text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation because Many thanks to Sieben for his post. I have assumed that in all the debates we are discussing, instigator is also Pro. My arguments may need to be rephrased slightly if this is not so. However this assumption should have no bearing on truth if any of the arguments. == Introduction and Definitions == My opponent has presented an 'inflationary' framework under which debate appears to be a broken form of argument. I can win this debate in three ways. If I can show that inflationary arguments do not give any undue advantage to either side. If I can show that such arguments can be anticipated and blocked by using valid rules. If I can present a simple and effective counter which will neutralize any advantage gained by using such a tactic. I accept Pro's definition of inflationary argument. However I will classify inflationary arguments, and use different arguments against different types. Symmetric Inflationary Debate (SID): A debate where both Pro and Con require increasing 'volume' of arguments to counter each other’s argument. Volume refers to the characters required in a written debate or time needed in a verbal debate. In SID, the Pro starts with a particular volume of argument. Con requires more volume than the Pro to counter it. In the next round, Pro needs even more volume to reemphasize her arguments. And so on and so forth. It is trivial to show that SID might run into limits on volume of argument imposed before the debate. Asymmetric Inflationary Debate (AID): A debate where one side, either Pro or Con, requires much more volume to present her arguments compared to the other side. An AID is likely when Pro is attacking some topic, while Con is defending it. Since it takes much more space to defend any institution rather than to attack it, it is likely that only one side (usually Con) will run into limits on volume. With these definitions in hand, I will proceed to rebut my opponent's argument. == Rebuttals == A) Linguistic Asymmetry: There is a difference in the way arguments and counter-arguments are composed. Pro argues that this is likely to lead to some inflation. I would like to assert that linguistic differences are unlikely to actually break any arguments. This is because a single argument can be worded in several ways. for example, I have reworded the reply in each of the cases presented by Pro, such that the reply has less number of characers. A: The sky is red Re1: The sky is not red => It isn't red Re2: The sky is blue => It is blue Re3: His sky argument has no source => No sources. Please note that rewording of this kind is required only when a debater actually runs into a volume limit. That is unlikely because, stringing together arguments of this kind is not so simple as Pro claims. The effort required in reducing character counts (as I outlined above) is much more simple than the effort required in creating such an argument. Since to secure an advantage is tough and countering it is simple, we can ignore linguistic asymmetry as a factor which breaks the debate. B) Logos asymmetry: I admit that this kind of asymmetry exists. However I will discuss it separately as per the classification I have presented. 1. Symmetric Inflationary Debate: Debating within time limits or word limit is an important skill of debating. If a debater is short of character limits or time limits, she has to drop some of her arguments and focus on key points. By definition of SID, the other debater will be forced to do the same. Finally the debate will judged based on the important points, which the debaters themselves choose. This kind of debate cannot be considered broken. I am sure that neither of us would like a debate without any limits on volume. No one would like to listen to a debate which extends like a 5 day test match in cricket [1]; Or to read one, where each round is written in form of a book. 2. Asymmetric Inflationary Debate : AID occurs when one side is defending an institution (religion, evolution) while the other side is attacking it. As defending an institution is usually tougher volumetrically rather than attacking it, an asymmetric burden can be placed on the debater defending the institution. The attacker can list arguments from multiple fields and demand that the defender provide answer to all of them. This kind of strategy is clearly abusive. What we need to know is that this kind of strategy is also widely acknowledged to be abusive. There are essentially two ways to counter it. Rule Blocks: Depending on topic, this kind of attack can be anticipated. A very valid rule block is to ask the opponent to limit herself to one or two strongest arguments. Counter: In case this kind of attack was not anticipated, the defender can simply point out the unequal burden. Address one or two of the points and ask the opponent to highlight one or two most important points in the next round so that they can counter it. In a debate, the judges are human beings. They are not computers which will award the debate to attacker just based on few points which were not addressed, even when the attack is clearly abusive. So if a debater is caught in a situation where she is not able to address all points because of unsymmetrical burden, she should simply highlight it. The attacker will be forced to reduce the points. In case the attacker refuses to pay heed, not only she is liable to lose the debate, but will definitely lose the conduct points as well. == Conclusion == While it is possible that an enterprising debater may try to take advantage of inflationary argument, a diligent opponent can feasibly counter it. It does not give a very big advantage to either side, though it does add one more dimension to the debate, making it even more fun! I have successfully presented how the defendant might counter an inflationary attack as outlined by my esteemed opponent. However it is possible that there is a deeper philosophical problem we need to think about. Is it possible for any human to ever phrase an argument, which can never be answered by another? Edgar Allan Poe pondered on a similar problem: "It may well be doubted whether human ingenuity can construct an enigma... which human ingenuity may not, by proper application, resolve." I look forward to further enigmatic arguments from Sieben! == Reference == [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario. because Firstly, my apologies for messing up one of the statistics. My point still stands however, in regards to acquiring Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff. Next my opponent decides to make his scenario more specific, in the final round, specifying diseases that he claims will result in 100% death rate, which is in direct contradiction to his scenario, which claims a 99.99% death rate. A small difference, yes, but it is the difference that matters for the Con position. Given that these newly introduced diseases break the scenario, I do not need to defend against them. Their invalidity in regards to the debate and scenario does the job for me. So I'll just round off finish off with a closing statement. It's all about the odds. Under Pro, 1,000 out of 1,000 babies will die. Under Con, 999 out of 1,000 babies will die. We owe it to that one baby to take these risks. For Amanda, the risks are not as bad as what could befall that one baby under the Pro position. I have already shown several ways the costs could be covered, and I have countered Pro's rebuttals to those ideas, to which he has provided no defense. I have shown that we can't assume the baby that lives might be content in its life, to which Pro has provided no counter. Thanks to TUF for creating this tournament. Happy New Year's. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing because I decided to click the link for my opponent's first cited source. After reading the first few sentences (which included the quotes he has provided for his argument), I noticed the next sentence - along with the following paragraph - reads, "According to this official version of events, no one in the Bush administration had the slightest idea of the identities of those who orchestrated the 11th September attacks, the nature of their plans, or their targets. Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Further evidence suggests that the attacks may, in fact, have been in the interest of certain elements of the Bush administration." This source actually supports MY argument that Bush did in fact have an extensive amount of knowledge and forwarning regarding the attacks. Dozens of other quotes and FACTS on this page elaborate on this occurence; see for yourself how my opponent's own source backs up MY argument and all the details regarding Bush's greatest failure (just one of many). In regard to my opponent's next attempt to put the blame on someone other than Bush, I would like to point out that Mr. Tenet is not and was not the President of the USA. As I have already pointed out, when the CIA presented intelligence to former President Clinton that warned of a suspected threat, he did something about the attacks where as GWB stood idly by. To argue that Clinton is to blame when I have presented his attempts at action vs. Bush's complete INACTION is appalling. Clinton responded to the warning. Bush did not. "Another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Bush, who had been President for half a year, was taking a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and shrugged off the growing alarm within the U.S. intelligence community." (Source: http://www.consortiumnews.com... ). Pro, writes "There was only so much he could do and there was only so much our homeland security could do. The CIA was doing its best to get the information it needed. To have a meeting every day is pointless." WRONG. Bush could have done more. He didn't. The CIA already had more than enough information; proof is that high government officials in Washington and even Mayor Giuliani cancelled their flight arrangements because of the threat they all knew was coming. In fact, much of the 9/11 controversy stems from the fact that the government deemed their official's lives more valuable than the hundreds of civilians who were not warned and died on the planes. Furthermore, to say that holding meetings every day is pointless is ridiculous! You're telling me that you would rather sacrifice hundreds... no, thousands of lives in a terrorist attack (that would later lead to war and all of the abominations that go with it - especially under Bush) than to sacrifice a little time each day to have a daily meeting? Give me a break. I sure hope Pro never runs for President! Especially since he thinks that "Every President goes on vacation for months periods." Tell that to Eisenhower who had a heart attack and lied about it so he could go to Washington the next day to deliver his foreign policy address (extending an olive branch to the Soviets after Stalin's death). "Despite his illness Ike insisted on returning to Washington and delivered his speech as scheduled, though he nearly collapsed. To steady himself he had to grab hold of the lectern. Beads of sweat formed on his forehead. He finally succeeded in finishing the speech only by skipping whole paragraphs." -- HNN Now, does anyone else truly believe that Bush would have done the same thing? Certainly not. Obviously he hasn't come close. Bush, as a matter of fact, has set the record for the longest vacation time of any President. According to the Associated Press, Bush made 50+ trips to his ranch in Texas between 2000 - 2005 alone. He spent 320 days on vacation by August of 2005 -- that's nearly an entire year! And let's not forget that he had 3 more years in office after that... So thus far in this round, I have proved that Bush was a bad candidate for the Presidency (despite the timing) for several reasons. First, he ignored an incredibly alarming amount of warnings regarding the iminent terrorist attacks on the USA, specifically in NYC. This is cited and supported everywhere you look, including my opponent's very own source. A good candidate would have made better attempts at prevention. Second, Bush's ridiculous amount of time spent on vacation has not been helping. A better President (i.e. Eisenhower) would have done what was best for the PEOPLE of this country and even in other parts of the world (i.e. Russia) instead of doing only what was best for himself. So not only have I provided insight as to what GWB should have been doing, but I also gave reference to a former Republican President who is an exemplary example of a good candidate. Pro writes, "Moving on to domestic affairs, Bush had absolutely no room to focus on many domestic affairs! He was fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and watching a dictator who appeared to be a threat to our national security." -- Bologna, to say the least! Bush should have known better than to throw caution to the wind and attack these other countries when we didn't have the funding or the support. Second, Bush himself is not looking for Osama nor is Saddam still a threat. After all, isn't that what special intelligence agencies are for, such as the FBI, CIA, or his cabinet? It seems to me like Bush and his supporters want to blame everybody else when things go bad saying he had nothing to do with it, but then they also want to act like they're sooo busy being involved that they cannot possibly do anything else. Here's a domestic affair for you: In 2007 Bush vetoed a Bill that would help the 9 million+ uninsured children. Their families make too much money to qualify for medicaid but in a Catch 22 cannot afford insurance. Eugene Robinson writes, "Bush's veto Wednesday of a bipartisan bill was infuriatingly bad policy ... According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week, 72% of Americans supported the bill Bush vetoed ... Bush's stated reasons for vetoing the SCHIP bill left even reliable congressional allies puttering in incomprehension. As for me, I don't know what to call the president's rationale but a pack of flat-out lies." The article then goes on to detail the *many lies* that Bush reported to the public (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com... ). As far as "accomplishments" go, this is redundant - I've already cited and explained how they are exaggerated and/or lies. One thing I hate in terms of debate is when my opponent will throw out blatant lies or misinformation in order to support their points. For instance, Pro has stated that it *I* am IGNORANT because it is "common knowledge" that military enlistments go down in times of war... is this a joke?! READ YOUR HISTORY. During WWII men were lined up around the block (literally) to enlist! But don't take my word for it (Source: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com... ). Pro admits that Bush provided more economic incentives to enlist (because people don't support the cause!)... but with all his tax breaks, who's paying for it?! Exactly. Bad decision. Bush is not a smart guy. He was/is not a good candidate. Not now, not ever. Bush does whatever benefits his OWN ECENOMIC INTERESTS (outside of the presidency) despite his loyalty to Conservatives and Americans in general. Yes president's do have an incredibly difficult job, however, if they can't handle it to the point that they're making SO MANY *detrimental* mistakes, then they are not good candidates. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class. because Alright, in the 6th grade, someone in my class's LC (Learning Community) had a mom who died of some disease. I had no clue who that person was, and I doubt I ever talked to that person. Then one of the teachers of the LC walked into our classroom and told everyone how the kid's mom died, and the kid wasn't going to show up for a few days, and about how nobody should try to start a conversation about the subject. And then, every student in the LC (that's about a hundred kids) is required to write a little sympathy card by folding a piece of paper in half and writing something on each of the four rectangles formed by the card. We weren't asked to do it. We weren't suggested to do it. We were required to write a card to someone most of us didn't even know about how we feel sorry for the person for his mom dying. Now, if I were that kid, reading through a hundred cards from people I didn't know constantly mentioning my mom being dead would only make the pain worse. I didn't even know what to write on the card, so it ended up sounding very apathetic, which was even worse. The point is, I think that a group of students should never be required to write sympathy cards to anybody. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places because cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money. Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to “smoke” to your heart’s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. ......... http://goeshealth.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Distance Track is Better than Cross Country because I would request that my opponent not respond in the next round. If he does so, he can levy attacks against my arguments without me having my normally allotted response. I should not have to suffer because my opponent skipped a round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sniperjake1994 is a conservative. because I hope you learned your lesson, I urge you to debate on topics that are not as childish as this, but I do hope also we can have a truly fun a good debate. Please extend my arguments. VOTES Conduct: Whilst not rude, a concession removes all good conduct and defaults the the person who won for two key reasons: A) A concession implies all votes to the winner. B) It kills debatibilty and is thus bad spirited. Also he didn't address my arguments which is essence wasted my time. So CON Arguments: My last speeches arguments were not attacked and quality wise I warranted mine, he failed to do so. Once again CON Spelling and Grammar: We can call this a tie, but according to a concession all votes ought to go to me. CON or a Tie either will suffice. Sources: My opponent left none I proved my arguments with valid sources. Finally, Con. Thank you for reading (voters) and starting this debate (opponent). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I can post the stupidest video because I accept! You're going down! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against This is not a debate. because Replies 1. " In a real debate, people don't go off topic like that." I disagree. " in his next argument entertained my comments about tarantulas, by disagreeing with me that they were scary and monstrous. Therefore we were having a conversation and not a debate, because I couldn't even stick to the topic" Pro contends that the definition of debate it "And, finally I would like to remind my opponent that the definition of a debate is having opposing viewpoints." Thus, since I disagreed with what pro said we had opposing views. So this is a debate. Whether or not it is a debate over a specific topic is irrelevant. 2. "There has been a pathetic lack of clash in this non-debate" You can vote Con. Pro agrees that there has been some clash, so this is a debate. " As I said earlier, once you take all the arguing out of a debate, it ceases to be a debate but instead becomes a discussion." Problem: We've been bickering over definitions this entire debate, thus we have been arguing. " In a debate, 2 people have opposing sides and try to prove why their side is right. I failed to do that in this non-debate" Pro doesnt prove this claim. 3. "However, he was not disputing the subject at hand( whether or not this is a debate) he was simply disputing my off-topic rambling about tarantulas and other irrelevant stuff " Talk about irrelevant! You've defined a debate as "having opposing viewpoints", and I disputed your statements. Your definition proves that this is a debate. Who cares if it's about the subect at hand? "Notice how my opponent is making an attempt to argue with me, but I have not made any effort at all in this non-debate" Problem: You've made statements, I've disagreed. Opposing viewponts=debate. Also of note: My definition was dropped by my opponent, extend that. My evidence of this being a debate was dropped, extend that. My opponent has ured a con ballot, vote con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The egg came before the chicken. because You cannot change the definition of the egg the round before the debate ends. The definition of the egg should be as previously agreed upon. If we believe this definition to be true, then the egg did indeed come first. It is also not "ridiculous and untrue" that that the egg was laid by proto-chickens. And even though proto-chickens laid this egg, it was in fact the first egg. By your definition of an egg (the original one), it does not matter WHO laid the egg, but the fact that this egg contains all the genetics necessary to create a chicken. I would very much like you to read this article and WATCH this video and you will completely understand my argument and WHY it is true. Also to address your point that since this evolution process is slow than one generation would not make a new species. It is in fact true that the process is slow, but TECHNICALLY genes would change in each generation making it so that eventually there WOULD be one single generation that held all the genetics that created a TRUE chicken, and that chicken would be laid by an egg. The first egg the contains all the genetics necessary to create a, by today's standards, chicken. Which means that the egg came first. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am me because "It's somewhat a pity that my opponent did not posit [sic] that I am myself instead of me" I already did. As I have already argued, my opponent's definition of "me" could not be the correct definition, because it does not fit its place in the sentence. It even says in my opponent's definition: "the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object" http://dictionary.reference.com... The reflexive case would be proper to use in this situation. My opponent's source does not verify his claim, it negates it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It then becomes important to find a more proper definition of "me", as none has been found yet. I PROPOSE A VALID DEFINITION OF ME http://en.wikipedia.org... (mythology) http://www.crystalinks.com... From the second of those sources: "The me is the order out of chaos, the great attributes of civilization, the powers of the gods. The me were conferred by the gods on other gods or on the king-priests, who as the representatives of the gods on Earth, ensured the continuation of civilization. The special powers, contained within the me allowed the holy plan or design (the gis-hur) to be implemented on Earth. The me were contained within special objects of great sacred value, such as the royal throne, the sacred bed, the temple drum, the scepter, the crown, and other special articles of clothing or jewelry to be worn, sat on, lied in, and so forth." ALSO: Consider the following: -There is no way for the resolution to display subscripts because of DDO's code format. -The "e" could be a subscript. -If "e" was a subscript, then "me" would mean "electron mass". http://www.answers.com... This is the most valid possibility for the definition of "me". If my opponent wishes to contend this, then he must propose a more valid definition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY MY OPPONENT CANNOT BE A SPECIAL POWER CONVEYED BY "THE GODS" Me was the way of gods to carry out their divine design. They were spirit-like powers contained in valuable objects. My opponent is neither a spirit-like power or contained inside an object. He is a human. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHY MY OPPONENT CANNOT BE ELECTRONIC MASS EITHER While my opponent may have electron mass, he is not electron mass. He is also composed of protons and neutrons. I await a response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am not a troll! because #1 I live in California and we shorten Mexican food for mexi food in a non racist way, just shortening it for convenience. His trolling argument is if I can say mexi food he can say japs food. First off japs food has a derogatory term in it and could be argued as racist. If I said beaner food in the place of mexi food then it would be on the same playing field of racist vs racist statements. Mexi food is clearly not racist when japs food is racist he is just trolling the argument. (I was only using the derogatory language to prove a point, and in no way used it to be offensive.) #2 I cannot remember how it started but in any case the argument here was Russians are Asians. I was stating that Russians live in Asian but they are not considered part of the "Asian ethnicity". #3 You can hear inflection difference in your voice when you smile while talking. Whether its sub-conscience or in fact changing pitch of your voice I am not sure but this troll likes to argue everything and spit out things as fact when they are not fact at all. Try talking to someone on the phone while smiling and when not and see if there is a difference. #4 This troll wanted to make a debate on trolling while trolling. Enough said. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games. because Thanks, Pro! == PRO'S ARGUMENTS == C1. Scumtells vs. Noob Mistakes Pro says, " A new player may refuse to give up their character [upon pressure] or may give too much info including their role, or may copy-paste their role PM." First, giving up their character and/or role is exactly what they are being pressured to do. Plus, having a role revelation is not the end of the world (especially since most n00bs tend to not get the best roles for aforementioned reasons). I personally hate themed games, so role revelation is the only revelation in certain games anyway. Second, a new player may do the same even if they are not the first to claim. It is the responsibility of everyone to keep an eye out for n00bs and warn against potential mistakes. Finally, Pro says that experienced mafioso may pursue n00b mistakes and push for lynches based on these mistakes. If an experienced player were to do that, I would pick up on it as scummy. Noticing these patterns and behaviors is exactly what mafia is all about. If Pro can say that experienced mafia will use n00b mistakes against them, then he is acknowledging that there are patterns you can use to determine which experienced players may be mafia (though once again we've got nothing to go on with n00bs). C2. Assessment of Guilt Pro writes, " My point is that pressuring players whose style you know is more efficient because their reactions give you more insight than pressuring players you don't know." In most cases you're merely relying on the claim itself. If we're playing in a Batman themed game, and I claim Batman, you are making a judgment based on the character that I claimed - not "my style." Now suppose I claimed a minor character. The mafia will attack any minor characters regardless of who claims them. I've mentioned that you don't need to pressure someone to see their style. Pro says that when someone is pressured, their reaction to the pressure is what is telling. That may be so, but it doesn't negate the fact that style can be assessed even without pressure or claims. Also, EVERYONE'S reaction is going to be defensive, so this isn't really helpful. Pro says that noticing if someone reverses pressure or "stubbornly demands" that more votes be placed on them before claiming are possible scumtells, and pressuring someone you don't know won't give you the same insight. Any experieneced player will not reveal information automatically (in most cases) without a sufficient amount of pressure, so these aren't scumtells. These are things the mafia picks out to specifically use against people and proclaim are scumtells whether it's true or not. If someone accuses me, and in turn I pressure them back, it doesn't necessarily make me guilty. I do it to mafia all the time. That is simply how the game is played. Sometimes you're lying, and sometimes you're not. C3. Info About a Player's Role Pro says, " My argument is that new players unaware of how much they should reveal... For instance, a noob pressured for a character claim on DP1 may reveal that he/she is the doctor or watcher." Again, it is up to the other players to help avoid these mistakes. If they do make a mistake, c'est la vie. Also, in most themed games character claims are practically the same as role claims. If we're playing in a Harry Potter theme, and a n00b claims Harry, guess what - Harry is getting role blocked or killed regardless of whether or not the mafia knows his role. Pro also says " Con doesn't respond to the fact that if the new player pressured is mafia, they have the support of their mafia teammates so can think of a good claim." First, the mafia usually never has any idea what to claim on DP1 until they get a clue from a townie claim about what to say and what to avoid. Second, even so the mafia cannot typically claim a power character or role, so if they do claim that it's probably legit, and if they don't it will be suspicious just as it would by any minor character or role. C4. Strategies Used to Avoid Claiming Pro says, " Even if asked for a role-claim, an experienced player might be able to convince the town that it is not in their best interest to push for it." This is silly. If an experienced player says, "Don't pick me cuz I totally have an important role," people will either (a) say this is shady and make them claim anyway, or (b) it automatically puts a target on them for killing or role blocking. There really isn't much to this contention, and as I explained in an earlier round I've already addressed this point. Anyone who is initially pressured will be expected to claim a certain level of information initially. This is dependant on the theme and not experience. == CON'S ARGUMENTS == C4. I pointed out that when pressured, n00bs (because they tend to suck at being mafia) typically fold under pressure and do not put up a decent fight because they aren't experienced enough to know how. Meanwhile it is harder to assess an experienced player's guilt (i.e., bluesteel, tvellalott, etc.) so determining their guilt is better left up to investigations and other scumtells, or character and role revelation later on in the game since they will be better at utilizing their night actions. Pro's only response is that, "But this creates a problem where the same group of experienced players always tend to be investigated first which is not a pleasant experience for anyone." Actually the only people it isn't pleasant for are those experienced players in particular, and F-16 is preaching to the choir. I am one of those players. It sucks. But you know what? More people play, become experienced, and eventually everyone (or most people) become equally threatening. Before bluesteel started playing mafia, 9/10 night actions were directed toward me on NP1 (some mod gave me that statistic -- I think askbob). Now, players have other threats to choose from. Plus, everyone's style is different. I tend to not automatically target big players early on with my night actions, but that's me. C5. I've said that with experienced players, you have figured out patterns that you recognize that can help you deduce whether or not they are mafia. With a n00b, you are completely blind to their playing style and have absolutely no idea what to look for or notice when they participate. Therefore, claims are the ONLY initial way to determine one's level of suspicion. Pro says, "Their [experienced players] reaction to pressure IS the read that you should be looking for." This is merely Pro's opinion and is certainly not the only way to assess style. I've pointed out that everybody is going to be defensive regardless of their affiliation. I've also specifically named other ways to determine one's game-play that have nothing to do with reacting to pressure, such as how they vote, who they pressure and why, the tone of what they say and how they say it, their activity level, bandwagoning, etc. C6. The point is simple - The only way to tell if a n00b's idiocy is legitimate or not is to get a definitive claim from them. Pro says this can "go both ways" and that since experienced mafioso play pro-town, you ought to rely on a claim from them. This isn't true because -- once again -- there are other things you can rely on for assessment. Meanwhile, with a noob the ONLY intitial way to assess how they are playing is with a claim, because they don't know how they SHOULD be playing. If I make a mistake, it would be indicative of my guilt. If a n00b makes a mistake, it is definitely not necessarily indicative of their guilt. --- My other contentions were never important so they can easily be dropped with no detriment to my case. However, FYI it's not true that most mods assign roles randomly. I don't want to lose Sources points automatically, so I will reference the same source in which it is specifically outlined to make sure there are equal levels of experience on both sides which goes against the idea of random assignments [1]. [1] http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against home work should be banned because School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The cake is a lie. because As epic as Portal is, and as awesome as the 'The cake is a lie' meme is, unfortunately, like most internet memes, it doesn't actually make any sense when you look at it a little closer. A cake is an object. Objects cannot be true or false, only statements about things can. The resolution is therefore negated by virtue of it being grammatically incoherent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against help me with debate because I thank my opponent for the response. My opponent quoted: "o..k so what is the best stuff to talk about right now in this mess of the world i'm thing it's the econmoy? what do you think it is" Discussing the "best" things to talk about is subjective. I personally enjoy engaging in conversations regarding philosophy and morality. However, this is irrelevant to the debate itself. I heavily urge a Con vote. My opponent has not provided a single argument, but I have. Also, my opponent was satisfied with my response, proving that I have done my job. Thank you for the debate, I heavily urge a Con vote. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Politifact is biased because C1) Large sample size and comprehensive coverage A larger sample size creates a wider selection of topics and facts as opposed to selectively choosing facts where Republicans have told the truth. Pro's coin example is not analogous. A good analogy would be a situation where 1000 coins are flipped and lie on the ground. Checking 820 of those coins and concluding that there are 9 times more heads than tails is far more accurate than checking 267 of those coins and finding out that there are an equal number of heads and tails. Pro makes an unwarranted claim that Dobbs put as much effort into checking facts as Politifact did. Dobbs spread himself very thin by checking 267 facts just by himself and his assistant. Compare that to Politifact using a staff of 100 members to check 820 facts. We can see that not only did the Politifact staff have more time per fact, they also were able to check facts in their area of expertise as opposed to Dobbs who had to be a Jack of all trades. Furthermore Pro conflates the experience of other Post journalists that Dobbs took assistance from with regular staff at politifact. An occasional favor doesn't compare to a full-time staff member. I have never argued that a large staff size makes an organization unbiased. I argued that it makes them more competent. I've used this competency of Politifact compared to the lack of it at WP to explain the differences between WP and politifact. WP is a small organization which does not have the human resources necessary to accurately check facts. C2) The Washington Post isn't unbiased or Liberal Deborah Howell has a conservative bias. A vote for Obama by itself doesn't make someone a liberal as they could have previously voted for Bush. To show bias, a comprehensive evaluation must be made. In the wikipedia page that Pro cited, there is a list of 14 politicians who have received direct contributions from Abramoff and every one of them is a Republican. Harry Reid had no direct involvement with Abramoff. What Pro is referring to was that Reid received money from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff's firm which is a stretch at best. Compare this to Howell saying that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," and FEC reports that show that there is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any democrat any money shows that she is biased in favor of Republicans. Her cover-up of this incident by the Washington Post management shows that bias extends to the Washington Post as well. Pro claims that liberals “admit” to there being liberal bias but his source is that of a conservative website known as “ Media Research Center, The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias .” It cites a bunch of journalists claiming that there is liberal bias. Nowhere does it say that the journalists themselves are liberals, so Pro's point is a leap from “some journalists claim that the media is biased” to saying that “liberals acknowledge there is a liberal bias.” The site itself is biased considering its goal is to find “liberal media bias” not any media bias. Compare that to my evidence from Consortium News which provides independent, investigative journalism and shown that the WP is conservatively biased by blaming the recession on Obama while facts show that the recession started in the Bush administration. Pro claims that it is reasonable since it has been 4 years since Obama held office. Yet, the reports dates back to March 2009 negating Pro's point and showing clear evidence of bias. We can see that when Pro's claim of a “liberal media bias” is countered, the UCLA study holds no water. The reason is that the UCLA study claims that 18 of 20 media outlets primarily cite the same sources as liberal congress people. However, all this shows is that liberal congress people cite the same sources as news outlets in general. The UCLA study uses circular reasoning. The sources cited by liberals being in line with 90% of news outlets make the liberal congress people more likely to cite journalistic quality sources as opposed to making the news outlets liberal. Their demarcation between what is liberal and conservative is off since as an 18-20 split which shows that the WP falling on the liberal side has little merit. C3) Examples 1) Rand Paul : First, listening to Paul, one would be led to believe that the average federal employee earns an annual salary of $120,000. The average annual salary is $81,000. Paul's figure includes the benefits, health insurance, and even pensions to factor into it. Whether or not, the benefits and pensions are factored in depends on the wording and context of the claim. Paul says “ I would freeze federal hiring. I would maybe reduce federal employees by 10 percent. I’d probably reduce their wages by 10 percent. The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year .” From this statement, it is clear that the audience would assume that the $120,000 are wages. Paul did not mention that he included benefits. IRS data separates the wages from benefits as they are two distinct things. Secondly, as shown by fact-check, the $123,000 is the number which Rand Paul got not from the BEA but from a libertarian think tank called CATO whose mission is to "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government.” They have a bias towards making it seem like the Federal workers are earning more [22]. 2) Rob Cornilles : Cornilles had not just mentioned the 98% as a statistic; he used it to support a claim of partisanship while omitting important information to mislead the voters. Pro claims that Bonamici voted with democrats on 90% of the votes that matters. This is not the claim made by Cornilles. He used an inflated number of 98%. The 98% would have been accurate at determining partisanship had Cornilles also mentioned the number of times Bonamici voted with the Republicans. Hence the half-true rating. Politifact were not fact-checking my opponent, they were checking Rob Cornilles. 3) Apology tour : Terms like “apology” need to be appropriately defined in order to be fact-checked. How would Politifact define it? There are hundreds of dictionaries and many levels and interpretations of the word in the common language. As a fact-checking service, Politifact chose the definition “a formal state apology” considering that the person accused of giving the apology is the president. They then proceeded to check whether Obama's statements match this claim. Pro has not given a single example of an apology from Obama even when asked so he concedes this point. His entire argument is based on an assumption that Obama had given “informal” apologies and a further assumption that the GOP had claimed that Obama had given an “informal” apology neither of which are true. 4) Affordable Care Act : First, the ACA doesn't actually cost $1750 billion. It costs $1250 billion net. The remaining money comes back through penalties, receipts, and other budgetary effects. Pro tries to discount them by saying that they are done merely “on paper” and “by the Obama administration.” I refuted both of these points by showing that these came straight out of the CBO projections. With that point negated, Pro has no ground to stand on considering the gross cost instead of net cost. Second, Pro's numbers are based off of comparing a 10 year period to an 11 year period. As I have explained, over a uniform 8 year period (the only period common to both analysis), the net costs actually declined by 0.64%. Pro says taxes are collected upfront and benefits paid out later should be mentioned. It has nothing to do with the truth of the ad which made no such claims. Sources [22] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached because First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only. No new arguments may be brought up in the final round. This includes new rebuttals/responses. You may only use this round to summarize, clarify, and/or restate what you have already said. This debate is in reference to Ronald Reagan, 40th president of the United States; it is also referencing the Iran-Contra Scandal in the 80s. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best original rap because I'm far better than you man don't f*ck with the boss. I'd rather cut off my own dick than suffering loss. Try to f*ck with me I'll nail you to a cross. When I came across this battle I was cracking a smile. Cause I haven't owned a faggot in a battle for a while. While I'm making this rap you jacking off to pictures of Billy Idol. Your raps weak, makin you comparable to Lil Wayne. My raps dope, makin me comparable to Wu Tang. I ain't callin you socialpinko any more, shitty rapper is your new name. These lyrics gonna be like gay teen porn to you dude. Probably gonna keep a photo of it in a cabinet with your lube tube. =========================================== I'm sorry to those who actually had to read my opponent's lyrics <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed because I accept. However based on the way you phrased the resolution, I am going on the assumption that you aren't saying its better that we have a choice, as we do now, but that you're saying that a society in which everyone has a firearm is better. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player. because First, I'd like to welcome my friend for creating her first debate, despite her making her account so long ago. Second, I'd like to own her in this debate. The resolution is "Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player." I have to argue that Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player. This is just obvious. Mendoza's reputation is as one of the worst MAJOR LEAGUE baseball players of all-time. However, as we all know, the Major Leagues are most likely the most talented baseball league in the world. As of today, there are 30 teams x 25 players/team = 750 Major League players at any one time. Compared to the average citizen–no, even the average baseball player, any Major League player is a beast. Only the best of the best of the best ever sniff the Major Leagues in their lifetimes. Let's shoot low and say there are 1000 high schools in the nation with baseball teams (obviously, there are far more). Then, there are at least 9 players per team. That means there are 9000 high school baseball players. Now, let's say there are 100 colleges with baseball teams (obviously there are far more), and they have 9 players per team. Now, let's say there are 3 minor league teams (each organization actually has 4 or 5) and that each minor league team has 25 players. 3 minor league teams/major league teams x 30 major league teams x 20 (again, the typical professional roster has about 25 players, so we're shooting low) players/minor league team = more than 1500 players. Add all those up, and with ridiculously low estimates, we see more than 10,000 baseball players at levels less talented than the Majors. Clearly, even if a player is horrible in the Majors, like Mario Mendoza, he is better than 10,000 other baseball players–99.99th percentile, about. Keep in mind the unbelievably low estimates I used, and Mendoza is still better than 10,000. I'd say that makes him a good baseball player. The resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Does God Exist? because You didn't clarify what you meant by God. How was I supposed to know what you meant by God? I thought you meant any God in general. Though, I do agree with you on the matter that "there is no evidence of a deity, and it is physically impossible for a deity to exist." Regardless, I have proved that God does exist. http://www.philamuseum.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against dogs are better than cats because First, I will present my own case. 1) Cats are generally cleaner than dogs. You will never have to give a cat a bath. This is because they clean themselves [1]. 2) Cats are generally better looking than dogs. This is because "whereas dogs have been bred for utility, cats have been bred solely for appearance" [2]. 3) Cats do not require a human to exercise. The cat owner does not have to feed their cat. 4) Cats are significantly quieter. Dogs bark loudly when they are bored or insecure, but dogs are just prone to barking [4]. Cats make sounds that are much quieter and pleasing to the human ear [1]. 5) Cats are easier to clean up after. This is because they use a litter box [1]. Dogs pee to mark their territory[6] and are picky about where they poop[5]. 6) Dogs can not be left home on vacation. Unlike dogs, cats are independent and "will not be traumatized" if they are left alone when their owners are on vacation [1]. 7. Dogs submissively urinate [7]. 8. Cats are more intelligent than dogs [8]. 9. Cats will not beg their owners constantly for food [8]. 10. Cats show their affection better. This is because they choose to purr and rub themselves against their owners [1]. Dogs, on the other hand, lick their owners. This lick is unsanitary because dogs will lick their privates and eat other dog's poop [9]. Now, I will address my opponent's points. First, I would like to assert that keeping drugs out of America is not a good thing. Arresting a man for pursuing his own happiness is a violation of god-given rights, as defined in the American Declaration of Independence [10]. In pursuing his own happiness without any cost to others, the man is arrested. Dogs have been put to the use of destroying human rights and jailing innocent human beings. Second, I would like to point out that many of my opponent's points also apply to cats. These include his second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth points. Third, I would like to point out that my opponent's sixth point, that "Dogs are man's best friend" is just a saying and has absolutely no meaning in this debate. After eliminating the points aforementioned, we can see that there are only ideas regarding what dogs can be trained to do. Cats can be trained just as easily as dogs; however, they must be trained using different techniques because they think differently [2] [11]. Cats, being more intelligent than dogs [2][8][11], are capable of learning a plethora of tricks [11] and can be trained to do anything a dogs can do. In conclusion, cats are lower maintenance, give better affection, and are more intelligent than dogs. Cats can be trained to do anything a dog can do. Dogs are used to destroy human rights. Therefore, cats are better than dogs. Sources: [1] http://therealowner.com... [2] http://www.messybeast.com... [3] http://dixiemeows.com... [4] http://dogbarkinghelp.com... [5] http://www.petplace.com... [6] http://wiki.answers.com... [7] http://www.petplace.com... [8] http://www.articlesbase.com... [9] http://www.seefido.com... [10] http://www.archives.gov... [11] http://www.messybeast.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler because The Garden of Eden I believe my opponent may have misunderstood the extent of my point. I am aware that, chronologically within the Bible, Adam and Eve are the only humans, living in the Garden, they eat from the forbidden tree, they are exiled, and outside of the Garden they have three children (Cain, Able, and Seth). However, my opponent explicitly states that Adam and Eve were at least at one point the only humans on Earth. This either disagrees with the passage about Cain's wife, or suggests he brought a younger sister with him, or married a non-human. Regardless of whom Cain married, it is irrelevant. My opponent states that God gave humans no desire to sin against him. This seems to be at crossed purposes with giving them free will, since this would mean designing them with an inbuilt 'firewall' against a specific branch of freedom. My opponent also mentions that according to the Bible, Satan 'came down' and tempted Eve who then tempted Adam. If my understanding is correct, what tempted Eve was actually a talking snake with legs, that was ambiguously referenced in such a way that it can be inferred to have been Lucifer, God's greatest angel. Even if this is the case, God would have designed and created Lucifer, and if truly omniscient, would have known everything that Lucifer would do, thus meaning he designed Lucifer to do those things, also meaning that Lucifer would have no free will. The sum of this is that whether directly or indirectly, God is the one who tempted Eve, and by extent Adam, to eat from the tree that he did not want them to. Ah, forgive me if I did not directly phrase the connection between God and Hitler; I had thought it would be extrapolated from my assertions. I stated "This illustrates that God has a sense of elitism, of the ideal human, and that humans are not necessarily valuable to him, even, as he protects them from outside only to torment them within." My reference to elitism and the picture of the ideal human to whom God shows favoritism were the implied link between he and Hitler. Noah's Ark The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. This seems to me to very directly conflict with the Con's statement "God was greatly grieved by all of the people sinning, and resolved to remove humanity except for Noah (who didn't convince God of anything), because Noah was a righteous man." Later on, as I specified in my argument, God was persuaded by Noah to change his mind. However, as demonstrated by the passage above, God's original intent was to wipe out every living thing on Earth. My opponent states that the comparison between Hitler and God is loose at best because Hitler's ideal human was one who not only followed a specific moral code, but also conformed to a specific physical identity, whereas God's ideal human only had to follow a specific moral code. I grant, Hitler was pickier than God, but I don't see how that lessens God's quest for racial purity. His intent was not to save a specific race, but to create a master race from favorable individuals, which lines up very well with Hitler's goal. My opponent also states that the people of the world were given a chance. Now, I do not know how many people he would estimate had a view of Noah's Ark, which was much smaller than the infamous Titanic, to give you a reference. Whatever my opponent's estimate, I doubt he would say that every human on the planet of that time had an opportunity to hear and see Noah's influence. That was hardly a fair warning--sort of like warning an entire city with a chalk drawing in the corner of one secluded alley. If God had, as the Con suggests, wanted the people of the world to be saved, he might perhaps have invested in a better advertising campaign. I think it still remains very firmly standing that I have established that God, like Hitler, dreamt of genocide, and sought to create a master race out of the survivors of his global war/domination (in this case, via flood). Job My opponent calls my argument about Job fragile, then proceeds to return to how it was all Satan's fault. How God was really a good guy throughout all of this. Two simple points on the matter have I: firstly, I return to my earlier statement, about how God, omniscient and omnipotent, would have known everything Satan would do given every variation of his character before he ever created him, thus, in creating him the way he chose, he chose to create the monster that Satan supposedly became (the Bible speaks of Satan's evil, but I actually see much more genocide and suffering caused by God than Satan). Secondly, I would point out that in condoning Satan's experiment, God did exactly what Adolph Hitler did, which is to sanction the cruel experiment of another person, while remaining distant and 'uninvolved.' My opponent, it occurs to me, may not be very familiar with Adolph Hitler. Sodom and Gomorrah You're right, in that, now that I examine once more, the Bible does not explicitly state that Sodom and Gomorrah's acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of God's decision to destroy the cities. However, my opponent has his 'facts' very mixed up as to how events progressed in that story. My opponent states "The two angels, sent to Lot's family to warn them to leave the city before it was destroyed, at first decide to sleep in the city square. Lot, seeing them there, knows that they'll be dead by morning if they sleep there. He takes them to his house and lets them spend the night, but during dinner a group of men start banging on the door. They demanded the angels be given to them so they could rape them." According to Genesis 19, Lot met the angels at the gate and offered them a place to stay. He did not do so with the purpose of saving them. Furthermore, when the locals surrounded the house and demanded the travelers be surrendered to them for sex, A) it is not specified that rape was the intention (Sodom's culture may have included surprise orgies), and B) Lot's characters is significantly defaced when he offers his two teenage daughters to a crowd of libidinous homosexuals in place of his male guests. While my opponent is correct, the Bible is no more explicit than to state that the people of Sodom were wicked, it may have had something to do with the surprise orgies. Regardless of God's declaration of the moral state of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, it remains that he resolved to kill the whole populations of both cities. Like God, Adolph Hitler declared his victims to be wicked, and his own cause righteous. I fail to see the difference. Lady Love Yes, I apologize. I did get carried away and stray off-topic by including some unrelated filler about the relationship between God and Mary. I will dismiss the point except for one issue: my opponent states two interesting things: God is omnipotent, and God sent Jesus as a sacrifice for mankind. Now, I think it is implied that my opponent would hold the purpose of this 'sacrifice' to be part of an elaborate plan to save humanity from sin. If the first-mentioned point is true, that God is omnipotent, it seems bizarre to me that he would go to such lengths with alternatives. Revelation My opponent seems to have ignored entirely my point that, according to Revelation, God is to be creating a utopia for his ideal humans, whatever race that be, while the non-ideal ones are tortured. My opponent is quite wrong that Hitler cared only about race, and not about actions. To be continued. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Government has a Moral Obligation to Assist Nations in Need? because First of all let me begin my addressing by opponent's opening quote by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch non-interventionist and believed that although we should promote healthy relationships with all nations.. we should have entangling alliances with none. Therefore any evidence relating to works of this Founding Father belong to the negative. Moving on to my opponents first point relating to the fact that if government is amoral then it also must have amoral policies. This statement is absolutely correct. Allow me to explain. The definition of morality as accepted by my opponent is " a duty to act based on one's beliefs" to allow government to have "personal beliefs" is to threaten the justice of which my opponent so highly speaks. Consider the Spanish Inquisition. During this time period the government took on the morality of the Catholic church, and as such felt that it was the GOVERNMENT's OBLIGATION to promote this religious morality. The end result was unlimited government which was permitted to torture, burn, drown, and destroy those who opposed this morality. We cannot put a moral face on government without jeopardizing human rights and justice. Speaking of justice... my opponent upholds that Justice and morality are basically one and the same. However I disagree. Once established, government becomes a monopoly regarding coercive force. There’s nothing optional about government. Government is the arbiter of justice, and justice is based on laws, police, prosecutors, courts, jail and other penalties. Justice might possibly claim to be ‘informed’ by morality, but for the reasons already stated, justice is not morality. Only institutions composed of one or more people who have made the free will decisions to associate can arbitrate morality, because according to the accepted definition of morality only individuals can make personal decisions relating to their duty. This is why government is an institution of laws not of morals. Under this point, my opponent affirmed that "Human rights legislation and capital punishment laws are other important areas of government action that cannot be separated from moral concerns." However as was seen earlier in my example of the Spanish Inquisition, if we base our human rights legislation off what particular individuals believe to be moral it may actually violate human rights. For example, the Islamic form of government is based of the Koran, which is the Islamic code of morality, however as can be seen in recent events, this religion violates human rights. The majority of my opponent's response deals with the issue that aid to foreign nations, actually does protect national sovereignty. This is precisely the point that I explained in my 2nd Contention. Government has an obligation to protect from dangers without. If that means supplying assistance to our allies then it definitely falls under the protection of national sovereignty and of the citizens. However, when government is obligated to provide aid to EVERY country which is in need it forces government to look outside the needs of its own people and obligates it to provide aid to every nation, even those who may be our enemy and will use this aid for our destruction. If individuals seek to provide aid to those suffering in other countries.. indeed let them do so. Charity belongs to the individual not to the institution of government. Finally, I will respond to my opponents rebuttal of my Rwanda Example. The impacts of a serious string of actions violating national sovereignty has lasting impacts. Violence had been taking place before the actual genocide, however the outburst of feelings and resentment finally boiled over in 1994. So although the storm was several decades in coming, the actions of Belgium in the disruption of Rwanda's social structure was a key contributing factor to the Genocide. Therefore, my example still stands. I will conclude with a quote by President George Washington from his Farewell Address "Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Jesus was not the God or Son of God because Thank you for this interesting topic. 1. Thanks for admitting “Yes you are right there are other sources that mention Jesus”. I assume this means you are accepting the accuracy of those non Biblical sources cited. 2. I encourage you to take the Bible more seriously. There is a great deal of textual evidence that makes the NT more authoritative, so if you accept the non Biblical sources from my round 1 you should also accept the NT. [1] If you accept the Quran as true, I encourage you to accept the Torah and the Gospels as true. “He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.” S. 3:3 “This Koran could not have been forged apart from God; but it is a confirmation of what IS before it, and a distinguishing of the Book, wherein is no doubt, from the Lord of all Being.” S. 10:37 Many places in the Quran refer to the Torah and Gospels as “ a confirmation of what IS before it” You need to take the Bible seriously. 3. You claim that “Jesus never claims to be God in any text” You are clearly wrong. A) John 8:53-59 58 Jesus said to them, “ Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am .” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. People challeng Jesus because he said “if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” In response to their challenge he says - “God is my Father” - “Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” - “ before Abraham was born, I AM” His hearers understood exactly what he claimed (equality / identity with God) and wanted to kill Him. B) John 10:24--33 24 . . .If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. . . . 30 I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Here again Jesus’ audience understand that he is claiming to be God. He says he told them plainly (v 25) but they would not believe. This time they had no doubt about his claim. Their charge against him is “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”(v 33) C) John 9:35-38 records Jesus’ claim to be “Son of Man” and accept worship. 35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” 38 And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. Son of man is a messianic term. If you were not aware of these scriptures, I am happy to point them out to you. If you claim that Jesus’ audience is wrong in their understanding of His words, that takes a special type of hubris and denial to claim that you understand his words better than his audience. These references are proof that Jesus did claim to be God. There is other evidence as well. [2] 4) In round 1 (paragraph 1) you state “ When He was about to be crucified He did not say Crucify me, I will die for your sins ” I’m glad you mention that. I think you underestimate the power and wisdom of God. If you and I were in a chess game I would think you a fool if you told me your strategy before you moved. God is more wise than that. In Mark 10:32-34, Jesus tells his disciples the plan. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, 33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” Again in Matthew 26:1-2 he lets them know the plan. Not only did Jesus tell the events in advance, but he told the reason in advance in John 3:14-17 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 5) You say Jesus feared death. In John 10 he tells how he will lay it down AND take it up again by his own desire and authority. John 10:11; 14-18 11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” 6) “If Jesus was the Son of God, why didn't he come down from the cross.” Jesus tells that the cross was a part of his purpose. Coming down from the cross would be a failure, not success. Look at John 12:27-28 27 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 7) “Those miracles were metaphorical” - wrong Those who investigated the miracles found evidence. They ate bread, drank wine, walked, spoke, had sight restored. No intelligent reading can say I believe the NT and then dismiss the miracles. You either dismiss the NT or believe the accounts mean real miracles. The four Gospels record 37 miracles of Jesus. The closing verse of John's Gospel says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25, NIV) If you accept the Quran, this might encourage you. “ Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird by Allah’s leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah’s leave. And I announce to you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you if you are to be believers. And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.” (Qur’an 3: 49-51). 8) “but probably he never resurrected, he was probably never dead either.” See point 7 above. If you do not accept the NT evidence or the non Biblical history we need some common authority for discussion. 9) “Jesus survived crucifixion” Space is limited - look here if you are interested. [3] Only by totally dismissing all evidence can you claim this. Jesus claims to be God. Jesus claims to be God's son. Jesus takes other messianic titles on himself. Miracles were signs of his power and truth. The resurrection is the greatest sign. [1] Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability - http://carm.org... [2] John 1:1, 14; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13; Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38 [3] Jesus only appeared to have died on the cross http://carm.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. because I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. She turned out to be quite the opponent. 1.Popular Vote vs. Equality In order for this to be true my opponent would have needed to substantiate that there was inequality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights. Every person has the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. We HAVE equal protection under the law. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal (at least in my particular province), just like a zoophile cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile. This IS the definition of equal. My opponent is comparing gay marriage to African American rights. This is not analogous and therefore irrelevant. Homosexuality is not innate, but research tends to agree that homosexuality is a learned behavior (1). Gay marriage should not be nationally imposed because it would have to circumvent our current legal system in order to do so. 2.Definition of equality My opponent's definition of equality is not a recognized definition of equal and is logically unstable. She insists that we cannot "deny someone something because they aren't exactly like [me]." Such a definition insists that we grant all things to all people – as we will find that no two people are alike. Our current marriage laws are equal in terms of rights. Every individual as the exact same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex. 3.Homosexuality is innate So my opponent's presumption is that because she has seen no evidence to the contrary, that the weak and untenable correlation should be presumed as proof? Would my opponent similarly expect, if no evidence to the contrary has yet been displayed, that climate change is the result of a decrease in pirates? I certainly expect not. No current research comes close to supplying evidence to substantiate the claim (2). The source she gave only supplies a weak correlation and does not account for lesbianism. If indeed homosexuality was innate, it is quite strange that there would be ex-homosexuals(3). 4.Children and Animals cannot give consent You are using the law (of contractual consent) to unquestionably condemn some issues (pedophilia and zoophilia), yet you are condemning the law on other issues (its non-allowance of gay marriage). Where is the warrant for age of consent? Children ARE capable of giving consent – and very often do (adoptions for instance). You call my equivocation abhorrent without proving it as such. Male animals can give consent – and many female animals (the female dolphin for instance) will give signals of consent when they are ready to mate (4). 5.Polygamy and Polyandry My opponent suggests that it would be a blatant cheating of the law to allow 3 or 4 consenting individuals, who deeply love one another, to marry. But it is apparently no cheating of the law to completely circumvent our legal system to establish nationally recognized gay marriage. Can we not change tax laws in regards to individuals with multiple spouses – that does not seem too hard. Not allowing polygamy and polyandry spits in the face of my opponent's definition of equality. 6.Education My opponent does not care that schools would be forced to revamp education in order to support a lifestyle that is against the will of the people. My opponent believes that teaching students that a relationship between a man and a woman – a biologically and anatomically attested match – is homophobic propaganda. Now if she was told, a few days from now, that schools have decided to teach and support pedophilia (but they took the stand of affirming that the child must be of at least age 10), would she not rightly be angry? Angry because she feels it to be wrong and because the majority of other people feel it to be wrong, but, in spite of it all, they went along and did it anyway? I would be angry too. Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. InquireTruth Sources: 1. http://www.cwfa.org... : 2. IBID 3. http://www.freerepublic.com... 4. http://www.sexwork.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Exteel sucks because No it doesn't. look at this link http://www.exteel.com... They are robots in this game. With guns. all good things. In order to suck it can not any good things to go in a game. that's as objective as either of us can approach whether or not this game is good or bad without interference with our own opinion that may be contrary to the truth. If we allow to account for that differing opinions then I would like to point out that it is a easy position to defend that if only one person likes this game, then it does not suck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The egg came before the chicken. because Thank you to Formic for accepting this debate and I am very happy to accept my opponents definition of the egg because I know realize how flawed I was in my original definition, a mistake I am willing to admit. But besides that, let us carry on with the debate. The egg that contains a chicken could be layed by 2 chicken-LIKE egg-laying creatures and, from gene mutations, those 2 creatures could then lay an egg that contains a (by today's standards) chicken. To have a chicken come first is quite preposterous, how did that chicken come to be, from and egg, which means that the only probable explanation would be that the egg came before the chicken. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Immigration is changing rural England life because For purposes of clarification, let it be noted that the resolution is not exactly worded properly according to Pro's stance in the debate. It is my understanding (after reading Round One) that the resolution should read: We should "put our foot down" against illegal immigrants overpopulating England... which is, after all, the only part of Round One that my opponent herself actually wrote (this is obvious from the improper grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc.). In fact the entire round was written by journalist Ben Leapman, but I digress. That being said, "putting our foot down" shall refer to England taking immediate legal action against illegal aliens. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ IMMIGRATION & HUMAN CAPITAL ] Generally speaking, there are two types of immigrants that affect the UK today: refugees, and economic migrants. Refugees are those fleeing from their home countries out of fear of persecution, to avoid the turmoil of war, or to seek a better and safer life for themselves and their families. Economic migrants are those who travel to England in search of better financial opportunities and economic security. So I ask Pro - Why shouldn't these individuals be allowed to seek greater opportunities for themselves and their well being? Surely Pro would respond that this would only be acceptable through legal means. However, consider the philosophical / political ideology of natural rights, supported by many of the greatest political thinkers (John Locke - who greatly influenced English politics and whose theories still apply to policies there today, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, etc.). Natural rights are those which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Hobbes notes, "It is the essential, natural human right for man to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." In other words, people have the right to pursue their own rational self-interests. If laws do not comply with these interests, they should be changed. Many political thinkers in England today agree, and there is a huge following of people who suggest that amnesty should, in fact, be granted to many of England's illegal immigrants... But why? In this debate, I shall explore various reasons as to why England should not make "putting their foot down" on illegal immigrants a top priority, at least at this point in time. In addition to economic and political citation, I would like to note the issue of HUMAN CAPITAL that said immigrants bring to the UK. Human capital is defined as the skills, knowledge, and ability that people acquire through formal and informal learning, which are important for economic growth. For instance, if an Italian immigrated to England and brought with them the idea to market Italian cuisine (as well as introduce the concept and food preparation to others, so that they may also market Italian cuisine... enhancing market competition, by the way), that would be an example of human capital via immigration enhancing England's economy. It is important to note that foreign human capital is often of great use, as it introduces dramatically different ideologies, ideas, plans, goals, etc. Diversification is typically always good for economic advancement and growth. In order to combat these points, Pro would have to explain (1) Why people don't have the right to seek asylum outside of their dangerous home countries where their lives and livelihoods might be threatened, (2) Why people can't exercise free will to move as they please so long as they do not pose any major harm or threat to society, (3) Why law takes precedence over human rights (good luck!), (4) Why human capital via immigrants is not useful (haha - again, good luck!). [ THE REALITY ] The IPPR claims that tracking down and deporting huge numbers of people would cost �4.7billion, and take more than 30 years. Moreover, it would take more than a century to clear the backlog, meaning that most illegal immigrants are likely to live out their lives in the UK without interference from the authorities. How is that productive? Shadow home secretary David Davis said, "Our economy would shrink, and we would notice it straightaway in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed pubs and clubs. So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future; or bring them into the mainstream, to pay taxes and live an honest life" [1]. Pro must explain how (1) It is in England's best moral/fiscal interest to spend �4.7billion over 30 years in the current economic conditions to focus on deporting immigrants, and since that is non-sensical, then (2) Why xenophobia is okay. [ ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ] Given the fact that it would take 30 years to remove all of Britain's illegal workers at the current rates of deportations, plus the fact that people continue to immigrate illegally into the UK, it is reasonable to assume that England will not be getting rid of its immigrants any time soon. As a result, illegal immigrants are working "off the books" and are therefore occupying professions without paying taxes to the State. In other words, they are reaping public benefits without contributing to the costs. Most immigrants are not exploiting the system purposefully; they are just unable to extend their visas or achieve legal status. However, if they are allowed to become legal citizens (and therefore be forced to pay taxes) it is estimated by The Institute for Public Policy Research that the extra fiscal regularization of illegal workers would bring the Exchequer between �500m and �1bn in extra tax revenues [2]. Pro's very own source (the site she plagiarized from) says: If asylum-seekers were given permission to remain in Britain and find work, they would go from being a burden on the economy to being an asset, paying taxes instead of claiming benefits. Thus, clearly it is in England's best interest to recognize these migrant workers and have them contribute revenue to the State. To argue this, the author of "Pro's" argument would note (taken from his article): MigrationWatch calculates that the extra burden the regularized migrants would place on the Welfare State would outweigh the taxes they paid. I can combat this false premise in several ways. First, the statistics regarding illegal immigration in the UK are shaky, at best. There is no way to prove this for certain. Second, I've pointed out that immigrants in England are there to stay, and they're already receiving welfare-like benefits, making this a moot point. Third, in noting that "the farmers and hoteliers who employ them (immigrants) at minimum-wage rates" are amongst the 'winners' in this scenario, Ben Leapman ignores the obvious economic reality that diminishing production costs reduces consumer costs. Plus, the competitive job market will --> capitalistic innovation. Brilliant! To argue these points regarding the economy, Pro would have to detail (1) An analysis of how keeping immigrants in England illegally for the next 30 years is cost-beneficial to the State, which receives no revenue from them despite them utilizing public funding regardless of their status, (2) Why England should not receive taxes for the work that immigrants do in that country, (3) Why England would be better off without an extra �500m - �1bn in tax revenue, (4) Why competition is bad. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'm out of characters for now! Sources: [1] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax because It was photo shopped. Look at the wing on the right side of the photo, the shadow underneath it does not match the shape of the wing. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against LM Classic: mongeese vs. Yraelz because The best way to win any debate is to let your opponent do the work for you. Yu-gi-oh cards. ========= My opponent sites the fact that Dark Bakura can use the Millennium Ring to bring cards into reality. I agree, the problem being, Bakura has the millennium ring not Yugi. There is only one episode in which Yugi gains access to the Millennium Ring but it is then stolen by two minor characters and re-acquired by Bakura. Furthermore Yugi doesn't have access to the Millennium ring and Millennium rod simultaneously, thus he can't have the Millenium ring while he's already trying to mind control my characters with the rod. Devastatingly, Yugi never exhibits the knowledge required to use the Millennium Ring. Dark Bakura can use it considering he's been sealed in it for thousands of years. Yugi Moto has no idea how to use it and never does. And finally, even if this could happen we're pitting little duel monsters who can't kill one or two other duel monsters against people like Sentry and Sephiroth who have attempted to destroy worlds before. There is a minor power gap in favor of my team.... Also for cards to work, as illustrated by the example, the user must be able to see his opponents. Speed Blitz ======== This happens before Yu-gi-oh could even draw a card. Thus all strategies are ineffective. 1. As stated by my source Sentry was injected with the Serum once. It made him, he doesn't bring it places with him. 2. Sephiroth is just naturally fast. As mentioned by my first source on Sephiroth he can travel quicker than the speed of light. Also the first video I'm posting shows Sephiroth (using Super Nova) transform into a meteor and travel the entire solar system in less than a minute (a feat which would have taken over an hour if he was moving as fast as light). 3. Sentry once went from the earth to the sun in back in a number of minutes. This process would take 16 minutes thus he is either faster or close to the speed of light. 4. Sentry can hear a butterflies heartbeat in Africa. Thus he will be able to know exactly where everyone is in New York. 5. Not to mention that both characters traveling the speed of light or faster gives them ample time to travel New York City and find all of my opponents characters. 6. Sentry can control light. Meaning Midna is owned because she can't live in light. But it also means that Sentry bends light around him making him completely invisible to anyone else. Thus Yugi won't know he's there and won't be able to direct cards against him. 7. Alternatively Sentry can control energy projection stronger than a super nova. Thus in the first millisecond he could just SuperNova+ New York City. This would kill everyone save him and arguably Sephiroth, and before they could react. 8. Finally, it's true, Sentry is uncounterable by my opponents team. This doesn't mean he doesn't have limits though, he was killed by the hulk once. It just means my opponent picked a really really weak team. Mind Control ======== 1. Millennium Items can only be used if won through a duel. Otherwise Marik would have simply taken the Millennium Puzzle from Yugi instead of dueling him. 2. This means that it was Joey's will that broke the Millennium Rod's control and not the Millennium Puzzle's power. Thereby proving that Emma Frost and the rest of my team would be able to overpower the Millennium Rod. 3. Yugi, would be mind controlled by Emma and forced to use whatever he could on his own team, while leaving New York city himself. 4. Also Yugi may absolutely not be able to use Atem. Atem is not a alter personality such as in the Hulk Case. Read the source my opponent offers. "In the Millennium World arc, Marik, Ishizu, and Odion lead Yugi and his friends to the tomb of the Pharaoh in order for Pharaoh Atem and Yugi to have a final duel" They duel each other..... They're not the same person. My opponent can't use them both. 5. And as for change of heart and other such cards. Dark Bakura uses a simple magic card on two guards and then a simple monster card. In both cases he was able to see his opponents when using the cards. This poses a problem for Yugi because a. He doesn't know how to use the Millennium Necklace b. He doesn't have the necklace and c. He doesn't start out seeing my team. Link and Rod: ========= 1. Even at a hollow statue Link can't control it. He can only control three specific hollow statues. 2. Additionally the statue couldn't move from it's base because the base is "indestructible". 3. Finally time doesn't stop when Link does things. Time appears to stop so the player has time to consider what would be a quick decision on links parts. Link makes millions of decisions in the game (such as which way to walk) but time only stops in a minor fraction of them to give the player time to properly evaluate. Kirby === 1. My opponents source says Kirby is a game character. 2. His arguments don't negate the fact that Kirby can't eat bosses or mini-bosses. Game or cartoon. 3. Kirby's also not fast enough to catch my characters in his mouth, especially considering he has to sit still on inhale. 4. Sure, I'll grant Kirby can have stronger attacks than enemies but it's always weaker enemies, such as waddle-doos. Not stronger. 5. Finally, Kirby is pretty vulnerable to just about any attack. A few new strategies: Black Alice takes them all ================ Black Alice can absorb multiple powers at once and whatever powers. I'd argue that she not only can gain access to the multiply card but any other card with a somewhat magical property. This means she can turn Yugi's cards all back on him. Sentry's light ======== Sentry, at the beginning of the duel will intensify the light in New York city so bright that Yugi will not be able to see what cards he has in his hands. Also the cards will fade do to extreme light bleaching. This will destroy Yugi's ability to do anything. He'll also blast the entire city with a Super Nova+ thereby killing team Pro. Should it not work he'll just hunt them down in a matter of milliseconds. Emma Frost ======== Guess who doesn't need to be able to see her opponents in order to mind control them? Emma Frost, having comparable abilities to Xavier can easily stop Yugi from doing anything at any point in the round, along with the rest of team Con. Considering the Millennium Rod must be directed at someone this puts her at a time advantage to Yugi. Sephiroth's Materia ============= Sephiroth can use the Materia Reflect to cast a magic barrier on each member of team con. This would make them immune to any magic attack and reflect it back on team Con. This would also mean that mind controls would just get reflected back on team Pro. Sephiroth also has access to the summons which means he can summon Bahamut (as demonstrated by his lesser form) and send it to giga-flare team Pro. Vash === He can dodge bullets. Meaning he can move rather quickly. Black Alice will temporarily absorb his powers at the beginning of the fight in order to allow herself increased speed. Thereby she can avoid team Pro attacks. Finally, if my opponent is going to continue with the idea that he can use cards in reality I'd like a question answered. Exactly what cards will Yugi be using in what order? I've seen Yugi take over a minute to use the heart of cards in order to draw a card. Good second round. Go round three! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Skittles are a Deadly Weapon because Done. The most amazing prt is that apparently some took me seriously. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate because I see what you mean about racism here I'm sorry to tell you but the Confederate Flag was never outlawed and i've never heard of people being jail for flying one. The flag existed since 1861 and people still fly it. Another thing was that the Nazi Party hated Jewish People and wanted them off the earth as the South wanted less taxes and government The KKK use and have a different symbol as their official flag. The second Klan stopped using the CF and used the American flag as well with their own. Nazis in America will often use the swastika or add the swastika onto the center of the CF. I believe that the Swastika should not be seen in any schools though and putting anything racist into the flag changes it meaning into racism In schools most of us are taught that the South was evil because it kept slaves, but thats not the case. explore more into the Civil War and you will learn about who was right. I sometimes where the Confederate Flag to school and I also have friends that are black and they don't care. The Confederate Flag was never racist or will ever be racist! I'm not a racist and don't take my pride into racism. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My opponent has just lost the game. because Thanks to pro for this debate. I couldn't have just lost the game. I became aware of The Game when I began to read a debate between Pro, and OreEle. At that point, I began thinking about it and thus lost. I even said to my wife, "I just lost the game". I finished voting on their debate, then asked Brain to give me a shot, accepted the challenge, and here we are. All those events took awhile, and I was thinking about the game the entire time, so I couldn't "un-lose". The resolution states that I "just" lost the game, but as you can see I lost quite a while ago. Therefore, the resolution has been refuted. I look forward to pro's reply. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Guns should be banned in the united states. because I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should hats be allowed in school? because there are two different subjects you present here: 1. hats should be banned from school 2. students need to listen to school dress code they are two very distinctively different subjects. Hats have many benefits and are very healthy for you. Especially in countries with lots of son, it is even important and necessary that kids wear hats so that they don't get burned by the sun, and don't get dehydrated. Furthermore, hats are a way of expression, as long as they are not put directly on one's face, and stay only on their head, there is no reason why a kid should not be allowed to wear them. Allowing creativity and diversity in an environment creates a much more healthy, fun and productive environment for learning. The second claim that students need to respect school rules, I agree with you that they should respect them, but if they notice or feel like a rule is doing them wrong, they have every right to protest against it in peaceful ways allowing change. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! because I hope I'm not expected to respond in poetry style... Cell phones are absolutely an improvement to our lives. The phone's themselves don't control people. All the phone does is connect you to other people. Talking on a cell phone, or texting, isn't any worse than talking on a land line or writing letters. Never being alone isn't a bad thing, either. With a cell phone, you can call someone if your car breaks down or dial 911 if there's an emergency. If you get lost, you can bring up a map on your phone, or call someone for directions. If you're at the grocery store, your sister can call you to ask you to pick up milk because she forgot to put it on the list, or if you're out somewhere you can call a friend and invite them to come join you. It's convenient and safe to never be completely out of touch with people. No one is forced to answer their phones, though. If you don't want to talk to a certain person, your phone has caller ID. You can also turn the phone off whenever you want, or put it on silent. No matter how advanced phones might be, they only do what the user tells them to do. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I can post the stupidest video because My opponent's video was pretty stupid, but the stupidity of his video does mot compare to mine. His video at least contained a few conherent thoughts. My video makes absolutely no sense at all. My video is so stupid, most of you will not even be able to sit through the whole thing. Or, if you do, you'll drop a few IQ points as a result. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against WODC R1: This House believes that provision of Internet services should be a public utility.. because I also thank Pro for being my opponent for this round. As requested, I'll start with my opening arguments. Making any private service into a public utility (or common carrier) would require a dramatic leap in taxes, given that doing so is the equivalent to nationalizing an industry. The cost of internet services offered by ISP's would then become a burden of the government. As a result, making a private service a public utility would require that the service is to some degree a major necessity. Otherwise, in order for a new public utility to sustain itself, then a few conditions would be required. 1. The enterprise providing a utility should be a monopoly For example, prior to telephone lines becoming public utilities in the US, the company AT&T; was the dominant provider, their monopoly in the late 80"s-early 90"s was dissolved shortly before telephone lines became common carriers. 2.The service must be some form of necessity. A second reason that telephone lines became common carriers was the necessity provided with possessing a telephone. At the time, phones were the dominant medium for communication over long distances. As a result, it became necessary for the average person to have some form of access to a telephone. The problem with having the Internet has a public utility is that the Internet does not fit the first criteria and barely fits into the second. If the enterprise is not dominated by a monopoly, then any scale of nationalization would hurt profits as it would heavily deter potential competition therefore hurt potential growth. The internet is too large a potential industry for the government to make a public utility. Doing so would result in the deterrence of many potential ISP"s, hence slowing economic growth. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://www.youtube.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.heritage.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because "I'm working on it." Ok let me know when youre done... "That's subjective. You can't tell me what I'm thinking." I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent. "I disagree. The body could be incinerated. By a waste of space, I was referring to how most people get buried. It kills me to see graveyards, because the space they use could be used for more important things, like housing." Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan... "Lack of evidence makes negates your case." What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here. Round 4 done. It looks like final arguements are due. Good luck Pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community because Thank you, chansena, for instigating this debate. I think, based on my opponent's opening round arguments, that my opponent is looking to affirm the resolution, as he/she argues that the Parole Board has failed to protect the community. Due to this, my opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution. Since "failed" has not been defined, the debate will be around what best qualifies as a failure. So, I await my opponent's arguments that aim to affirm the resolution. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms. because Frame work: 1. I am referring to presidents of the United States of America. 2. The overlying assumption is that they are duly elected for each term. 3. I am referring to changing the current system for the future, not saying that this would have been better in the past. 4. Unlimited is referring to the number of terms. Arguments: 1.6 years is a compromise between the current 4 or 8 years that is the current law, and would result in an easy transition. 2.Unlimited terms would allow a good president to be elected repeatedly, and discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future. 3.Non-consecutive terms would prevent someone from staying in power for too long, allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get elected for another term, let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately, allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again, and help prevent presidents from starting wars to stay in office. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with In the board game Monopoly, the second color group (light blue) is the best properties in the game. because I am proving that the second color group, which includes Oriental, Vermont and Connecticut Avenues, are the best properties in the game. The reasons for this are the following: 1) The Initial Cost - the initial cost of there three properties is very low compared to almost every other property. This alone lets you save up money to purchase houses and hotels, which brings me to my next point. 2) The Price of Houses and Hotels - the price of houses and hotels, used to increase the cost of rent, is only $50 per house. Needing to buy 5 houses to receive a hotel, and there being three properties in the monopoly group, the total cost for building a hotel on each property is a $750. Compared to the next group, the purple, which is $1500 for hotels, is very cheap. One would assume, if the properties were of equal value, that if the cost of building for one group is doubled to reach the cost of building for the second (750*2=1500), then the total rent of the first group should be doubled to reach the second. In this case, the total rent, with hotels, for the light blue properties is $1700, then the total rent, with hotels, for the purple properties should be $3400. Actually the total rent is $2400, $1000 less than what it should be if the properties are equal. 3) Location - the location of these properties is just another reason why these are the best properties. You start the game at "Go" and roll two six sided die. There are 21 possibilities, (1-1, 1-2 etc.) not including repeats (1-2 and 2-1). Using these die, there are 8 ways to reach one of the properties (1-5, 2-4, 2-6, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 4-4 and 4-5). Almost 40% of the rolls starting at "Go" will land on one of these three properties. In addition to this, there are 4 Chance or Community Chest cards that send you to properties (not Railroads or Utilities). Two of these send you to "Go", which allows you to renew the 40% chance of landing on one of the light blue properties. These three reasons, initial cost, the price of houses and hotels, and the location of the property prove that the light blue properties, Connecticut, Vermont and Oriental Avenues are the best properties in the board game Monopoly. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Llama would win against a coyote in a fight. because It's true that a kick to the head by a lama would surely knock it out, but by saying that you are assuming that lama's are naturally faster than coyotes. However according to the smartnessofme.com coyotes are faster than lamas and would be able to cripple the lama before he managed to kick the coyote. Therefore the coyote would win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable because Welcome china666, and thanks for starting this interesting debate topic. I initially did not take this; however due to forum request I'm accepting the challenge. Definitions (I'm not trying for semantics , nor am I the instigator , thus pro may propose alternatives) : From the Merriam-Webster dictionary Logic is "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable" [1]. Taboos are "banned on grounds of morality or taste" [2]. Unreasonable is "not conformable to reason: absurd" [3]. Absurd (directed from unreasonable) is "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" [4]. Arguments: First there's the obvious outcry arguments: dogs are loyal, cute, there's health risks, etc. (if you're bored check source [5]). On the basis that these could all be rightly applied to currently harvested animals, and the resolution is not about going vegetation, these points are too low in relevance for more than this honorable mention. Second there's the simple reality: In America there is a socially constructed stigma, which has been enhanced by visible cruelty to animals. Dog fights, puppy mills, on so on. Vile acts against them have resulted in protection laws against eating deceased ones in 6 states (according to The Wallstreet Journal [6]), and there's an ongoing battle in Hawaii to ban it [7], perhaps to protect tourism as they are already scalded for being in the 5 worst states in enforcement of animal protection laws [8]. Even the slaughter of livestock is done behind closed doors, with lobbyists making it illegal for animal rights groups to sneak cameras in. Basically it boils down to socially constructed moral values, and a line in the sand; perhaps due to where the slaughter would take place. It is logical that we have these sets of moral values, as it's the conclusion of how we have socially engineered ourselves. It is reasonable, as within North America it is tied to the orderly relationships of human life, consider the sight of service animals which are most visibly dogs. Rebuttals (will overlap with the above, but I'll limit how much I repeat myself) : Why are dogs different? First because we ethically and legally define them as being different. Second because of how easy they are to reshape quickly, and the hobby/profession that has risen to tailoring them as pets and as incredibly valuable tools (aid animals, bomb sniffers, police, etc. [8]). They are only defined as mankind's best friend through their popularity as a family pet in North American culture. True, yet that makes the taboo quite reasonable to have in North America (granted it remains a taboo, but one that is reasonable to have). A cow could be held in the exact same social prestige as a dog if it underwent the specific cultural and social relationships with humans throughout history that the dog did. True, and in some parts of the world cows are protected. However in North America it is the dog (and other pets) to which humans have a sense of shared history and companionship with. It['s] logically incorrect to declaim those we eat dog meat as "monsters" or "moral abominations" or even "gross." If raised to believe something is wrong, it's perfectly logical to hold onto that belief; doubly so when other meat is available at lower prices. Further, I don't see how people in other parts of the world are actually suffering for not conforming to the North American cultural expectations. It's just North Americas (and perhaps some other countries) being a little odd when they travel. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.petloverscompanion.com... [6] http://online.wsj.com... [7] http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com... [8] http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Quickfire debate on welfare because As Pro - the burden is yours. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should ethical dilemmas be resolved before permissions granted and actions taken? because I negate, that "[E]thical dilemmas [should] be resolved before permissions [are] granted and actions [are] taken". First order of business. As my opponent declined to do so, I will define the resolution: ETHICAL DILEMMA: a situation requiring a choice between equally immoral alternatives. (combination of "ethical" and "dilemma" definitions; dictionary.com) RESOLVED: to come to a definite or earnest decision about; determine (1st definition; dictionary.com) DEFINITE: clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact PERMISSION: authorization granted to do something; formal consent (1st definition; dictionary.com) With the inclusion of the phrase "permissions granted", we are assuming, then, that the "ethical dilemmas" of the resolution are not one person's ethical dilemmas, but a group's ethical dilemmas. It cannot be argued that the "ethical dilemmas" ARE of one person's, because a person does not "grant permission" to himself (or herself: assume I do this for every instance I only explicitly refer to the male gender) whenever he wants to do something; he just does it. Also, the first words from my opponent are "Given a moral controversy". We don't call arguments between the little voices inside our heads "controvers[ies]", we call public disagreements controversies. As the resolution does not specify who, what, when, or where, we will also have to assume that the resolution is talking about any and all groups. From that we can also extrapolate that "resolved" means that all of a group (whichever one is applicable) has together come to a decision - this is further supported by the wording of PRO's case, as he continually says "we". Adding that to "resolved", it means the group needs to come to a consensus about the "ethical dilemma". So, the resolution means: "When faced with a moral dilemma, every group ought to come to a consensus about what they will do before doing it." Again, my position is CON. Let's begin. >Burden of Proof: My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that the resolution is true, as it is the statement he wrote and put forth as true. Even if I lose all of my arguments and refutations, if he has not proved the resolution true then you default CON because CON lacks such a burden. "Given a moral controversy, is making a choice whose morality is uncertain and is contrary to the higher moral ground inherently the amoral choice? Should morality be established / determined before we are permitted to continue making the choices that would have otherwise been uncertain?" >Nontopical. Ethical Dilemma is defined as "a situation requiring a choice between equally immoral alternatives", meaning the morality of the situation is ALREADY certain and that the choices are EQUAL and they're both IMMORAL. >> This pretty much takes out all of his case. "Regardless of the morality of the choices themselves, uncertainty in the matter makes them immoral by default, because we would be choosing to act on a belief that we know could potentially be immoral." > This later part of his case takes out the thing he said earlier, as well. "Holding the personal belief of (im)morality doesnt constitute conclusiveness of (im)morality." > Nontopical. We are talking about a group. So, the current standings are: > PRO has nothing to support the resolution. > PRO is not meeting the burden of proof. I await a case from my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Media today is sensationalizing news. because The topic is sensationalism of the media. Not only do you fail to miss the point of what sensationalism is entirely, the postulate of your argument is wrong at its core, and there is absolutely no proof or examples you cited that correlate to your argument. First of all, I'll provide the definition of sensationalism from a variety of sources: Merriam-Webster: empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions Dictionary.com: subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste. Cambridge: when newspapers, TV, etc. intentionally present information in a way that is intended to excite or shock people Any one of these definitions work. Coverage is not the same as sensationalism; in fact they are unrelated concepts entirely, so your second two sentences are absolutely worthless, they provide nothing to the context of this debate, and whether or not they're true have no bearing whatsoever on what we're here to discuss: sensationalism. Anyone watching, be aware that the affirmative case is irrelevant to the stated topic, and that coverage has nothing to do with the topic, and is not the topic of discussion. Onto the topic of sensationalism: The news does not "sensationalize". They simply report what they're paid to report, and report it well. While it may be true negative news is presented more frequently than positive news, this is hardly because "shocking" or "thrilling" people is the point - how can murder actually "thrill" anyone whatsoever? Sensationalism is not what's going on, the are reporting news that is interesting, relevant, and indeed vital for everyone in the reporting area to know. They report what people need to know, what's going on in the community, what's happening with the government they elected, and although they're might be a slight skew for more negative than positive news, the great majority of news is neutral: only good or bad relative to your stance on various issues (e.g. who got elected, when an event of interest is going to happen). In closing, the news is not sensationalist: they are at the core neutral, and there to report the relevent and important news of their community. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God is real because You Said: "Well comrade that is your first flaw there are so many gods with different ideologies with different beliefs thus you cannot say they are all one and the same." My Reply: But they are. There is one Creator, and that is the only "god" that i am ever going to refer to. You Said: "Is life really for the better? look at us, the average human being is only pleased with his life 90% of the time is that shaping life for the better? We are never pleased with what we have, look at all the crime going on everyday all over the news. Thus I fail to believe the fact that he is shaping your life or anyone's life for the better." My Reply: If you had read my statement properly, you would have noticed that I cited God's role in shaping MY life for the better. I am not speaking of "the average human being", I am speaking of my own personal experience and the works I see done by God every single day. You Said: "If he does not live in our universe it means that he does not oblige to our rules, if he does not follow the rules in our universe then what are the point of the ten commandments and all the rules he has set for us, if as you said he is from another universe then whatever he said is made up and fake. If he is from our universe than you will need to either prove what is before him or that he does not exist and science has taken us up to the point." My Reply: I never said God "does not live in our universe", but yes, He is very much exempt from what we call "scientific laws". God is greater than our universe and He(obviously) doesn't live by our rules However, you seem to have completely missed my point that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING....... Time, space, thought, matter, antimatter, reason, heaven, hell, all of these come from God. In other words, God IS existence; there is nothing that is outside of Him. In your reply, you seem to have assumed several things that I haven't said(me being a Christian for one) You are also making some logical connections that just aren't there (i.e. God's existing in another universe means he's fake????) We're having an educated debate here, so I would ask that you please refrain from doing these things in the future... Thank You. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate.org classic: FINAL ROUND: LOGICAL-MASTER VS THELWERD because [ Re: Defining Love ] PRO proposes that not only love, but almost any act is relative upon perception. He uses the example of killing in the name of science. Clearly this is a failed attempt at proving any point but my own. I am not arguing that the Nazi "scientists" from his example could claim that they killed in the name of science. In fact, I agree with that sentiment entirely. We see people debating over whether or not science is good or bad all the time... so what's PROs point? He proved that everything including love (especially love) has an infinite number of connotations, hence why I suggest this debate focus on a specific aspect of love, i.e. Romantic Love. At least then this debate can have some sort of actual focus. [ Why The Definition Matters ] PROs original citation proposed *28* definitions of love, all of them positive. I have already proven that love can have negative connotations as well. For PRO to suggest that all 28 positive aspects of love are acceptable for the purpose of this debate, that would mean that I can just as easily describe 28 NEGATIVE aspects of love for which PRO must defend. For example, if "making love" is a sufficient definition, then the heinous and violent crime of rape - which encompasses the same physical actions of making love - should also be considered, for a rapist can say that they are 'making love' to their victim if that is how they perceive it. If a 60 year old man was romantically in love with a 5 year old boy, and wanted to 'make love' to him, it would be considered love using my opponent's cited definitions. However, that doesn't make the act any good, moral or justified. It also doesn't support the notion that the 5 year old boy was better off or beneficial in either receiving or making that love. In fact, it proves my point that it was better to have not loved and lost than it was to give/receive that love. The point: Love can be defined as destruction. If we use PROs positive definitions of love, the worst that could happen regarding not having loved at all is that someone doesn't gain the unnecessay experience of being in a failed relationship. Using a negative definition of love - say destruction - it would be far better to have never loved at all (especially if said destruction negatively impacted or resulted in death for more than 2 people, as a direct loving relationship involves 2). [ Re: Experience ] A) To argue that failure is not a necessary aspect of success, PRO offers that one is more likely of acing a test, for example, if one studies beforehand. This is absolutely irrelevant; the analogy is flawed as one does not have to fail a test in order to ace it! Nor does failing on one test necessarily mean that one will do better on their next test. Moreover, I never argued that one is more likely to succeed at love before or more often than they fail. Instead, I stated that one can gain experience (PROs given benefit of loss) without ever having had love and lost it. In that case, losing love provided absolutely no benefit to the individual and therefore the CON stance rings true. One does not always have to make a mistake in order to know what the right thing is. I have never 'cheated' on a loved one but I know that doing so would be a negative thing. I have the knowledge necessary to make an "experienced" decision without ever having to actually experience it. For his point to work, PRO would have to prove that It Is Better To Have Wronged Someone To Gain The Experience Of How To Behave Better In The Future Than To Never Have Wronged Them At All. Bottom line: There is an absolute fallacy or perhaps logical opposition with PROs major point (experience). Nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that there will be a 'next' love for which said experience would be necessary. Further, since the majority of people believe in the concept that one has a "love of their life," then in losing their love - that one person - they will be losing the being or relationship that is the most prominent in their life. B) PROs next point is easy to argue, as I only have to turn his own logic against him in order to successfully dismantle his flawed ideology. He makes the claim that while one could agonize over a lost love, that another could just as easily agonize over sheer loneliness and never having experienced love... However, if experiencing love is so amazing (and better than not having loved as PRO has argued thus far), then wouldn't an individual be better off only considering the possibilities of love instead of knowing what they had loved and no longer had? If you feel that thinking about the wonder of love could never compare to the grandeur of actually being in love (i.e. you agree that it's an ineffable emotion that cannot be distinctly defined), than clearly my point has won -- It would be better to be ignorant to your loss than to know the amazing relationship you had and no longer have. A suicide, for example, would be tragic regardless of the cause - it would result in a death. However, we can assume that the one who died over lost love was in more pain than the one who never knew what they were missing. In order for this to be invalid, PRO would have to prove that love in general is what gives life its meaning. Because he has not done so (and cannot during the final round), one cannot interject their own opinion on life and love in terms of judging this debate. [ Love as Sex ] Even if you bought into the flawed notion that sex = love, consider some possible effects that sex/love could have; they range from feelings of physical euphoria to getting an STD such as AIDS. In that case, PRO would have to argue It Is Better To Have Had Sex And Acquire AIDS Than To Not Have Had Sex At All (and avoid said disease). In other words, PRO would be arguing that the physical euphoria of one sexual encounter was worth the deadly virus that has become a global crisis. While PRO of course would like to argue the reality that one would probably have sex and *not* get AIDS, and therefore the physical euphoria was worth having the encounter, the fact remains that this debate topic is structured intentionally as to argue extremes, so we must consider the overall positive aspects and possibilities of love vs. the overall negative aspects or possibilities of love. I have made consistent points proving how the negative greatly trumps even the most positive rewards. B) PRO stated that love/sex is necessary for reproduction. After conceding this point, he tweaks this contention to read that people wish to perpetuate humanity (have kids) for the sake of love and loving relationships. Unfortunately that is not always the case. People have children for the wrong reasons all the time, i.e. to manipulate a romantic relationship; to receive additional government aid; because they have low self-esteem or other issues; etc. Many people also greatly abuse their children, and let us not forget the millions of abortions performed annually. So, if we were to buy into PROs notion that sex = love and love = babies, PRO would be given the nearly impossible task of proving that 'making love' to create a child would be the right thing to do even including those negative examples which I have stated. You cannot automatically assume that child rearing is a completely LOVING experience. [ Final Note ] Life isn't a story book - there's not always a happy ending like in the Disney movies PRO has described (Note: None of those movies end with the absolute loss of love - it's too painful). Sometimes being in love can lead people to comprimise themselves, and more importantly, other loving relationships. Consider one who turns their back on their friends and family in the name of love. In that case, many loving relationships are ruined because of one. If you believe that a failed relationship is worth losing other loving relationships, vote PRO. Otherwise, CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Alex Rodriguez in the Hall of Fame because For what the Con has said, it has made it look like that any player in Major League Baseball who has taken some steroids or performing enhancing drugs in their career do not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. So such players as Barry Bonds, all-time MLB home leader, Roger Clemens, 7 time Cy Young Award winner and 11 time All-Star, Curt Schilling, 19 year veteran pitcher and 3 time World Series champion, Manny Ramirez, 12 time All-Star and 9 time Silver Slugger Award winner, and Mark McGwire, 12 time All-Star and 2 time World Series champion should be not allowed in the Hall of Fame? I say put the drugs aside and look at what they accomplished in their lives. This includes Alex Rodriguez. So I say Alex Rodriguez was a great player especially for his age. He is a role model to many children in Little League and around the country. His number definitely show his qualification to be in the Hall of Fame. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Funnier Jokes Wins. because A couple was on their honeymoon, lying in bed, about ready to consummate their marriage, when the new bride says to the husband, "I have a confession to make, I'm not a virgin." The husband replies, "That's no big thing in this day and age." The wife continues, "Yeah, I've been with one guy." "Oh yeah? Who was the guy?" "Tiger Woods." "Tiger Woods, the golfer?" "Yeah." "Well, he's rich, famous and handsome. I can see why you went to bed with him." The husband and wife then make passionate love. When they are done, the husband gets up and walks to the telephone. "What are you doing?" asks the wife. The husband says, "I'm hungry, I was going to call room service and get something to eat." "Tiger wouldn't do that." "Oh yeah? What would Tiger do?" "He'd come back to bed and do it a second time." The husband puts down the phone and goes back to bed to make love a second time. When they finish, he gets up and goes over to the phone. "Now what are you doing?" she asks. The husband says, "I'm still hungry so I was going to get room service to get something to eat." "Tiger wouldn't do that." "Oh yeah? What would Tiger do?" "He'd come back to bed and do it again." The guy slams down the phone, goes back to bed, and makes love one more time. When they finish he's tired and beat. He drags himself over to the phone and starts to dial. The wife asks, "Are you calling room service?" "No! I'm calling Tiger Woods, to find out what the par is for this damn hole." <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Socialism because What is Socialism? My opponent's burden is to define the resolution in the first round, but since he hasn't done this, I'll define it for him. Socialism, traditionally, is a system where the means of production (workplaces) are owned and controlled by the workers. Before Lenin, almost all Socialists, from the Marxists to the Anarchists, and the Social Democrats as well, believed in Democracy. In fact, they believed in a system which is more democratic than Capitalism. They wanted a system which was both politically, and economically democratic. Economic democracy means that a workplace is democratically governed by the people who work in that workplace. A good example of this would be the worker cooperative. Worker cooperatives are democratically run and owned by all of the workers. A traditionally socialist economy would be composed of these worker cooperatives. I advocate a system of market socialism. In this system, there would still be markets, but instead of having Capitalist firms competing in the marketplace, Socialist firms, or worker cooperatives would function in this way. To be completely clear about this, worker cooperatives are BUSINESSES. Government would not need to grow any larger to create this Socialist system. All that would need to happen, where the government is concerned, would be a change in how the government spends it's money. We currently spend over a hundred billion dollars a year on Federal corporate subsidies, and 80 billion dollars a year on local, municipal, and statewide corporate subsidies. If the money which is spent on corporate subsidies get's reallocated to creating worker cooperatives, than in a decade or two you will see the socialization of the economy. Now, with this in mind, let us turn to my opponent's arguments. "'A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference,' Thomas Jefferson once said. We, as people under the Constitution of the United States, hold these to be our unalienable rights. As of now, they're in jeopardy to what is known as socialism,..." I'm a socialist. I value liberty. Thomas Jefferson's friend Thomas Paine had some fairly socialistic ideas in his 1795 pamphlet, Agrarian Justice. More social democratic than socialistic in the sense that is defined here. Nevertheless, in the socialist society which I described, our Bill of Rights will remain intact. Our Constitution will remain intact. The government wouldn't necessarily be any larger than it is today. The only change which is necessary to make an economy socialist, under my definition, would be a transition from corporations to worker cooperatives. "We all know hard work comes with rewards such as satisfaction, and perhaps a paycheck. When you work hard in life, you reap its benefits, but under socialism, there will be no rewards for hard work." On the contrary, there are greater rewards for hard work under socialism than there are under Capitalism. As I will prove in my first contention, Capitalism exploits workers. In order to make a profit, Capitalist businesses pay workers less money to make a larger profit. In Socialist businesses, workers democratically determine their own wages, AND even more importantly, they own the profits. This means that workers are paid their true value. "For example, if one man works all day and another man only works half of a day under socialism, they will both get paid the same wage." Well, no. We're speaking about HOURLY wages. In a worker cooperative where the wages are the same for everyone, those who work fewer HOURS make less money. By the way, socialism isn't necessarily complete economic equality. It is economic democracy. In some worker cooperatives, workers vote for differentiated pay scales. Differences are much smaller though. In Mon dragon, for example, the highest paid employees make 8 times more than the lowest paid employees. Your average corporation pays its CEO 350 times more than it's lowest paid employees. " When we begin to spread the wealth too evenly, we kill innovation because everyone strives to do great things, not because it benefits those around them, but also the fame and wealth that comes with it. We look up to innovators, many young people wanting to become like one of them as they grow older. " Okay, first of all, people will be voting on their own remuneration. Working people, including inventors, will not only decide their wages; they will own the profits. Furthermore, the urge to discover, and the urge to invent is part of human nature. Scientists enjoy working in labs. They work because they enjoy their work, and because they can be comfortably paid. They don't need to become fantastically wealthy. I don't have enough room for all of my contentions. Regarding my point about exploitation, average American pay has gone up 113% since 1948. Productivity went up 254% in that time. Irrefutable proof. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious. because The voices in my head have demanded that I accept this challenge. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against DDO is similar to a social network because The opponent has made a few claims. These are: 1. No "typical" social network is made only for debating. 2. No "typical" social network has elections for president. 3. Not every social network is made for a common interest, a la Facebook/Twitter. I'll address each of these individually, then detail why my argument still stands. No "typical" social network is made only for debating. I assume by "typical", the opponent is referring to the average. In the case of social networks, it doesn't even make sense to think in terms of "average". Consider the following list: Cats: Felix - Brown Bob - Orange Margaret - Calico Tom - Gray Rufus - Black Now, what is the "average" color? Of course, you cannot determine an average or "typical" color because "color" is not a numerical value and cannot be mathematically operated on. Similarly, the "type" of social network follows the same logic. Some are purely for interpersonal communication, some are for "debate", some are for "cars" and some are for "humor". It does not make sense to describe the "average type of social network" because the very nature of "type" does not allow for mathematical averaging. Given this, it is clear that the opponent's point is meaningless. Of course DDO is not a "typical social network" -- no social network is "typical". Even if we found conversion that allowed us to convert "type" into a numerical value, we would still expect DDO to be "atypical", since in any distribution with a sufficient number of discrete values, the majority of values are not average . No typical social network has elections for President. Again, this is a meaningless point by the logic mentioned above. If anything, this simply highlights the social nature of what we do here, thus reinforcing my claim that DDO is exactly a social network. Not every social network is made for a common interest. This is false. The error here is assuming that the "common interest" must be extremely specific, as is the case in DDO, where the interest is "debate". On more popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter, the common interest is simply "the desire to share your opinions, memories and thoughts", which is precisely the function of these social networks. Clearly if a social network was released that did not appeal to a common interest, it would not be used by any more than one person, meaning there would be no "social activities" taking place, meaning it could not be defined as a social network. Conclusion I've demonstrated that the opponent's counter-points are either meaningless or irrelevant. In the first round, I clearly proved that by definition DDO is a social network. I finished by proving that by definition DDO cannot be "similar" to a social network, since DDO is exactly a social network. Thanks for reading. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Skittles are a Deadly Weapon because A joke debate? Does my opponent realize that if Skittles were successfully weaponized, it would be a slippery slope to the weaponization of all manner of confections? If skittles could kill, imagine what an Almond Joy[tm], with a 45 g mass, could do. http://www.hersheys.com... No, this is serious. Alleged rainbow lethality It may possibly be the case that skittles can create rainbows, although the appearance of a trap door in the rainbow casts doubt on the veracity of the TV commercial. I know it's hard to believe that a commercial broadcast over major media word be incorrect in any respect, but there have been rumors to that effect for some time. Unless rainbow creation by skittles is verified in a peer-reviewed journal of meteorology, I must reject the claim. For the sake of argument, however, I will consider the possibility that rainbow creation by a skittles mechanism is possible. Even if it were true, the claim that rainbows are a lethal weapon is a slander upon rainbows everywhere. In the case of a double rainbow, it is a double slander. The only evidence offered of rainbow lethality is the Yosemite video, where there is doubt that the observer was even properly trained in meteorology. Pro claims that the rainbow induced a possibly-dangerous euphoric state in the observer. Frankly, I don't think that the euphoria was rainbow induced, but more likely induced by a separate non-meteorological agent not specified in the report. In fact, it's more likely that the rainbow was an effect rather than a cause, but we needn't go into that. The fact is that the observer was not killed by the rainbow, and that settles the issue. A lethal weapon is one that kills, not merely induces giddiness. Pro points to a danger of rainbows summoning up a hippie army. This is not a real danger. for one thing, hippies are now so old that with their failing vision it's unlikely they could even see a rainbow if one appeared. If they did see the rainbow, the expected reaction would be to immobilize them as hey stared and said, "Wow, man, that's like groovy ." that's how hippies react to everything from rainbows to debt crisis. Alleged Skittles gun The skittles gun illustrated in the image from flickr is what analysts call metaphysically challenged . It doesn't exist. The previous image on the photo steam is "steam punk ray gun" which gives an idea of the conceptual nature of the work. In R1, I explained the technical problems of getting a compact confection up to lethal velocity, and there is no doubt the artists conception could not be made to function. the explosive charge would pulverize the skittle, so that at the worst it would project harmless candy sprinkles. That's not going to disable a fanatical terrorist. The video game has something which Pro says is a skittles gun. I don't know how to break the news delicately, but video games are not real. A noted anonymous authority on video games has prepared a list of things in video games that cannot be done in real life. http://danmayerisgod.hubpages.com... Among the differences listed, in a video game you can "Survive being bit, slashed, crushed, and blown up, only to die from a little girl kicking you in the shin." This proves, or is at least strong evidence, that video games are not real. (Try not to spread this information around in the DDO forms, for fear of mass panic among DDO gamers.) Summary I have fully answered all of my opponents claims of skittles dangers. He has not cited a ingle case of death by skittles, and he must prove that that skittles are lethal. Trust me, my case is flawless. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. because Extend my arguments. Please vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Napoleon Bonaparte would win in a War Against George Washington. because Anglo-American relations US preparations for war with Britain were clearly addressed, both in the hypothetical and in the analysis I posted. The casus belli for war and the others were mentioned. Regarding impressment, the French committed it, if not moreso[1]. In fact, the US was similarly divided on war with the French[1]. The division that would occur over war with france instead of Britain in hypotheticals is the same as the division that occurred with war with Britain instead of France, between the Federalists and Republican-Democrats. The claim of the British being against the Americans is clearly rebuffed due to the election of the pro-American tory PM. The source my opponent gives for evidence of the British being against America is firstly American, not British, and secondly a Democrat-Republicanwho was horribly bias against britain anyway[2]! My opponent is clearly ignoring the evidence on this issue. To make this clear, my opponent's argument against Britain siding with America is thus: The American population was against alliance with the British The Americans were impressed by the British, which is why the Americans would not side with them. To rebut these points, I pointed out that the American population was just as against the French as they were the British politically, and that the French impressed American soldiers - meaning that both arguments my opponent uses against me, actually are also against him. However, historically we notice that America only waged war with one country, not two, out of pragmatism. So the additional war with England is explicitly going against history as well. Further, he has no response to the change in PM making an impact. The pro-US tory PM is another reason that America would not wage war on Britain as well. Further, the buildup of support for the Federalists was because of the trade barriers which resulted from the rules of British law, which my opponent does not respond to and essentially drops. With this removed, the casus belli for war from the Americans would be, in short, that Jefferson did not renew a treaty. Hardly a serious infringement caused by Britain at this time. Napoleon's naval strength My point still stands: France's navy wouldn't get out of the docks. France's army was the best of the world, but it's navy was a laughing stock. Note my opponent has not provided reason to believe France has the naval strength to cross the pacific, yet alone break the blockades of the British fleet which was, again, larger than all other nations combined. Further, Napoleon's naval strength is either completely inexistent, for never leading a naval battle, or is a severe liability, for he constantly seemed to lose battles at sea, as previously stated and is uncontested. Also, notice how my opponent fails again to give a precise number of the French fleet. This is because it was constantly and consistently destroyed and reduced to nothing, due to the British fleet crushing it repeatedly, and doing so as recently as 1810. The navy would have to break British blockade, then manage to transport masses of soldiers as well. The french navy could never group together due to all of Britain's successful blockading. There is simply no chance of it ever being successful. Canadian influence This point is quite short. My opponent has interpreted an unreadable book (saying "it's in this book" which is rare and unaccessible anywhere) to state New Orleans as a nation committed to a rescue effort with amazing loyalty, and all of Canada rallied around Napoleon like flies to a light. In reality, Canada had no greivances at Britain: "On the whole, however, the country was prosperous and the people were generally contented with British rule...the great majority of the eighty thousand inhabitatnts...were Loyalists or descendents of Loyalists". And even then, let's suppose that the British nation of Canada's eighty thousand civilians where "the total militia did not exceed four thousand men, the majority of whom had little or no knowledge of military discipline". How are they going to reinforce the French? Especially when major places like Quebec and "Halifax were in a dilapidated condition"[4]. And this supposes that rural farmers speak for the majority of the Canadians. New Orleans New Orleans, a city with a population at the time 17,000[5] - and when sold off only a population of 5000[5] - would support Napoleon is only founded on the idea, according to my opponent, that New Orleans sent a grandiose attempt to rescue Napoleon. In reality, the pirate Lafitte from New Orleans went to Elba, successfully rescued Napoleon and they lived out their days in Louisiana together[6]. If one thinks this is convincing enough to show New Orleans supported Napoleon, go ahead, I really can't begin to convince you. However, I think it's clear that New Orleans didn't send a fleet to Elba. Further, the region, now majority American, would have severe problems internally of declaring support to Napoleon anyway. Supply Lines Let me make this clear: with the British blockades, the supply lines would be non-existent and cannot help at all. With supply lines, they shall be stretched over ten to fourteen weeks[7], so long that any soldiers would starve. The trips alone for immigrations used to starve, but the military ships would be weighed down massively with soldiers, weaponry, cannons, etc. and thus the food supply would be even worse. Not only would most suppplies take so long to arrive the soldiers would starve, but much of the supplies wouldn't even get there. This ignores the British destroying any supplies that would be sent off[7]. Supply lines with Canada would firstly be massively stretched due to the region's size, and New Orleans still wouldn't support the Grandé Armée, which needed all of continental Europe to support it. Does britain siding with the US matter? Let's assume that Britain does not side with the US for a moment, defying all logic. Let's assume, for example, that the US declare war on Britain. Let's call that war the war of 1812. Do British blockades disappear? No! What my opponent has to do is show how better relationships with britain would somehow mean that britain does worse on the naval front in their blockades. As already stated, the french navy could not amass. They could not even create a substantial fleet. Yet my opponent is suggesting they can and will, given the British navy being larger and less spread out. There is some serious lack of communication going on here... Washington's Wars Napoleon won no wars outnumbered: he won battles outnumbered. This is completely different. In war, washington essentially survives, and that's all he has to do. Napoleon's army suffers the attrition of being so far away from its supply lines and communication lines that all nations did, are, and shall. Conclusion The only way for France to win is the following: 1) France create a massive navy, the likes of which the world never known, because Britain is in the same situation it was last month. 2) France somehow, lacking naval officers, defeats the best naval minds in battle, even though they are well known for using out of date, horrid tactics[8] at sea. 3) France then manage to stock masses of soldiers and supplies and cannons to travel over the Pacific, with a navy consisting of thousands of ships of the line, requiring more than a century to build, which outnumbers the current british navy. Thank you. 1 - http://histclo.com... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org... ; 3 - http://tinyurl.com... 110 4 - Ibid, page 112 5 - http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu... ; 6 - The Pirates Laffite; http://www.wtblock.com... ;; Wikipedia, etc., combined with no other mention of New Orleans mounting an expedition in any other form. 7 - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... ;, Glorious First of June, etc. 8 - http://www.thedearsurprise.com... ;, previously stated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Does evil exist because I will close with this: Our perceptions and feelings towards past events do rightly govern those things we consider to be good, or bad. Evil and heroic. Every action has a positive and a negative outcome no matter how big an impact that action has made. There are good and bad people in the world, and I do not deny this. However I cannot make some out to be truly evil if what he does is out of what he believes to be good for the majority. No evil force acts on any one. I also cannot call any one or any thing evil if we do the things we do out of our base instincts. We are animals in the literal meaning, and not in the metaphorical we all are horrible people pessimistic meaning. We do the things we do out of evolution; the things we believe will further not only ourselves, but the majority as a species. That is not evil, nor is it bad. If any thing it is good. Even if it has a negative impact on the world. We are all good people, even the worst of us. I'll thank Pro for challenging me on this subject, and also thank Pro for putting up a good debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homeopathy Does Not Work because I'm not aware of any kind of "artificial" wellbeing as you have suggested, only simply, wellbeing. There are many paths up the mountain. Is it really that uncommon for your primary physician to ask, "How have you been feeling?" Or a therapist? Example: I have a broken leg. It's a basic fracture that doesn't require surgury or even need to be reset. A simple protective cast is ordered and I am prescribed and given pain medication, the opiate narcotic pain killer Vicodin. Now with the proper recommended dose the opiate in my blood stream goes straight to work blocking the pain receptors of my nervous system, thus preventing the pain chemicals in my body from being received; the "feeling" of the searing pain from a broken bone is NOT "felt" ... But another curious thing happens, by blocking pain receptors I also receive, as a side effect, feelings and waves of comfort: I am high.. Stoned.. Drugged up.. and it "feels" great! Most would say, "Well, damn, he just broke his leg, of course, let him take the pain killers until the pain subsides.." or "Who cares if he is high or feels good, he has a broken leg.." or "I'm sure breaking a leg is stressful, hopefully the pain meds give him some relief and comfort.." Now lets notice and explore a couple of ideas here in the example I have given: 1) The narcotic does nothing to actually repair the broken bone in my leg! The narcotic only merely "tricks" my body that I'm not in pain. 2) Because the drug makes me high, I feel good (despite my broken leg) yet the source (the opiate) is technically synthetic and artificial; least we say superficial as well.. YET, I STILL FEEL GOOD (which is the point). So now let's distinguish this and contrast this from your views. Sure, the Vicodin is acting directly with the chemistry of my body. But it produces feelings of wellbeing without addressing or curing and mending my broken leg. We could then get very medically and scientifically detailed about how the drug's material chemistry "works". But again, it still doesn't repair and mend the broken bone in my leg, yet it's a justified therapy given to one who has a broken leg. Further, we know of the healing odds of placebos. Medical therapies do not even have to have a direct chemical influence on the body to have a positive outcome, and produce wellbeing. The brain and mind of the body merely need to believe that it does, and a seemingly unscientific event occurs, the body follows and begins to heal itself. Major surgeries have been preformed without any chemical sedatives or anesthetics using only suggestive hypnosis! I don't know how useful it is to equate alternative medical therapies to Jesus, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. I think that it might be a mistake to qualify all of these subjects equally in the same way. Your conclusion seems to be that homeopathic alternative therapies must meet certain scientific requirements and standards first before being taken seriously, otherwise they cannot possibly "work". I have shown that to be false. Perhaps the end result (how people feel) should be standard, as it is in all areas of medicine. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum because Ok, as you said in your argument, "Liberal means all men are created equal and Conservative means all men are not created equal." Nope. That's wrong. I said that Left-Wing means all men are created equal, Right-Wing means all men are not created equal. My opponent is conflating the Left-Wing/Right-Wing spectrum with the Liberal/Conservative spectrum, a commplace mistake. Left-Wing/Right-Wing is an allusion to the French Estates General evolving out of the French Revolution. The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. As I established in Round 1, L eft-Wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality,[5] Right-Wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social heirarchy or social inequality. [6] That is the origin and meaning of those terms. That's not a personal perspective or a Liberal perspective, that's just reporting the facts. Any person who admires the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence is by definition Left-Wing. Many conservatives define themselves as Right-Wing without investigating the meaning of the word, but you'd better believe that when Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh define themselves as Right-Wing, they are perfectly cognizant of the term's history and connotation. your definition of "Conservative" and your definition of "Liberal" don't necessarily match real life Conservatives and real life Liberals in America Again, these are not my definitions, I am quoting Merriam-Webster as an objective source. Nevertheless, I would certainly agree that most Americans are not neatly pigeon-holed into Conservative/Liberal ideology. Almost every American admires the capacity of science and reason to promote social equality and at the same time upholds some traditional values or worries about the consequences of change. The political views of American citizens are far more complex and nuanced than the labels offered by American ideology. RE: abortion, LGBT rights, Intelligent Design, Ku Klux Klan Perhaps not unexpectedly, Pro has drifted away from his original argument into a general survey of American political issues. For the final round, let's remember that Pro's resolution was that the word "progress" cannot be defined as belonging to a specific political spectrum. To support his argument, Pro offered one definiton of the word progress: "movement as towards a goal." Pro then offered a variety of poltical scenarios wherein Right-Wing or Conservative movements can be seen as moving towards a goal. Pro has overlooked (and persisted in that oversight while ignoring the evidence) the fact that the word progress has more than one meaning. Some well documented, objective, persistent definitions of the word "progress" reflect a decidedly Left-Wing, Liberal agenda. A dictionary declaring what is progress and Wikipedia declaring what is progress and a bunch of "progressives" declaring what is progress don't make progress what it is. I agree that the objectivity of politicians should be challenged when it comes to defining the word "progress," although it is difficult when one political movement had so much influence on the meaning of the word. Therefore, I relied on more objective sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, just as Pro turned to a dictionary in Round 1. The problem with Pro's argument is that he only considered one possible definition of the word "progress" when "progress," like most English words, has multiple meanings depending on context and intent. If my opponent wishes to challenge the objectivity of Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary, then Pro must demonstrate the ways in which those sources are unreliable and offer alternative definitions that refute the "Englightenment" definition of the word. If Pro wishes to toss out the dictionaries and encyclopedias when defining the word "progress," what definiton from what source is Pro offering in their place? The word progress originally described an official parade or tour in Middle English, descending from the latin progradi "to walk forward." The word developed in the 16th and 17th century to encompass Pro's definition, advancement, but fell out of use in England by the 18th century. In the late 18th, early 19th century, the word was revived by the thinkers of American Enlightenment (Franklin, Jefferson) to connote "the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization can produce an improvement in the human condition." [1] The word was resurrected by American Liberals for the purposes of American Liberalism. In this later-day usage, the word progress is virtually inseperable from Liberalism. liberalism : a political and social philosophy advocating individual freedom, representational forms of government, progress and reform, and protection of civil liberties. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary) [2] liberalism : a political philosophy based on belief in progress (Merriam-Webster) [3] liberalism : favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. (Dictionary.com) [4] Here's a modern analogy. Microsoft can point out that the word "google" in lowercase just means to search the internet. Microsoft can point out that the word "google" has been use for more than a century as a number (1 followed by 100 zeroes). However, Microsoft can't complain that Google acts like they invented the word, because in a very real sense they did. Common usage of the word "google" is a direct reflection of the popularity of the Google search engine, in the same way that common usage of the word "progress" is a direct reflection of the popularity of American Liberalism after the Revolutionary War. Pro can't complain that Liberals act like they invented the word "progess," because in a very real sense they did. I have demonstrated that there are multiple defnitions for the word "progress" and that one ordinary set of definitons explicity implies and is derived from the American Liberal tradition. To the extent that my opponent has only offered one definition of the word progress, a definition that is not as relevant to American politics as my definition, Pro's argument that progress cannot be defined as belonging to one side of any political spectrum stands refuted. My thesis, that some accepted definitions of the word "progress" do not apply to every degree on the political spectrum (extreme Right-Wing, for example, or radical Conservatism), stands proven. Thanks to Pro for interesting discussion. Please VOTE CON! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2 http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Michael Jackson faked his own death because That's right, reports of the death of Michael Jackson are premature - the reality is he is alive and well and living in a rented bedsit above a Lebanese restaurant on the Edgware Road, London. http://www.earth-photography.com... But wait, I hear you say. I saw pictures of his body being taken to the coroner's office on television. Did you actually see his face though? No, all any of us saw was some shots of something under a white sheet being put into the back of a van. All his assistants needed to do to fake his death was drive around the South Side of L.A. until they found the body of a recently deceased drug addict, take it back to Jackson's house, dress it up in some ridiculous clothes, put some make-up and a wig on it and call 911. To illustrate my theory, here's an artists impression of what the corpse could have looked like: http://www.johnshakespeare.com.au... And here's a recent picture of Michael Jackson: http://www.onlinebreakingnews.info... It's difficult to tell them apart, isn't it? Okay, you concede, so there's no proof it was actually Michael Jackson's body that was taken to hospital, but why would he fake his own death? Well, he was $200 million dollars in debt and that is why he was forced to agree to perform in a series of fifty concerts beginning in London's O2 Arena next month. Jackson didn't want to do them, though, "I don't know how I'm going to do 50 shows," he said. "I'm really angry." http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.timesonline.co.uk... In addition to his financial problems, further allegations of child molestation coming to light was also a real possibility and being no longer able to pay off his victims and unable to afford to employ the most expensive legal teams, he would be looking at spending the rest of his life in jail when found guilty. However, while he was in London the desperate Michael Jackson hatched a cunning plan to escape both his creditors and his juvenile accusers by tricking the world into believing he was dead and it was that plot that was played out in front of the world's media yesterday. So, now that he has fooled everyone (except the more astute Debate.Org voters) into believing he is moonwalking up the stairway to heaven he can live in peace and obscurity in a modest one room apartment above a kebab shop in London's Arab quarter, going about his daily business disguised as a Muslim woman dressed in a burqa, just as he did when he was in Bahrain. http://www.abc.net.au... So there we have it. The motives for faking his death are certainly there and we also know how he probably did it. For these reasons we must conclude that Michael Jackson is still alive and well and you should, therefore, vote Pro. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with That we have become slaves to conformity because I would like to thank Con for this debate. Con's Case 1. The idea that "society has progressed" is a red herring in this debate. Remember, we are arguing about conformity not whether society has changed. Con associates modern times with non-conformity and the past with conformity. I disagree. The goalposts have simply shifted. Con rightly states "today we have a different set of values" and those values clearly still entail social constructs and norms. Con notes that we realize that discrimination is not acceptable, and in many groups today that holds true. Much of what was wrong in the past is considered acceptable today, and vice-versa. It works both ways, as I could just as easily evoke the idea that children should be able to get married or polygamy and get that same level of outcry today that was used in your example about gay marriage. In conclusion, Con's argument that today is somehow "non-conformist" seems arbitrary. We conform to our own standards. 2. Con speaks in very broad concepts here: "[Today] people are developing their personalities...to be is who they actually are, not what they want to be." I don't know what this means or to what extent this is different from the past. Certainly, mainstream society is more accepting of certain views than others, but there are still taboos. Is a racist more "free" to develop his personality today? How about a social conservative on a liberal college campus? Con is practicing a selective bias here. Con's argument is a little confusing here. He talks about how being an individual is "trendy" and that we follow this "trend." Is Con just substituting "trends" for "conforming?" It would seem so. I would really like Con to clarify this in the next round. Were people not individuals 40 years ago? How about 400? Which year did people start becoming individuals rather than brain dead conformists? Pro's Case: 1. Psychological experimentation has repeatedly confirmed the power of conformity. Two prominent experiments in this field have been the Asch and the Milgram experiment. Both experiments demonstrated the power that a group consensus or authority figure can hold over an individual. The Asch experiment, for example, asked groups questions about the lengths of lines and then asked for judgments to be made. The control group gave only one incorrect answer of 35, while the experimental (peer pressure) group led test subjects to answer over 1/3 of the questions incorrectly. Follow up experiments confirmed this effect, namely - that group pressure can largely sway individual judgment. The force was greatest when there was a large number of individuals that strongly voiced the incorrect opinion [1]. The Milgram experiment, similarly, showed how individuals were able to suppress their own moral judgments when faced with an authority figure. In this experiment, the "teachers" (test subjects) were instructed to shock "learners" (actually recordings, no one got hurt) as a method of teaching them word associations. When an incorrect answer was given, the learner received a shock administered by the teacher. The levels of shock were gradually increased, and the learners recordings were heard by the teacher so he could hear the pain that was inflicted. Shockingly, 65% of the participants reached the maximum voltage level of 450 volts after being coaxed by the scientist [2]. The learners stopped reacting after large bouts of screams indicating that they were unconscious if not dead. 2. Social norms exist, and there are consequences for violating them. Despite Con's attempt to frame the modern day as an era of individuality, there are still very basic social norms that govern human behavior. We operate inside a social network and implicitly abide by social norms that are realized at an early age. Remember, by saying "slave" we are claiming that these social norms exists and exert a clear, strong effect on the individual. The violation of some social norms leads to arrest - having sex with a minor, shoplifting, urinating on lawns - while others just entail social consequences. These social norms are inescapable and govern everyone's behavior, unless perhaps you live alone on top of a mountain. All members of society are binded by these norms. How about if I try to rebel? Lets say tomorrow I wake up and threw on some black clothing and eyeliner. Unfortunately, that look is already a little slice of society that has been claimed by the Goths, and in doing so I am conforming to their group standards. I could make the exact same point with hippies, punks, or jocks - name the high school stereotype. Now, if I really wanted to get creative I could go outside with only underwear on my head but this is too much of a violation of norms and I would be arrested. My refusal to conform would lead society to step in and directly stop my act. However, there is a middle ground between arrest and normality where social consequences occur that serve as an incentive or disincentive for individuals to follow a given social norm. In conclusion, these norms are an inescapable part of society that play a large role in governing our individual behavior. Additionally, it is much harder than one thinks to truly be a "non-conformist" given the multitude and diversity of groups that comprise a society, and the consequences for true violations of social norms are often direct and may even carry a sentence. The social norms that a society holds bind its members like a social glue in a clear and powerful sense, for better or for worse. [1] http://www.experiment-resources.com... [2] http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap Battle(general) because You're pitiful and narcissistic Your claims are unrealistic I'm 'bout to make this battle fatalistic For my dear fellow socialpinko If it's not apparent he's a stinko Claiming I'm bout to die Sh!t I don't need to try To make this little ignorant pansy boy cry Yes, I called you little I'm about to break your rhymes like brittle Your insults I belittle Your sh!t is old, get with the program This dude's a 100 years old, he probably uses a monogram It's the new age my friend, we're working on a hologram Insulting me on my intelligence, anarchist? I'm starting to get pissed Don't make me show you the fist Nah, all I need is some movement of the wrist To put you in your place Rub the ground with your face I guess I better slow down the pace I don't even need to try to win this race So I'll finish this with grace Now I can write my file against socialpinko's death filing case <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Let's Choose A Debate! because ***DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE! I WILL CHOOSE THE TOPIC FROM YOUR SUGGESTIONS. WHOEVER'S TOPIC I CHOOSE I WILL BE DEBATING WITH!*** Please help me choose a topic. State whether you are pro or con. First round will be acceptance and confirmation of the topic. Other three rounds will be debating. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should we have "Designer babies" because As my opponent hasn't demonstrated her ability to 'take me down' I will continue on the subject of prevention rather than modification. Another thing that can be prevented is future illnesses. This happens by inserting genes to tell the immune system how to fight off a specific infection or disease, rather like a vaccine. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should diabetes be allowed to eat peanut butter? because Diabetics have a problem with sugar. In the case of type I diabetes the person cannot produce a hormone called insulin and therefore they need to take insulin. In type II diabetes the person does not produce enough and they can usually handle taking oral medications like Glucaphage (metformin). Now the question is “is peanut butter ok?” My response is why not? Peanut butter is mostly protein and the metabolism of protein into glucose is slower than that of carbohydrates. Therefore foods with protein in them will help minimize blood sugar spikes. Now the issue comes in when the diabetic patient has renal issues. A lot of diabetics have renal insufficiency due to HTN (diabetes and HTN like to go hand in hand). In this case the person will need to be careful when eating any protein (including peanut butter). The key is moderation. Diabetics usually have a low carb diet, not a no carb diet. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should hats be allowed in school? because I've said all I can <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with If you are less instructed, you believe more in God because Straying from Science to biblical instruction. People who are well known in the educated world tend to make the similar claims. That, The Bible is the atheist's best tool. http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Both have written books on their disbelief in a god, each book contains arguments from the Bible. Their knowledge far passes that of an average churchgoer, yet they are atheists. Thosev"less instructed" on the history of their own religion tend to believe more. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States because PRO 1A 1. Yes I can. It's not even a logical stretch to say that compulsory education will lead to more kids attending school, which leads to more kids with diplomas. Your case's benefits directly entail kids *not* going to public school, which reduces graduates. 2. The US is rights-based, yes? I.E. it's all about individual citizen's rights and welfare. That's to prevent tyranny of the majority. We can't just blow off the minority because Con says so. Also, given that our job market is driven by education level, making sure that the most individuals succeed is the only thing that can maximize benefit to the state as a whole. I don't know how to make it clearer. Pro maximizes both individual and collective benefit. 3. That still invalidates your source as a piece of offense, since my 1A says that the diploma is a gateway for employment, not a college degree. We covered this in RD 2. 1B 1. First of all, not a strawman. Second of all, yes there is. Privatization is exactly that. Since capitalist institutions seek to maximize profit, rather than social gain, students who can't foot the bill on their own are denied education. You cannot maintain the benefits of CE while not having CE. See 1B-2 (below). 2. Then why the heck are we debating? You assert, again, that you can claim all the benefits coming out of the Pro advocacy but you don't ever tell us how you plan on motivating a privatized school system to do this. I'm not asking you to make plan text. But the voters and I *expect* you to be able to, logically or otherwise, prove that a privatized education system will offer all students an education without the incentive that CE provides. 3. I was. That was my warrant that states can mandate participation in activities that better the state as a whole. 1C 1. I'm not presupposing anything. Look to RD 3. I don't believe anything is perfectly equal now. I'm saying Con results in a loss of equality. With regards to privatization, that is the only alternative to CE, since CE = public schools. Hence, you are de facto arguing for privatized schools. 2. First, the American public dubbed it as such. Big difference. And, per previous arguments, Con does shut school doors by fundamentally changing both the goals and obligations associated with public schooling. Kids spend 7+ hours of their day at school. How does that not warrant it being a support system as well as an educational institution? 2A 1. Problem solving and critical thinking skills are universally useful. According to all of my evidence in 2A, schools teach skills, not subject areas. Look at the standards I posted. Who doesn't need to read, or write complete sentences, or speak coherently? The subjects are used as ways to diversify cognitive thinking skills. Not everyone may want to read, or write, or speak, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to. I've already proven that a diploma is a necessity, but I'd say cognitive higher thinking is right up there, too. 3. It actually has everything to do with the resolution. We can't universally apply educational standards without a CE model. Again, look to the harms of privatization. Without government oversight (in this case, at the state level via departments of education), standards *cannot* be enforced. That's just a reality of the US education system. 2B 1. Already did prove otherwise. I'll make this a voting issue so that I don't have to repeat what I've said already in RDs 1-4. 2. This is also going to be a voting issue, readers. See the above 1B-2 response again. 3. Besides the whole parents who are incapacitated issue (and that child services is hardly an appealing option), do you suppose that our welfare system can handle all the new cases you'll be throwing its way? We are talking about millions of people. Ex: 30.5 million children were on a free/reduced lunch plan in 2007 alone. Con says just let them go hungry, which, as the WFP states, will severely affect their ability to learn all these awesome new concepts he wants to forward in the Con world. However, my 2A proves that we get the education reform he touts, but only if we stick to CE. But, food isn't even the most important issue at hand. Look at his "benefits": we get an educational system that is actually focused on educating and we eliminate trivial truancy cases. First, the focus is where it needs to be right now. Second, what is the real monetary harm of trivial truancy cases? How is this even quantifiable in the round when compared to the loss of rights? Homeschooling options within CE basically solve for any rights abuses he can claim, so I'm still outweighing. CON C1 1. First, if you are educated under the system described in 2A (which right now kids are), then you are far more likely to be educated than if you just didn't go to school. Second, that really doesn't matter at the point where you cannot succeed in the US without a diploma. No, the two don't *always* correlate, but in general, they do. We aren't debating absolutes. 2. Way to glance over everything important that I said about public school obligations. Food is a necessity to a good education, says WFP. So, if you want your educational system to be equal access, you are obligated to provide students with the meals they require. And lunch is sort of essential, dude. Even if you aren't aiming for equal access (which is a rights-based obligation via the USFG, so you don't really have a choice), human beings need food. And you have these human beings in your possession for 7 hrs min. per day. 3. Remember this from RD 4: "The benefits when we negate are 1. an educational system more focused on educating and not supporting…" To achieve this benefit, you have to prove that the Pro world contains little to no useful education. I'd say that's basically your C1 right there. If I prove CE provides the only useful education in the round, that's a voting issue for me. And you just admitted that I do since you just severed from that argument. 4. I don't really need to concern myself with your subtext. Say what you mean, or you are still a moving target. C2 1. You explicitly argue that all parents are equal when you try to use them as a way to prove that education levels will remain the same in a Con world. 2/3. This'll be another voter. Standards just can't function without CE. Note on C3: He talks about diplomas becoming obsolete, and then doesn't give himself enough space to properly defend this incredible claim. He's asking you to vote Con based on the hope that this *might* happen, despite the fact that the need for formal education is on the rise for reasons that the education system has no control over (foreign labor market competition, etc.). Also, He can't provide jobs for people who won't graduate, and he can't tell you how long it would take for the entire employment system to readjust (assuming it even can). Assigning a time limit to this is beyond our realm of discourse. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Vocaloid music because The crime increases as population itself increases. You can learn Japanese and not trust a Japanese person. There are pleanty of english speakers I can't trust, does that mean that I should not spek english? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with KingofEverything is NOT the king of everything. because I said first round was NOT acceptance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because The sole purpose of undergoing an IVF treatment is to conceive a child. If that is achieved, then it has completed its purpose. It can be easily concluded that the couple did not fully look into what was right for them. Although the mother did begin to regret her chose of conceiving twins, it's clear that she still went through with the treatment so that she could have kids. The fact that she was able to conceive a child through IVF fulfilled the couple's desire of having a child. Again, IVF is used to help couples who have difficulties conceiving a child. ("The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF") "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.createhealth.org... . <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with KingofEverything is NOT the king of everything. because First round is NOT acceptance. Please leave the last round blank. No semantics. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Homosexual Acts are Immoral because It is a pleasure to be debating WriterDave on this topic. In this round I will argue against homosexual acts on the basis of classical natural law. I will also attempt to preempt several common objections to natural law ethics. What Is Natural Law? According to natural law ethics, morality is grounded in natural facts about what constitutes proper functioning for rational agents. Hence when the natural law theorist speak of what is "natural," he refers to what is proper for a given organism. Similarly, "unnatural" refers to what is not proper for a given organism. The goal of a moral life is to live excellently. This is achieved when our acts align with how we ought to function given the kind of being we are. Consider a knife. Because it is the kind of thing whose proper function is cutting, we call it good if it cuts well and bad if it doesn't. The conditions for its flourishing are set by its nature. Likewise, because the heart is a type of thing oriented toward pumping blood as its purpose, a heart which pumps blood well is a good heart, whereas one that is impaired is bad . We see from these examples that goodness and badness are attributive properties; their content depends on what they are being predicated of. [1] There are good cars, good books, and good professors. All of these are good in the sense that they are fulfilling of their respective functions. Of course, all of the aforementioned examples involve some non-moral good. We don't hold knives morally responsible for failing to cut properly. But, insofar as human persons are free agents capable of rationally c hoosing whether or not to pursue their flourishing, this becomes moral goodness. [2] Knives are incapable of rational deliberation and free action, but people are. We hold a bank robber, but not a knife, morally responsible because the robber could have and should have known and done better. Now since goodness is defined in terms of what is proper for something, the kind of substance that something is gives us an objective standard of goodness by which we can evaluate its performance. The good for us as humans lies in the ability of our reason to direct us to those ends which accord with the proper function that our various bodily faculties have. Acts are bad or evil if they involve the direction of our reason against our bodily goods as such . [3] That is to say, an act involving a bodily faculty is wrong if is actively directed to a purpose other than the one it should take by nature. We act against the natural purpose of a given bodily faculty if, when engaging its powers, we direct them to an end other than its inherent purpose. Thus, because the function of our sexual organs is to procreate, directing their powers to an end other than the creation of new life frustrates their purpose and is thus immoral. The sexual powers should be directed toward procreation, but are actually directed to some other end (say, pleasure) in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are thus immoral. By the same token, masturbation, oral sex, bestiality, and contraception are also immoral. This is not to say that all sex must be had with the intention of procreation in mind, only that actions involving our sexual faculties must be consistent with this purpose by being a procreative-type act. [4] I now turn to objections. Objection #1: Eyeglasses, medicine, and a host of other things are unnatural! This objection falsely equates unnaturalness with being a man-made artifact. As previously stated, when the natural law theorist uses the term "natural," he refers to what is proper for a given organism's function. If anything, these actually enhance the functions of what they are directed at. Eyeglasses enhance and correct the seeing power of the eyes and medicine corrects bodily malfunctions. A similar objection which states that homosexuality is found in animals also fails for this same reason. Objection #2: Shaving, wearing earplugs, and applying antiperspirant are unnatural! None of these actions frustrate the powers associated with the various faculties because they do not involve the active use of those faculties. Shaving does not frustrate the purpose of hair because we are not actively engaging the powers associated with hair to some contrary end. Neither do we frustrate the purpose of our sweat glands when applying antiperspirant because we are not using the sweat glands to some contrary end. The same is true of hearing: we are not directing our hearing to some contrary end. All of these examples involve passive as opposed to active frustration. As Stephen Jensen indicates, “[n]ot every instance of inhibiting some natural function, therefore, counts as a voluntary error. We must voluntarily use some power that directs to some end or some material, but we divert that power to some other end or material.” [5] Objection #3: Using a gun to kill someone is using it properly, hence it is good to kill someone! No. Natural law is primarily about the flourishing of agents . That is, acting in a way which fulfills our nature. Our nature in turn includes our various bodily faculties and their proper functions. An act is good if it is conducive to the flourishing of these bodily faculties. It is not wrong to use a gun contrary to the gun's purpose, since the gun is not part of your nature nor is it an moral agent. It would be wrong, however, if you used the gun as the means by which you interfere with the flourishing of another agent . Objection #4: You can't derive an "ought" from an "is"! According to Hume's famous fork and G. E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy, one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” But this is plainly false . Given a teleological account of human nature, there is no fact-value distinction, for value is built in to fact from the very beginning. If the purpose of eyes is that they see, then it follows straightforwardly given their telo s that eyes which see well are good eyes. Nature is not merely descriptive, but also prescriptive. "Ought" claims are not derived from "is" claims, but present to begin with. [6] Objection #5: The purpose of sex is pleasure, not procreation! This is mistaken. Pleasure exists not as an end in itself, but as a means to some other end. Eating is pleasurable, but we would not want to say that pleasure is a purpose of eating. Rather, pleasure itself is purposed toward motivating us to eat for the final purpose of nutrition. There are many things which taste pleasurable to us but which harm the body with respect to nutrition. Pleasure thus is subservient to the primary function of the faculty it is associated with. Similarly, the pleasure associated with sex serves to motivate us to procreate. It is not to be sought after as an end in itself. Objection #6 : There are no such things as "functions" or "teleology"! To deny outright that there exists function in biology is implausible. Surely our hearts have the function of pumping blood and our eyes have the function of seeing. These are objective facts that are inherent to our biology. If denied, the entire discipline of medicine falls apart, for medicine is inherently normative and is concerned with restoring our organs to the way they ought to function. [7] Moreover, the denial of teleology is ultimately self-defeating . Consider the mind, which has the function of thinking rationally. Now if functions do not exist, then the mind does not have the function of thinking rationally. But i n that case, we have no reason to trust any of our thought processes as being reliably aimed toward the truth – including the ones which produced the very objection! The objection, as it turns out, removes its own warrant. If our minds are not aimed toward rationality, then what reason do we have to trust the beliefs that we hold now? One cannot deny function without implicitly relying on it. Unfortunately, my space has run low, otherwise I would preempt several other objections. I will leave that to the coming rounds. The resolution stands affirmed. Sources : http://tinyurl.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women in the Kitchen because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood because Lets deal with the issues your raised one at a time. I will concede that, "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness," should be replaced with Derrick's primary choice in becoming a doctor i.e. choosing to go to medical school, or choosing to do the work required to graduate and have a doctoral degree conferred. However any reader of the argument should have easily understood that the intent was to suggest that Derrick's status as a doctor was not an inborn trait but a description of Derrick based on choices he made. Secondly, the use of my opponent's "super argument" that claims to do away with my argument wholesale and indeed the majority of debates on this site and in the world in general! The argument states: "Applying the definition of fact, logic dictates that agreeing to debate establishes my opponent's inability to accept his premise. The premise is a fact. A fact is indisputable. Indisputable cannot be debated. Asking to debate negates the fact. Thus, either my opponent acknowledges that his premise is false, based on logic or, in the alternative, has made two contradictory statements thereby violating the rule of logic..." Of course this argument could be turned around as easily as not on my opponent since, if he accepted my challenge with intellectual and general honesty, he intends to argue that the opposite (or at least a different) fact describes the nature of homosexuality. The two statements my opponent accuses me of making are, the statement which titles the debate and the implicit statement: "I am willing to debate someone." Of course, he has implicitly made the opposite of my first statement (or some third asserted fact) and the same second statement by accepting the debate. According to my opponents logic we are at a stale mate and can discuss neither this topic nor anything else because facts lose their facthood once you subject them to argumentation. If this argument were taken to its logical conclusion any debate that included a person who was arguing that his assertions were true i.e. fact would be logically bested based simply on the fact that the debaters were willing to debate. If you say "the car is in the garage" and your spouse says "no its not" take care lest you open your mouth a second time to debate the issue and your car suddenly disappears because facts cannot be questioned and still be facts. If one takes a moment to look at the titles of a great number of debates on this site one will see that they assert facts. I suppose the most clever thing to do is to start debates on this site by asserting a fact and taking the con position then ambushing the poor challenger who accepts the debate in the pro position with my opponents argument telling the challenger that they are either incorrect in their argument for the fact statement or, at least intellectually disingenuous because they agreed to the debate at all. Let's move on to the topic at hand. My opponent asks me to argue "that [h]omosexuality is not the opposite of [h]eterosexuality but just a choice of heterosexuals." Here he appears to miss my point. My argument asserts that the word homosexual, in reference to an individual, however any dictionary defines it, should mean one who engages in homosexual acts. My opponent makes the assumption that my argument includes the assertion that all people are born heterosexual. In fact that assertion is not a necessary correlative of my statement. There could quite easily be a scenario where every person was born without any "leaning" toward any particular behavior but even if my assertion suggested that each person was born desiring to engage in heterosexual acts it would not change the fact that homosexuality is a practice, not an inborn leaning. However, I was clear when I began the debate that I do not wish to argue against the temptation argument which is essentially the "fact" my opponent asserts by including his definition of homosexual "…of or being having an attraction to same sex, form Latin HOMO meaning person." The full definition from Oxford Dictionaries is as follows: adjective (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex: homosexual desire noun a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. http://oxforddictionaries.com... The problem with this definition is it leaves no commonly used word to differentiate between a person who is "attracted," "desires," or is tempted and the person who engages in the object of his desire i.e. performs homosexual acts. To make my point more clear; we don't usually have words for one who is tempted to do x. A thief is one who steals. An athlete is one who engages in athletics and a vegetarian is one who eats only vegetables. Because a person has a desire to do one of these things or an attraction to one of these things or a temptation to engage in one of these things the person does not therefore become a thief, an athlete or a vegetarian. The person must do these things to be referred to as a doer of one of these things. If the person is simply tempted, we simply say, Johnny is tempted to steal. Johnny has not become a thief by his temptation alone. Since sex refers to an action or set of behaviors it should not be used in labels or descriptors that refer only to desires, temptations or attractions unless we use those modifiers. E.g. Johnny has a "desire" to engage in homosexuality but chooses not to do so because he believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Johnny is not a homosexual because of his desire that he shuns any more than a person is a murderer because they were attracted to the idea of killing the man who wronged them in some horrendous way but chose not to do so because they believed it to be morally wrong. Homosexuals are not the opposite of heterosexuals they are simply those who engage in homosexual acts. The definition should not include those who are ONLY attracted to or tempted by those acts. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life because Thanks Ben and I'm glad you're happy. "Generally I would agree with that, but in this case I simply deny any reason for individual existence, therefore my burden of proof lies with me having to rebut any possible reason." An interesting opinion, however I do feel that I should warn you that some voters on this site may take a dim view of debaters who only rebut without posting arguments. http://www.debate.org... As my opponent will see from this link it is a hotly contested issue on this site, some think the instigator always bears it, some say it is always Pro, some expect both sides to offer some arguments which is the opinion I tend to take. ----- My opponent's only rebuttal: "Survival and reproduction are not the reasons for the continuation of human life. Rather, the continuation of human life is the reason for survival and reproduction. But what is the reason for the continuation of human life?" This is a fairly nonsensical argument, a little bit like the chicken and egg conundrum in that one cannot exist without the other. Human life could not continue without survival and reproduction therefore they are indeed reasons for the continuation of human life. As conscious beings we seek out what brings us pleasure. We have evolved to find pleasure in things that aid our survival and reproduction, things like food, shelter and sex, the same way we have evolved to fear disease and castration. If you are ever lucky enough to reproduce and have children of your own, you will know that it brings great pleasure and a feeling that you have been part of something amazing and that your life now has meaning. This is true whether you are atheist, Jew, agnostic, Christian or Muslim. Pleasure can bring meaning to life. Reproduction certainly can. 'No it isn't' is not a good rebuttal. ----- My opponent's only contention: "Materialistic desires are meaningless, seeing as one dies anyway-and what has he gained from his riches, food etc.? Ecclesiastes http://www.biblegateway.com... ... (a fantastic book, which is part of Writings, which in turn is part of the bible. I have brought the main theme.) And yet atheists have no otherworldly strives, so from their point of view everything is materialistic, so everything is meaningless, and so there is no meaning for life." My opponent argues that to an atheist "everything is materialistic". This is simply not true and my opponent provides no evidence to support this opinion. Pleasure is not material. The wonder of childbirth is not material. Appreciation of art transcends the material. I am very pleased to see my opponent bring Ecclesiastes into this debate, I agree that it is a fantastic book and I have quoted from it myself several times on this forum before. I love all of the "it is useless, it is like chasing the wind.." "Although traditionally ascribed to Solomon (who is identified as the author in the text), it was clearly written much later (c.300 BC)." http://qanda.encyclopedia.com... It is the woeful, despairing cry of a pious worshipper of God who receives little reward for his faith, ( a bit like some sections of Job) , these are some of my favourite bits: "God has laid a miserable fate upon us." 1: 13 " 9 What do we gain from all our work?10 I know the heavy burdens that God has laid on us." 3 "2 I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive.3 But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world." 4 "2 God will give us wealth, honor, and property, yes, everything we want, but then will not let us enjoy it. Some stranger will enjoy it instead. It is useless, and it just isn't right." 6 ".5 Yes, the living know they are going to die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward; they are completely forgotten.6 Their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that happens in this world. 7 Go ahead - eat your food and be happy; drink your wine and be cheerful. It's all right with God.8 Always look happy and cheerful.9 Enjoy life with the one you love, as long as you live the useless life that God has given you in this world. Enjoy every useless day of it, because that is all you will get for all your trouble.10 Work hard at whatever you do, because there will be no action, no thought, no knowledge, no wisdom in the world of the dead - and that is where you are going." All from: http://www.biblegateway.com... I would argue that this could be interpreted to suggest that even with God life has no meaning. It is interesting that the author does not encourage us to look forward to our rewards in heaven but rather to enjoy what we can during our short time on Earth which hardly supports my opponent's points. In fact he doesn't seem to believe in an afterlife at all, which I guess explains why as a religious person his life is meaningless. --- I feel that I have presented several meanings of life that do not rely on any religion or belief in an afterlife. Life has meaning without religion. For everyone, including atheists. I look forward to my opponent's final round, perhaps we will be able to go a little deeper into what life is truly about. Thankyou. Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny pictures debate because Fnord. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Animals should not be kept in a zoo because As you are the affirmative and are challenging the norm, I accept with the the understanding that the burden of proof is on you. Thus I ask you to prove that animals deserve rights, that zoos violate those rights and that the violation of those rights causes real negative impacts which outweigh any of the positive impacts. You have made statement like zoos cause depression however you have provided no proof for this statement. Please elaborate in your next speech. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution occurs because My opponent's stance can be summarized as believing that evolutionary changes do take place, but that speciation never occurs. He also believes that mutations are always detrimental. I would like to correct my opponent by telling him that macro/micro evolution are not different theories but simply different parts of evolution. My opponent is of the stance that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution does not. The key difference between these is whether evolution can result in speciation. All speciation is is when mutations cause one breed to no longer reproduce with another, making them separate species. *No Sir, I am correcting YOU. Piggy-backing a lie (macro evolution) onto a truth (micro evolution) and then calling it one theory will not hold water without an example... I will provide a known example of speciation, but I would first like to point out the obvious logical flaw with suggesting that no species can split into 2 different species. This would be suggesting that the different species in the world are not genetically related whatsoever. *You have NOT provided a known example! Similarities between species suggest a common designer NOT common ancestry.. Ford automobiles all look kind of similar.. same designer! This is quite ridiculous, of course, considering how similar many different species are. For instance, chimpanzees and humans (which aren't even in the same genus) only have a 1.2% difference in genes. My opponent seems to be suggesting that this almost identical genome is the result of pure coincidence? That is ridiculous, logically that information would imply that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and that somewhere along the way, their lineages were divided into 2 different species. *See above answer! My opponent seems to have another misconception about evolution which I would like to point out. He defined macroevolution as suggesting "that species may change from one species to another species". That is not a description of evolution. Evolution is not so much a change from one species to another, but more the branching off into another species. basically, if one lineage evolves into a new species, their cousins to not vanish. *If your seriously suggesting that we started out as amoeba then something somewhere had to change species.. a lot! And likewise, in the instance of microevolution, the whole species does not necessarily change, but certain individuals may be present that have a mutation that others don't. And if that lineage of slightly different individuals can get more and more variation, it is only logical that they, after a while, may not be able to reproduce with others. This is especially true when a species is suddenly divided geographically and then undergo microevolution independently of each other. The chance that they would both happen to evolve exactly the same way if they are in different environments and divided so they can't reproduce, is negligible at best. Therefore, speciation definitely occurs in nature. *Example? Now, my opponent has also made the illogical statement that beneficial mutations never occur. This is a clear contradiction to his earlier statement that micro-evolution takes place. How can my opponent believe that microevolution takes place, yet not believe that beneficial mutations occur? The only answer I can think of is that he has some sort of misunderstanding of what evolution is or a misunderstanding of what mutations are. *Again, the misunderstanding is yours Sir. Because you start from the belief that everything is improving and becoming more complex etc then you naturally assume that mutation is beneficial. BUT everything is certainly not improving, everything is winding down, becoming weaker, smaller, more disease prone. In this sense mutations and variations (that are ALREADY within the gene pool) while not improving the species may help it adapt to new conditions etc. EXAMPLE!!! There is a type of cave salamander (lizard) that has lost the use of it's eyes completely as it now lives exclusively in dark caves, there is an identical salamander that has eyes.. This mutation may help enhance the other senses but in NO way could it be described as beneficial to the species as a whole. There has been NO increase in genetic complexity. An increase in genetic complexity is absolutely CRUCIAL for macro evolution to occur. A species cannot "adapt according to surroundings" (which you have claimed occurs) if they cannot mutate beneficially. The "adaptations" are merely the mutations that were beneficial enough to not get the individual killed. Positive change cannot occur without beneficial mutations. So which is it? Microevolution or no good mutations? It can't be both. *Mutations DO get them killed! do you know HOW many species have become extinct? And even so, how could organisms reach their complex and efficient state they are at now without positive mutations? How could they change from extremely simple particles to large, perfectly-adapted organisms such as sharks? I don't know how you would suggest that would happen without a long series of occasional benign mutations. *They were created perfect.. since then things have deteriorated.. Fossil records clearly show that everything was much bigger and better back in the day! I could provide lots of factual data, but you being a person of blind faith to an invisible deity, I feel that facts wouldn't mean much to you. With this in mind, I have decided to go about this debate by logic. If you do not like this, please tell me. *This debate is entitled (YOUR title) 'Evolution occurs' which means that it is STILL your burden to prove that it does indeed occur.. I STRONGLY suggest you begin! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should there be a border fence? because I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. As Pro and Instigator, it is my opponent's duty to uphold the resolution. I shall begin by presenting the following definitions: border- the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another http://dictionary.reference.com... fence- a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially : such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards http://www.merriam-webster.com... I negate the resolution. A border fence should not be utilized because: a) It would be too easy to break through due to its posts, wires, and boards. The wires can be cut with pliers or hedge clippers, while the posts/boards can be knocked down with sheer human force or by power tools. b) The fence would have to be carefully maintained due to its posts and boards. Poor weather, such as rain, can eventually rot some of the boards and create an ineffective fence. It would take more time, effort, and money to maintain such a fence. c) Financially, it would be quite a burden to have to pay for wire, posts, and boards. As per the reasons above, it would cost even more replacing broken/rotten parts of the fence and create heavy tensions between border patrol, being that they would have to spend more time inspecting the fence than the Mexicans. I propose that a border wall would be more effective than a border fence. Physically, a border wall is much easier to produce, maintain, and care after in comparison to a border fence. Also, it is much harder to break through or go around a border wall than it is a border fence. And, since border walls rarely get rammed through or severely damaged, the extra cost of maintenance is completely eliminated. I have successfully negated the resolution. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with God is real because Hello, it is a very nice day for a debate. You have posted several interesting arguments against the existence of God, and I will now respond to each of them in turn. You Said: "Now god, what is god? Which god are you talking about? during what context are you reffering god to?" My Reply: By God, I refer to a Being that is fully responsible for all of what we humans would call existence. I am talking about any and every version of God, as I believe they are all one and the same. You Said: "My main problem with god is this, where is the proof? Many people search their whole lives to see him but they die trying, massive gathering to meet god has failed with no god coming down." My Reply: I agree that there is no "empirical" proof for the existence of God. That does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. What constantly convinces me of God's existence is His undeniable role in shaping my life for the better( since you do not believe He is there, you wouldn't be interested in that) You Said: "And if you decide to ask me, where did that anomaly come from, all i can say is that in the vast time of emptiness this was bound to happen sometime." My Reply: I actually think that the Big Bang is a pretty logical theory. However, I don't agree that we have enough proof to rely on it. In my opinion, humankind is not nearly advanced enough to presume to know how the cosmos originated. I don't care how many scientists theorize otherwise. You Said: "But if you do not agree with that and persists that something HAD to be before that then i will simply ask you the question that no one is able to yet answer, what was before god?" My Reply: There is actually an easy answer for that; God exists outside of time. All of what we call dimensions(space, time etc...) were created by God for reasons unfathomable. This concept is nearly impossible for us humans to comprehend, as we are defined by the dimensions and can't exist in any other way. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Objective Beauty Exists because Watch this: "Beethoven is the greatest composer of all. Mozart was a virtuous composer whose harmonic and melodic complexity came to him, as he once wrote, like a cow pisses, but there is something haunting and unknown in Beethoven that makes him the greatest ever. Mozart embodied the elegance of life, Beethoven the despair" (Waylon Fairbanks) You may be asking, who is this Waylon bloke -- well that's me. True, I didn't split the atom, but in the realm of beauty, accomplishment, fame, intellect, even expertise, it doesn't matter. I am not wrong is my statement, and neither is Einstein. Beauty is a psychological matter of perspective. Because perspective is a cognitive reaction to that which is sensed, it is inherently subjective. I find it rather troubling that you started your argument with a subjective quote about one composer being better than another. Mahler in fact preferred Beethoven to Mozart, and even Wagner to Beethoven, and because Mahler was more accomplished musically than Einstein (who was a mediocre violinist), does that make Wagner the greatest? No. Your distinction between attractiveness and beauty is irrelevant, for beauty, even in its derived form, is ultimately human. This is not my opinion either, this is simple neurology. Neurological studies with MRI and CAT technology show that the human mind perceives beauty in the frontal lobes. Humans are the only species that have such enlarged frontal lobes as to rely on them to create meaning, understand complex logic, contemplate, and appreciate things like Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor. However, any time processing is done in the frontal lobe, it is subject to integration from the hippocampus and other memory store houses in the mind. Therefore, it is neurologically impossible for one to assess beauty in anything derived from the senses without integrating experience and preference from other parts of the cerebral cortex. I am not much impressed by your Einstein quotes. I realize that he was one of the most brilliant physicists ever, but he is no more qualified to speak about beauty than anyone else. The core of this debate comes down to meaning. Beauty is intrinsic meaning. This means, if I may clarify, that when something has a quantity of something as abstract as beauty, then that makes the object meaningful. I think it is of human arrogance to claim that objects which we find to have "beauty" are that way because of an inherent meaning beyond human perception. These things around us exist. Beauty is merely an artificial construct that the human mind attaches based on subjective criterion. Beauty is, as the maxim goes, "in the eye of the beholder." Since your argument is based on the rationale that mathematic ratios and theorems dictate beauty, I would like to point out two gaping flaws in this: firstly, nobody has ever proven or discovered a universal theorem that is objectively beautiful (don't give me that golden ratio crap). You're asking everyone reading this debate to rely on faith that there are these mysterious integrals roaming through nature making things lovely, and sorry sir, we debaters rely on logic and reason, not faith, to inform our thoughts. Secondly, you are forgetting that the mathematical sense through which we view the world, itself, is a human construct. Something even as simple as depth perception in painting had to be invented. In a culture that had no word or morpheme for "symmetry", surely symmetry would not be taken into account in looking at a piece of work. You forget linguistic determinism and cultural relativism when you indulge in these two dangerous assumptions. Using your musical analogy, think about this: the chromatic scale in the Western Musical Tradition has 12 tones, which were discovered by Pythagoras. In India, their musical scale has 22 tones because they have notes between what we'd consider a half-tone and whole-tone. We cannot fully comprehend the "beauty" of their music because our Western ears aren't accustomed to it, and visa versa. The objective beauty is an illusion based on what we hear. I cannot help but indulge in another example. You brought up J.S. Bach's fugues. His most noteworthy collection of fugues were "A well-tempered Clavier". When we listen to these masterful fugues, we listen to them on the harpsichord tuned in a system called equal temperament, where the intervals between the 12 notes are equally spaced (if you're a musical person, you'll note that the circle of 5ths doesn't resolve itself). When Bach wrote them, we was using his own system of tuning call "well temperament", where the intervals were not static. This means that the mathematical intervals are different and that the fugues we now hear today sound much different than they did before. We regard them as beautiful because in the 18th century, musicians standardized temperament, so the music we've heard for 300 years has accustomed our year to equal temperament. But if Bach heard his pieces played today, he'd shriek in disgust. "Who tuned that damn harpsichord!" I hope I did not get too technical in this example, but I hope the point is clear, that the music you are citing isn't even objective, so how can its beauty be? Your little piece about Mozart being an amateur mathematician is strangely ad hominem. Like I previously quoted, Mozart said he "wrote music like cows pissed." He could write an opera with one hand while writing a concerto with his other hand, and hold a conversation while writing a symphony. He was genius. His infatuation with math provides no insight into his genius. I would prefer if you didn't write "vote pro" before even hearing my arugment. Thanks <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga because Alright, let us begin Ladies and gentleman, there is a significant amount of evidence to conclude that Naruto and Sakura will most likely be romantically involved with one another by the end of the anime/manga. For the remainder of this debate, I shall be dubbing the Naruto/Sakura relationship as NaruSaku. #1. THERE IS PLENTY OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SAKURA HAS ROMANTIC FEELINGS FOR NARUTO It's implied that Sakura has special feelings for Naruto: http://www.onemanga.com... A) Taking note of this panel (as well as the panels on the previous pages), let us keep in mind that Sakura is expressing deep concern over the state of Naruto's body due to being unable to control the nine tailed fox's power. This is exactly like her prior concern for Sasuke as shown in Naruto Part one (the pre Shippuden half of the series) and we know for a fact that she had previously had strong romantic feelings for Sasuke. B) To add, what's most interesting (on the actual page in the link I provide) is that Yamato comments on Sakura's emotions displayed by stating "It's how strongly you feel for him that counts. Sakura, I can tell just by looking at you that . . . the truth is . . ." Just before Yamato is able to finish commenting, Naruto is now conscious and Yamato isn't able to say anymore. This can only mean one thing: If Yamato simply wished to point out that Sakura cares about Naruto as a friend, Naruto waking up wouldn't stop him from saying what he had intended to say. After all, what embarrassment or uneasy feelings could come from knowing that another individual acknowledges you as a friend? Both Naruto and Sakura are teammates and do all things friends typically do together, so there is no doubt that friendship between Naruto and Sakura is common knowledge. Clearly, was about to point out far deeper feelings than that of which can be produced from mere friendship; clearly, Yamato was about to point out that Sakura had developed romantic interest in Naruto. #2. THERE IS PLENTY OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT NARUTO HAS ROMANTIC FEELINGS FOR SAKURA A) First, there is the fact that he flat out states (or rather, thinks) that he has these kinds of feelings for Sakura, as confirmed on the bottom right panel on the page below: http://www.onemanga.com... B) Keep in mind that even in the second half of the Naruto series, Naruto still desires has dating related interest in Sakura dates as shown here: http://www.onemanga.com... Naruto says (and I quote): "Jeez and I was just devising a plan for the two of us to go on a walk, almost like a date" Granted, there is more evidence than the above, but the fact that he flat out confirms he has romantic feelings for Sakura and that he is interested in dating her is rather sufficient if I do say so myself. #3. NARUTO PAIRING WITH HINATA AND SAKURA PAIRING WITH SASUKE IS FAR TOO UNLIKELY. Now my opponent may attempt to provide reasons as to why Naruto and Hinata could become involved with one another, however, if we look at the most recent manga chapter, we shall note that Hinata is killed by the leader of the akatuski (Pein). http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... With Hinata dead, there is absolutely now chance of NaruHina occurring. As for SasuSaku (Sasuke and Sakura), let us observe the following piece of evidence: http://www.onemanga.com... Here, we see Sakura preparing to attack Sasuke (something which she was unwilling to do in the past) and we see Sasuke prepared to kill Sakura (as noted by Yamato). Surely if there were something between the two, at least one of them would not have resorted to such drastic measures. Now this doesn't completely negate the possibility of SasuSaku, but it sure makes it unlikely. CONCLUSION: 1) We have plenty of reason to believe that Naruto has romantic feelings for Sakura 2) We have plenty of reason to believe that Sakura has romantic feelings for Naruto. 3) We have reason to believe that it is unlikely that the other possible pairings (NaruHina and SasuSaku) will occur. 4) Therefore, it is most likely that Naruto will be romantically involved with Sakura at some point in the future. Some of the above points may need clarification depending on my opponent's objections. At any rate, the above shall do it for now. Engage. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon because All rules detailing this debate here: http://www.debate.org... My team: 1. Link, Hero of Twilight (street-level character) http://zelda.wikia.com... Canon: Legend of Zelda video games series (more specifically, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess) Link is a swordsman at age 17. He is very adept at using the sword, and has a whole mess of other weapons at his disposal. He bears the Triforce of Courage, and has the ability to transform into a wolf. 2. Kirby (street-level character) http://kirby.wikia.com... Canon: Kirby: Right Back at Ya! Kirby is an 8-inch tall pink blob with eyes, arms, a mouth, and feet. His main ability is that he can turn his mouth into a vacuum, eating his enemies and taking on their powers as his own. 3. Midna http://zelda.wikia.com... Canon: Legend of Zelda video games series (more specifically, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess) Midna is a Twili. She has been transformed into an imp by Zant. Her powers include turning into a shadow, taking the form of other beings, and using the Fused Shadow to transform into a dangerous Twilight creature. 4. Yugi Muto http://yugioh.wikia.com... Canon: Yu-Gi-Oh! Second Anime Series (between the Battle City arc and the Orichalcos arc) Yugi is a kid with a deck of Duel Monsters cards that contain powerful magic. He's good at puzzles and games. He possess the Millennium Puzzle, containing the spirit of Yami Yugi, also known as the Pharaoh or Atem. He also has the Millennium Ring, Necklace, Eye, and Rod 5. Seto Kaiba http://yugioh.wikia.com... Canon: Yu-Gi-Oh! Second Anime Series (during Dawn of the Duel arc, before Kaiba enters the Shadow Game) Kaiba is the president of KaibaCorp, a company involved with Duel Monsters. He has his own deck of powerful Duel Monsters cards. He holds the Millennium Eye. He also has his own private jet and helicopter. My opponent's team: 1. A rock. 2. An atom. 3. mongeese (UTW participant.) 4. Logical-Master (UTW participant.) 5. MTGandP (judge.) My strategy: 1. Kirby eats mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP in a single gulp, transforming into Debate Kirby. As this ability is rather worthless in a battle of life and death, and Kirby has very limited vocabulary, Kirby gets rid of this ability. 2. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the rock, which Kirby then eats. 3. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the atom, which Kirby then eats. Victory to Team PRO! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with atheism.just because its fashionable does not mean it has any merit because Thanks to my opponent for the challenge.Atheism has become fashionable lately in the u.s and british media with Richard Dawkins and comedians like Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher.Im all for free speech but some things bother me about these commentators,specifically... 1When these people attack organised religion they assume that A;all christians believe in a corporeal god.B;all christians believe in the genesis story of the bible as literal truth.C;You cannot be a christian unless you do and you cannot be a scientist unless you are anti religious. 2They assume that Evolution Theory disproves the existance of God.It does no such thing. 3They,especially Dawkins,claim that Evolution explains human consciousness.It does not and cannot.At least religion,all religion attempts to do this. 4They routinely attack organised religion through its crazies,fundamentalists and past atrocities while ignoring its moderates and its good deeds.At the same time they ignore the crazy atheists of which we have seen plenty this last century. 5Dawkins is a jackass and looks like he has not been laid in 23 years! Thanks again for the challenge.My last two opponents refused to debate me on my points.Hopefully you will.I dont expect you to convert me or vice versa but instead of attacking religion you should rebut my arguements which is chiefly about the underhand methods employed by todays Atheist posterboys. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against who wants to have a rap battle? because You admit that your rhymes fizzle without realizing what you really say because fizzle means end or fail in a weak or disappointing way at-least you are being honest, for that I award you a gold star and agree with the assessment of your rhymes so far Dissing yourself, and taking away a basic advantage play business you'll be the mail-boy and I'm the one who will manage fighter pilot in the sky, but you say I can't connect my rap as the spider said to the fly... "Welcome to my trap" You couldn't spit a riddle if you played the game as the riddler I'll be the batman who solves the puzzle, then swift kicks I deliver knocking you back, as you seek - a way to escape I'm like an MP3 player and you're outta tracks like a tape All my homies are ride-or-die, the only game we play is life your homies are hi-and-bye, specially lame n' filled with strife to own my hood you'd have to first make it past the gate guard and laser shooting t-rex's with mink coats who rape hard It was a nice try, butter guy, but I'm the knife and I'm slicing you are nothing but a cake ingredient that I need for some icing you're something new, but your rhymes still fail to impress I know what I'll get you for your birthday, some lipstick and a dress! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued because I would like to thank my opponent for a very good debate. As I said, this will be brief because I have very little time. What this debate comes down to is whether critiques will be helpful to improve this website. I think that it does for the following reasons. Topic quality will be improved. If topics are being critiqued, debaters will learn what makes topics effective by weighing the community's opinions. This, over time, will improve topic quality. If an instigator knows his topic will be critiqued, it provides incentive for him/her to word the topic more effectively. My opponent makes the assumption that quality relates to seriousness, but it does not. I have provided a definition of quality to prove this. Merriam Websters Online defines it as "degree of excellence" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) I will now go through the purposes of debate and show why critiquing would be helpful for them Education -Since topic quality will be improved, there will be more effective debates and more education -The critiques themselves will provide educational value because they teach about resolutions *My opponent states that resolutional analysis will be educational and he says that resolutional analysis needs effective argumentation. -This is true, but the same educational value can be provided through critiques. The difference is, with critiques, not only is the wording and structure of the topic discussed, providing educational, but also the issues are discussed. Going back the the Afghanistan example, the resolution could be critiqued, providing educational value, and the arguments about Afghanistan can be debated providing even more education. Thus, critiques help this purpose Fun -Higher quality topics would provide more effective and fun debate. *Stifle Innovation -Members can understand the purpose of a topic. The instigator and contender also understand the purpose. Thus, this is not relevant because 'fun' topics will be debated anyway. -Innovation will not be stifled because the "doomed" topic will be debated in addition to the various comments. *Seriousness - "Quality" is not equal to seriousness -Resolutional Analysis, which my opponent suggests as an alternative, is not as fun as a "fun" resolution. Challenge/Winning/ect. -My opponent's rebuttal is not sufficient. He makes the assumption that debaters on this site are not intelligent enough to provide critiques which would balance resolutions. Higher quality resolutions would be more balanced because balance is one of the most important parts of a resolution *C1) Conflicting Advice -This would provide education to all the members involved. The critiques could be evaluated as the debate unfolds because they would still help future resolutions instigated by the members involved *C2) Jokes -Never responded to it being non-unique, thus, this must not be looked to *C3) Delay -See my response to C1. -Contender would be better off with a higher quality resolution, so the point about starting the debate must not be looked to *C4) Pointless -Even if the topic is not changed, it provides future reference for the community. Thus, it still provides education *C5) Bait and Switch -His anecdote proves this would non-unique to critiques -Critiques would not change a topic from being about, for example, Afghanistan to steamboats. *C6)Unconstructive Criticism - It can be looked past *C7)Hurt Feeling -Non-unique because of trolls on forums and this occurred before critiques *C8) Destroys DDO user experience - Non-unique. Trolls will be trolls. - Those who are deemed by the community "too stupid, too bad at spelling, ect." will be turned away anyway after loosing and being ridiculed even without critiques. I have met the burden of proof because my opponent stated,"topics cannot be perfectly worded". This means all resolutions have room to improve and thus, all resolutions should be critiqued. You should vote pro for the following reasons: -My opponent has failed to prove how most his contentions are unique to critiques -My opponent has not linked his contentions directly to critiques effectively, the con's case does not carry much weight. -My impacts outweigh his. My impact of improved quality outweighs his of turning a few people away. These people wold be unlikely to stick around anyway because the people who would be turned away would be ineffective debaters who are not willing to learn. -As I showed above, I have met the burden of proof <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated because "[S]how that there is ... a forbidden fruit effect - which is basically a supposed desire for something that is banned/illegal BECAUSE it is banned/illegal." It's simply human nature to not want to submit to the will of another (in general). A law is essentially a powerful external force telling one not to do something, which leads to an equally strong reaction of wanting to. "Because while it's prohibition has some bad side effect (see forbidden fruit effect), legalizing it will do even worse." The difference between guns and alcohol is clear: guns provide protection against other guns. Alcohol does not have that feature. In underground alcohol parties, more drinking occurs (since the next time it will be available may be far off) and reports of alcohol poisoning are less likely (for fear of arrest). The combination leads to a huge increase in deaths. "If all alcoholic beverages were made legal for anyone to buy, then we will have some very high numbers of alcoholic-related accidents." This assumes that causing an accident due to alcohol is legally permissible. Take, for example, car accidents. If one assumes that the punishment for causing an accident is less than that of violation of the drinking age, the drinking age is redundant. With the opposite assumption, the law that effects everyone, rather than the discriminatory law, is redundant. The first situation seems much preferred. "The only time when the law won't be equally applied when there is a 'rational basis' for doing so." From your own link: "[g]enerally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." The law grants the right to drink to those over twenty-one, but denies it to those under twenty-one. Clearly discriminatory. "In fact, if it were to be legalized than MANY more young adults will purchase it, leading to more tragic accidents." An emotional appeal. However, we live in a nation in which '[t]hey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security' (Benjamin Franklin). Although some accidents would occur, the avoidance of risk is not worth the removal of freedom. "[T]he government shouldn't be concerned with protecting someone from themselves, only what individuals do to other individuals." Ah, so we're in agreement then. That's all I've time for, with three minutes remaining. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate because I understand what you mean about the KKK using the Confederate Flag but that's not what the flags about. Yes the KKK adopted the Flag as there UNOFFICIAL flag doesent change the history or meaning of any Confederate flag. Links that you should see: http://www.trainweb.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Racism: http://cdn.iofferphoto.com... http://www.micetrap.net... http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com... Pride: .bp.blogspot.com/_oNrGEbZjtPo/S-wgT9iSRcI/AAAAAAAADuo/6sKYP936hDI/s1600/1st_confederate+flag.gif http://www.flagsunlimited.com... http://amhistory.si.edu... http://home.freeuk.net... http://www.socastee.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Macro Evolution is supported by evidence. because The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". This is often (wrongly taken to mean that "disorder always increases" and is frequently misinterpreted. Another way of putting it is "An isolated system's ability to do work decreases over time". [1] Plus, entropy ≠ disorder. [1] This is also not a correct place to apply it. [1] This argument, and all arguments based on that, fails. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Lactose tolerance, antibiotic resistant bacteria,[2] mutation that created a super boy (it is true, it was on the msnbc news site)[3] There are many beneficial mutations. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. It actually should be: From the statements taken out of context and carefully stitched toghether from evolutionists themselves, you have been ticked to thinking that that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits . "Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." -Theodosius Dobzansky [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://rationalwiki.org... [3] http://www.nbcnews.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against People do not value life in general. because Dear sir, I am glad you have proposed this this debate. Now, if you would, as PRO, please state your definitions, resolution and reasoning, I will then respond to these at the end of round two, and we will have three rounds of pure debate. Thanks and bon chance <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments because There are several problems with my opponent's rebuttal... let's begin with the simplest one: >> "Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption." This is the essential crux of the issue with Mr. Allende's testimony. Or should I say Mr. Allen's - it's hard to tell when someone takes a fake name and writes as poorly and rambling-ly as he does... There are several reasons to not believe the testimony of Allende/Allen: 1) His testimony directly contradicts that of the captains of the Eldridge and the Furuseth. [1] 2) His testimony is incompatible with what we know of the science that would be involved in making something invisible. [2] 3) His testimony directly contradicts the microfilm recordings from the Eldridge. [1] 4) His testimony directly contradicts the testimony of crew members of the Eldridge. [4] 5) He was known for sending bizarre claims to family members on meaningless occasions. [3] [1] http://www.history.navy.mil... [2] http://www.geocities.com... [3] http://skeptoid.com... [4] http://www.crystalinks.com... ************************************************************** - On Al Bielek, Duncan (Ed) Cameron, Larry James, Stewart Swerdlow, and Preston Nichols... This page ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ) provides evidence that Cameron never existed and was in fact made up (an alias) by Bielek. "Larry James" - a pseudonym - claims to want to transfer his soul to another body, just as he claims was done with Cameron's soul... which proves "Larry" is lying as well. Some facts: 1) Al Bielek (or Ed or Duncan Cameron) never served in the navy [1]. 2) Bielek only developed a "passionate interest" in the Philadelphia Experiments in 1988 - after the movie came out [1]. 3) Bielek claims his involvement in the Philadelphia was "blanked out" before 1988 - when the movie came out [1]. 4) Bielek falsified information about "Dr. Kurtenauer" and probably did so about Nicholas Tesla [2]. 5) Nichols' claims of time travel present continuity problems with the rest of Bielek's story [3]. 6) Swerdlow claims to have been aboard the Eldridge as the SS officer Johannes Von Gruber - never happened [4]. 7) Swerdlow's version of time travel and invisibility is incompatible with scientific knowledge and Allendle's testimony [2]. [1] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [2] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [3] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [4] http://groups.google.com... ************************************************************** As you, the reader can see, there is ample evidence that this small collection of people is simply a group of liars seeking media attention. The documented history of reputable witnesses and the official Naval records of the Eldridge contradict these "witnesses." If my opponent is operating under the umbrella of direct evidence, he must accept that the testimony of these characters is not believable. The testimony of the captains of the vessels involved and the crew of the Eldridge, however, IS. Please also note that my opponent has not provided any sort of reconciliation between the following points from Round 1 and the version of the story espoused by his "witnesses" : 1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1]. 2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1]. 3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1]. 4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1]. 5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1]. 6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2]. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates because I thank MewxVenus for accepting my debate. D.A.R.E. does not prevent many people from using drugs, participing in gangs, and violence. In fact, four major associations believe DARE to be counterproductive and sometimes inadvertently cause teens to use drugs and do violence etc. http://alcoholfacts.org... http://www.drcnet.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... All three of these sites prove that DARE is ineffective and possibly even counter-productive. The U.S. Surgeon General to condemn the program and the U.S. Department of Education has prohibited using government provided funds on DARE. My opponent uses an irrelevant source because it is the organization's own website and thus is considerably biased. The very fact that adults don't want a teen to do something is just cause for them to do it in a teenagers opinion (I should know, I am a teen and have seen my classmates use drugs and participate in gangs) My opponent states: >>> "This program wouldn't be used in such multitude if it weren't effective." <<< This is completely untrue. The only reason that DARE continues to exist is that discontinuing the program would look bad to the public. It would seem that they no longer care about teenage drug use and violence. The people in charge of DARE are deluded into believing that their program works. When the National Institutes of Health/University of Kentucky study found DARE ineffective, the organization's leader called it "bogus," 10 an "academic fraud," 11and claimed that it was "part of an anti-DARE vendetta by therapists." 12He dismissed the results as "voodoo science" and charged, without any evidence, that DARE's critics are biased by their financial interest in prevention programs that compete with DARE. "I truly believe they are setting out to find ways to attack our programs and are misusing science to do it. The bottom line is that they don't want police officers to do the work, because they want it for themselves." 13 The above quote came from http://alcoholfacts.org... by a leading DARE executive. This shows that they are deluded. In face of evidence to the contrary, they continue to insist that DARE works. My opponent has still failed to provide any facts or proof that DARE reduces drug use and Violence. Thanks for reading, vote pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with People should not been posting unnecessary topics . Such as Pokemon , superheros , my lil ponys. because Seeing as all of my opponent's arguments were personal opinions, I'll assume the first round is for acceptance. I accept keping in mind that you accidentally made yourself Con. NOTE TO THE VIEWERS: HE IS PRO AND I AM CON. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I suck at debating on this website because Opening Statement: I lose the majority of the debates I was in. Here are my debate statistics before I started this debate: Debate Statistics Debates:15 Lost:14 Tied:0 Won:1 Win Ratio:6.67% Percentile:76.81% <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rape and Abortion because Introduction: I am going to start by clarifying something I probably ought to have earlier. A consideration is considered relevant if it can, in some case, alter the correct outcome of an ethical dilemma. If we decide an abortion was not ethical in a certain case, and after considering rape it is still not ethical, than the consideration was not relevant because it did not help us determine our conclusion. This also applies to abortions that are considered ethical. Therefore, if someone thinks all abortions are wrong or all abortions are right, then rape (or any factor) is never a relevant consideration. This is an extremely absolutist perspective and I am not arguing for it. Instead, I will argue that under the most reasonable ethical analysis of abortion, considerations of rape will not alter any of our results. I expect my opponent with argue that a more reasonable ethical framework will indicate otherwise, but it is of course impossible to predict Kinesis' trickery. Much of the abortion debate hinges on whether a fetus has a right to life. I do not believe it does and will argue my perspective. However, I will also show that if you accept that a fetus has a right to life, the resolution still holds true. Perspective One: Fetus Has No Right To Life This one is pretty straightforward to argue. If the fetus has no right to life, than it does not matter how it was conceived. Aborting the fetus would still be ethical. It would of course be possible to argue that rape would be a consideration if the fetus had a right to life because of rape, but this line of argument is too irrational the be attempted. Perspective Two: Fetus Has A Right To Life As I said in the previous round, many people who otherwise oppose abortion allow exceptions if the fetus was conceived by rape. This is specifically the view that I am trying to refute with this debate. I content that if a fetus has a right to life, then the fact that it was conceived by rape cannot justify killing it. It has been argued that "Forcing [a woman] not to abort is to remind her of the rape day-by-day which would be a serious mental strain" and that the existence of the child would be a further traumatization. I agree that this is true, but is does not undermine the fetus's (supposed) right to life. If we hold that a fetus has a right to life then this is not sufficient grounds to kill it. An adult human being would not be killed for reminding someone that she was raped, even voluntarily. It would be extremely difficult, impossible in my opinion, to argue that one person's life is worth less than keeping another person happy. Any exception argued that could allow the abortion of a fetus conceived by rape would require a moral justification that would allow for abortions in all or nearly all factors, meaning rape would not be the determining factor. For instance, it were somehow (hypothetically) proven that all abortions on Earth are justified by virtue of being on Earth and they are otherwise immoral, rape would not count as a determining factor simply because it falls under this subcategory. The consideration of rape would have to be strongly related to the larger consideration. Conclusion: Now, ethier a fetus has a right to life or it does not. In both of these cases, rape is not a relevant consideration. My opponent may present addition presuppositions about abortion that there may be disagreement on, but the right to life is still a relevant consideration and additional considerations do not represent a third possibility. I am not sure of where Kinesis is going to go with this and I am expecting the unexpected, so I will rest my case for now. My reading comes mainly from here: http://www.iep.utm.edu... But this is not a debate that I feel should be judged on sources. Unless an argument hinges on facts from sources, sources are usually not very useful in purely philosophical debates. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Homeschooling is better than public school because Your profile updates say that you have been in for the past hour. You don't need to lie to forfeit a debate: http://www.debate.org... lannan13 posted to a forum topic: The United States of DDO - 2 26 seconds ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP 2 1 minute ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: The United States of DDO - 2 17 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 23 minutes ago lannan13 is now friends with My-Self. 34 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 45 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 53 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 1 hour ago <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits