossil record tells us that for billions of years, only single-celled life and colonial algae existed. Then, within a relatively tiny period of 15 millions years in the Ediacaran period, sponges, worms, and mollusks appeared. No gradual transitions between these and their (supposed) single-celled ancestors have ever been found. There are significant differences between a single-celled bacterium and a sponge. A sponge doesn't just have multiple cells, it has multiple types of cells. Also, while a bacteria can only reproduce asexually, sponges reproduce sexually. No fossils of expected transitionals between bacteria and sponges have been found. There should be some organism to bridge the gap between single-cellularity and multi-cellularity, like a 2-celled one. There also needs to be an organism to bridge the gap between having only 1 type of cell, to having upwards of 5 and 10. But there isn't. According to the fossil record, intepreting it under the assumption that all life shares a common ancestor, bacteria suddenly developed multi-cellularity, multiple types of cells, and sexual reproduction all at once! But it gets better. Both mollusks and worms appeared alongside sponges, with no gradual transition between them and their supposed single-celled ancestors. Mollusks have not 1, and not 5, or 12, but dozens of different tissues and organs, which require dozens of various cell types! One may object that the reason we find no transitions is because the transitional organisms were too small and too soft to survive the fossilation process. This assumption has been proven wrong. Cyanobacteria, which are both tiny and soft, have been preserved for over 3 billions years. (1) So one cannot excuse the fact that expected transitionals have not been found by claiming that they were too small or too soft, when bacteria, algae, jelly fish and sponges have been fossilized just fine. So far, I've only covered the Ediacaran Period. That was just an introduction of sorts; now, I want to blow this idea of Evolution out of the water. Let's talk Cambrian. In this period, completely new body plans appear, with alterations in the number of eyes, legs and segments, as well novel, mythological-appearing features. For example, Marrella spendens, that looks like a creature out of an Alien Vs. Predator movie: There's also Hallucigenia sparsa, whose name reflects its bizzare appearance: And last, but not least, Opabinia: Oh and of course, how could I forget about the Trilobites? These all generally represent completely new morphological forms than those found earlier in the fossil record. In this period (the Cambrian) about 20 new phyla suddenly appear. To put that number into perspective, only about 25 phyla exist in the fossil record, and a phyla is the broadest classification in the Animal Kingdom! All phylum (plural of “phyla”) represent massive morphological disparities between animals. Let's put some more perspective on the substantial differences that a phyla represents. Here are some familiar members of the Animal Kingdom: Phyla Vertebrata All of those animals belong to the phyla Vertebrata. That's right, the differences between a pet Goldfish and an attractive woman are not significant enough to warrant separate phylum! But over 10 brand new phylum suddenly appear in the Cambrian, with absolutely no gradual transition! Evolution, as defined in the first round, is far from being proven. Let us see if my opponent can solve the following puzzle: I now hand over the debate to my opponent, and wish him luck. (1) Schopf and Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,” 70; Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Cher <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate.org should have a better search because preposterous: http://dictionary.reference.com... Preposterous is defined here as senseless among other things. The search results make perfect sense to me. Click into one of the debates the search returns to you and then click Ctrl+f and type in the word you initially searched for. You will find it. You can also use google to search this site. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against WODC R1: This House believes that provision of Internet services should be a public utility.. because My argument extends (If Pro is present to do his rebuttals in the next round along side his closing argument, then I'll do the same.) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system. because My opponent did not come for the debate. I hope he will come back and challenge me again when he is ready. 1. Christianity, in large part, is not subjective, though there are some particular views within Christianity that are adiaphora. 2. All beliefs are not a matter of faith. I believe the Bible makes true claims. We can study both secular and religious history (as well as archeology) to find that the Bible does indeed make true claims. Moreover, diametrically opposing belief systems cannot possibly be no different from one another. For instance, there is a God and there is not a God - both are systems of belief and both cannot possibly be true. Therefore, if Christianity is true, it is different than other belief systems, and if it is false, it is different from whatever system is true. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits