text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against cell phones should be allowed in school because His rebuttal to my argumentative framework is by restating the resolution, the framework I give you simply provides us the means to evaluate arguments upholding or negating said resolution - he asserts we should take arguments as at-face points automatically linking in to the resolution, whereas I give you sound logical reasoning for why we only evaluate certain types of arguments. Mango juice being tasty, and cell phones falling into mango juice making it undrinkable is not a sufficient reason to negate the resolution, just as arguments that do not have impact to how a student learns are not sufficient reason to affirm or negate. The calculator point can be dropped. Cell phones provide a rudimentary calculator and most, if not all schools provide calculators in math class that are 100x (not an overestimation) more advanced. K, so there's four points floating about in the round. 1. Emergencies. He fails to rebut my refutation to this point, so you can assume this point is dropped and no longer supports an affirmative ballot. 2. Distractions. Same as before, this point was never addressed. Now since he never links into my framework, nor does he adequately refute it we're going to assume that framework still stands (otherwise we can't really evaluate this debate). At that point, this contention provides clear link to how cell phones hinder the ability to teach, and the negative (by advocating they should not be allowed) gives you direct benefits, while the affirmative never counters these points. At that point, the Con is winning quantitatively. 3. Cheating. He attacks this point... but not with good reasoning. I say that they know the answer to the test, but their retention of answers that are not memorized but rather acquired via text message and then copied onto a sheet of paper is minimal, if any retention exists at all. Moreover, cheating provides no adequate means of fixing a student's problem areas, a point i outlined originally that was never addressed. 4. Easier access to internet. 1 - This doesn't link into the argumentative framework. 2 - Same logic as the calculator point; the internet on cell phones is rudimentary, providing no real benefit. 3 - Moreover if you can have a cell phone AND pay for internet access on that phone, the 9.95 for the first three months Vonage deal seems to be within your grasp. 4 - It distracts from school by providing another incentive not to pay attention, meaning that you teach kids better without phones because of this point. 5 - It encourages cheating, carry across the harms of cheating I outline earlier. The Con presents 3 clear harms of cell phones, and how they impact to the framework of teaching students. The pro gives you 3 incoherent reasons that either do not impact or provide negative impacts to affirming. This debate having drawn to a close, I see no clear ballot accept a Con one. Thanks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bullying is good from a young age. because I wish I helped to shed some light on the subject. I hope you understand what bullying really means, and you understand it's not friendly motivational behavior, but a dangerous, destructive and unacceptable conduct. If you'd like to elaborate what you personally understood by term 'bullying', please do. I'd like to believe you would not endorse bullying in its full context, as I attempted to describe. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with InfraRedEd pisses me off because "Do I look like a damn psychiatrist?" This point is completely irrelevant to the debate. My argument is extended, and I urge a Pro vote. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because Firstly,marriage is a legal association between a man and a woman to be husband and wife.Gay marriage is a type of marriage between males.With these definitions,you will agree with me that in life,everything has advantages and disadvantages.In the case of gay marriage,the disadvantages surpasses the merits.My reasons for saying this are below. One reason for being against gay marriage is that it offends God.In the bible,Angels were sent to destroy the city of Sodom and Gomorrah because of its wickedness.What were the examples of this great wickedness?Gay marriage is among them and this was what made the angels more angry.The question is do you get angry at good things?No,of course{Gen.19:24-25}. Another reason is that marriage is meant to be for males and females.If God is/was in support of gay marriage,He would have not wasted his time in creating females or He would have destroyed the females.What you,my learned opponent is trying to say is that God is stupid and ignorant for creating females. Also,gay marriage violates procreation.Jesus Christ did not come into the world through a man.He came through a woman because women are supposed to give birth not males.Gay marriage does not bring about procreation.Instead,it brings about the so-called pleasure.Albert Einstein is not a product of gay marriage.Shakespeare is not,Aristotle is not and so many great men. It also denies an adopted child motherly care and affection.Due to gay marriage,a child is brought up under so-called fathers.There are things a child need from a mother and a father.This shows that gay marriage is a waste of time,future and natural fertility. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not lose this game of tic-tac-toe. because *** *** *** Make your move... For example, if you want to put X in the corner, you'd go: **X *** *** Then I will copy your move and add my own. Let's see how this plays out. http://web.cecs.pdx.edu... Thank you for accepting this debate, should you accept it. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation because I will attempt to show that muslims have made a contribution toward the progress of human civilization. This does not mean that I am going to prove that Islam has made a contribution toward the progress of human civilisation. The size of the contribution is immaterial. The contribution may also be only toward a particular country. The contribution need not have benefitted the entire world. I accept! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Govt. Market Interventionist because I thank my opponent for starting and clarifying this debate. As per his comments (#4 in comment section), he said, "I will not argue that he was an all out Keynesian. I will argue that he had many Keynesian policies and that he saw big government intervention - the antithesis of laissez-faire and "doing nothing" - as a way of dealing with the economic crisis…In many aspects Hoover was a supporter of Keynesian big government (though Keynes isn't necessarily relevant to the resolution). By big government market interventionist I don't mean someone who intervenes just once, I mean someone who opposes the natural economic cycle, thinks government intervention is a good way of dealing with economic problems, and pushes for it." Likewise, my burden will be, not to show that he was an absolute Laissez-Faire supporter, but that he took very little action and did not engage in much "big government" policy as a solution to the economic crisis. While not truly limited to just the crisis (I imagine that both of us will reference policies he stated prior to the crisis), I believe we can both agree that the crisis is the main focus of this debate, and how he handled it. While in the comments, Big Government and Small Government are loosely defined, as they are vague terms to begin with, I believe that it should be up to the voters to decide who captures the essence of them with their arguments. I would also like to quickly define some terms. Keynesian Economic – "Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle." [1] This is characterized by deficit spending in tough times, and government savings in good times (since the policies are only designed around tough times). Laissez-Faire economics – "laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies." [2] This is characterized by reducing government action and maintaining balanced budgets on what the government does do. Since no arguing will be done this round, I will pass to my opponent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. because I thank my opponent for beginning this debate. To be honest, I'm not familiar with this kind of structure (CX), though I will do my best to adhere to Pro's request. In this round I will be making my case, and will not provide a thorough rebuttal to Pro's contentions until R3 and R4. Hopefully I am doing this right. Thus far Pro has said that his value criterion will be morality. However, morality is far too broad of a criterion. Obviously what is considered moral ought to be the focus of this debate as per the resolution. The problem lies within the fact that various moral standards can be used to describe what is moral. For example, Pro brings up Kant's categorical imperative as one possible standard. Meanwhile, I might propose a different moral framework - perhaps adhering to objectivist ethics. Both Pro and I could describe what is considered moral under our propositions, but our burden in the debate is to prove which of our standards actually defines one's moral obligations. As a moral realist, I propose that moral statements are statements which express propositions that are true or false, and the truth or falsity of said moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc. Ordinary canons of moral reasoning together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning constitute a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge [1]. In other words, moral claims do purport to report facts, and are true if they get the facts right. At least some moral claims are actually true. In this debate, I will be arguing in favor of an objectivist meta-ethical standard as morally true. This proposal posits that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, so long as one's actions in the pursuit of their own interests does not infringe upon the rights of another to enjoy or protect their own interests. If and when I prove this moral proposition to be true, it will negate the resolution that one has a moral OBLIGATION to assist those "in need." It should be recognized that the resolution refers to the is-ought problem: what IS determines what one OUGHT to do. One should do what is in their rational self-interest. This may or may not include helping another in need. For example, it may be gratifying to me to help another in need and therefore I should. However, one does not have an obligation to do so. Suggesting otherwise is merely an opinion. The difference between Pro's standard and mine is that his moral proposition is based entirely on opinion rather than objective facts. However my objective system of morality is both possible and necessary to protect rights. We have no reason to accept Pro's opinion about what is "good" or "bad" vs. my rational explanation for such. Following one's own rational self-interest (without physically impeding on another's) is morally good for several reasons. First, we have no reason to see it as a BAD moral standard. If one is not doing anything to harm another, then they are not doing anything bad. Second, we have a reason to see it as a GOOD moral standard. Here's why: An organism's life is its standard of value. One's life is the single criterion for which ALL of their values derive. In other words, one would not be able to hold ANY moral values without first being alive. As such, doing what furthers one's own life is good. Because people seek happiness and survival, then doing things to further their life and happiness are good. Infringing on another's ability to do the same is bad, because it violates their single most important value - their life (and subsequent happiness). We have no obligation to help others - just an obligation to not infringe on their livelihoods unjustly. Thus far Pro has not given us one reason why helping others is an obligation rather than an option. Beginning in the next round, I will begin my detailed analysis of why his contentions are merely suggestions though not morally justified ones. Meanwhile, he will not be able to criticize my case. A re-cap is as follows --> Because values derive from life, and because only particular living organisms exist, ethics is inherently egoistic. Values are survival needs; they are ends required by a particular entity for its survival. To sustain and further one's life, one must pursue and achieve one's own values. What is or is not to one's interest is not self-evident -- it must be determined by reference to his survival needs, which, in turn, are determined by the kind of entity he is [2]. As such, some (even most) may find it gratifying to help others in need. However we have no INHERENT OBLIGATION to do so. It is not necessarily your existence, but rather the perpetuation of your values that is of utmost importance. Morality isn't subjective - values are subjective. You have to support your values in a moral way; that is, not infringing on other's rights. Affirming the resolution impedes on one's rights by suggesting they ought to live/act for one other than themselves. Though I will touch upon this further in the next round, saying we have an obligation via social contract is not sufficient, as one is not bound by any contract they did not agree to either legally or otherwise (morally). One only has an obligation to themselves. While that obligation may coincide with assisting others in need, it doesn't have to. Remember - Just because you might think someone SHOULD help another in need, doesn't mean that one has an OBLIGATION to. I might think Bill Gates should donate at least half of his fortune, as that would be a really generous thing to do with vast benefits to a lot of people using a utilitarian value. However, Bill Gates is not obligated to do as such just because I think it would be nice of him. Back to you for now, Pro, and good luck. [1] Boyd, Richard N. "How to Be a Moral Realist" in Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey - Essays on Moral Realism. Cornell University Press (1988), pp. 181–228. [2] http://www.noblesoul.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Are cheat codes bad? because Rebuttals: I think cheat codes stink. Most would disagree with you. The GTA Cheat Codes mentioned have found extreme success and have doubled the Game's excitement. They made it more hilerous and fun, extending the game's appeal to many people. Without the Cheat Codes, which are very fun to use and do not 'stink', the game's fanbase would likely be a lot smaller. You see this in Saint's Row, where the developers stopped making you work for mostof the products, as the excitement of the game is in blowing things up and simply being reckless without restrictions. GTA making it's players have to work for everything, spending a week or more to unlock the Rocket Launcher for example, has had a negative effect on the game series. The Cheat Codes gave the players the ability to void the restrictions and play the game as liked. Many Cheat Codes are simply for fun, like the following: - Cause Roits - Change the Weather - Blow up all the Cars around you. These Cheat Codes are exciting, and add to the fun. Stink: : To be highly offensive or abhorrent. : To be in extremely bad repute. : To be of an extremely low or bad quality. : To have the appearance of dishonesty or corruption. (1) The Cheat Codes listed are fun and exciting, and do not match any of the above definitions. The Pro has used the phrase "I think..." This implies an opinion and not a factual argument. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [] Pro has dropped All Arguments: Pro has no Arguments left, and has dropped all prior arguments. =================================================================== Vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Let's Choose A Debate! because Uhhhh.... I hope you're a girl. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against my debate stats are highly formiddable because Can you just type something for the next round so we can get this debate finished <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Safe Haven Laws in the US should be for teens also because Pro asks if I am saying teens are old enough that they should get a job and support their parents. No, what I am saying is that the family has to work harder as a whole if their in a tough situation. The parents may have to get a second job, the teens may have to try and find a job or something simple like lawn mowing, and overall they have to tighten their belts. If the teen has a mental disability then there are programs to help. My sister has a mental disability and she gets a check from SSI every month. If the parents are arrested for a crime then their kids go to social services which is the same place they go under the safe haven law. So either way the same thing happens, so I don't see how that is an argument for Pro. Next Pro says that teens shouldn't be blamed for their parents actions and that teens look to their parents for advice. I don't see how this relates to the resolution, so can you please explain that argument. " Yes you might say that the government doesn't have enough money to look after teenagers.." This is a quote from Pro and he is admitting that the government doesn't have the money. So if they don't have the money then how do you expect this law to work and why would you be for it. I would say that just with that quote it is reason enough to vote Con. Pro then goes on to say "It is like downloading a thing on your computer and it takes 21 years. However, when it's around 80% finished, you stop it from continuing." Again I am not sure what Pro is saying here so I will ask that he restates his argument and then I will address it next round. The final thing Pro asks is how is taking care of infants different from teen. "The law needs to be changed," says Todd Landry, director of the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services. "We need to get back to the intent of the law, and the intent of the law was always the protection of newborns in immediate danger of being harmed." That is the difference, these laws are to save newborns, after that it is the parents resposibility to raise their children. If they need financial help then, as I said in round 1 and Pro ignored, there are many programs and organizations that are willing to help but simply dropping them off at a hospital is not an option. http://www.cbsnews.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is the foundation for Morality: Natural or Supernatural? because The Pro spends most of his time accusing me of red herrings and making assumptions. But notice in his concluding post that he uses the word "IF" to justify his argument for this God being the greatest conceivable being. He cannot prove this and has not. Again the first premise in his argument can only be true if it presupposes its conclusion, rendering the argument circular, thus invalid! Also since the Pro admits that he set the debate up incorrectly because of the lack of defining what he wanted to debate via OBJECTIVE morality, the Pro assumed that I believe in objective morality, if this is not the biggest straw man, I don't know what is. I have shown in my two posts thus far that based on the agrees debate terms before posting, that the best answer for the foundation for morality is indeed natural. I have more proof in nature for my arguments then the Pro will ever have for a God or this supernatural foundation for morality. All I ask is that if you vote, you must read the debate carefully and see that the Pro never truly deals with the problems of his arguments. He does not deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma, he merely pokes at it as if it is not worthy of a response. He accuses me of not understanding his arguments, well, how can someone understand that which makes no sense and has no evidence for. Any argument for God is assumed, therefore a natural foundation for morality is more plausible, to which I clearly stated in my arguments in such a short debate. Even Christian apologist William Lane Craig only answers the objective morality issue with statements like this: "..objective values do exist, and deep down I think we all know it." I am sure if WLC cannot give a good reason other than feelings then or Pro cannot and has not as well! Please vote wisely. I would like to thank the Pro for his time and effort. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill because James, James, James, James, James, this case, no, one more for good measure, James, your previous argument demonstrates clearly that this entire proposition is nothing more than a projection of your own social issues. Judges, this shall be demonstrated as follows. Mr. of God, Senor de Dios, Lord Poo Poo Pants has posited that my first contention does not provide a buzz in that Brendan's idealism creates unrealistic hopes that fall short of reality. While it may be true that these disappointments end in Brendan's dissinheartenment and that is unfortunate, such disappointments are completely apart from the ready supply of buzz which Brendan supplies. Brendan's buzz is provided to the rest of us. Not a single one of us would be on this website if we did not yearn for the thrill of the debate. One would hope that each one of us also has some degree of a desire to see the world become a happier place. It is to these hopes and desires that Brendan provides such a ready buzz by alerting us to the realities of the world and showing us where the world is falling short of its potential. Wrath projects his own buzz killing nature on Brendan when he reads these calls for a more noble society and sees only gloom and desolation. One would presume this comes as a result of his sexual impotency. By the way, congratulations on the immaculate conception. Next, the Senator from Douchetopia presents a confusing and misdirected response to my second contention wherein he accuses Brendan of supplying a buzz which he then kills. Inherent in this argument is a concession of Brendan's buzz providing nature. However, more distressing is the entirely unsubstantiated claim that Brendan then goes on to kill the buzz he has created. If the buzz was originally created by Brendan's providing enlightening information, would not the supplying of further information only enhance the buzzforic state? But no Wrath, it is you, in your attempts to bring Brendan down to a crushing mediocrity that kills his feast of buzz. Finally, this Glenn Beck lover, ya, you guys don't like Glenn Beck do you? Well Wrath wants to make Glenn Beck President, and Pope. Not such a good guy anymore is he? Where was I? Ah yes, finally, GB lover reveals in his response that indeed he only ever had one weak and lonely contention, that of history. Indeed as has previously been shown by my defense of my first contention, Brendan's action of providing insight and vision only enhances buzz, as it did for Wrath in those instances. How can this be proved? Wrath clearly derives a great deal of buzzification from his debates, is he not the one who invited us all to this very forum? And what did the supply of Brendan's enlightening information do? It furthered debate, enhancing Wrath's buzz as well as that of all the rest of us. Where does the true fault lie? In none other than this fear mongering puppy kicker who seeks to cut off Brendan's supply of unicorns and rainbows. Judges, to this point the flow stands clearly in my favor. Logic commands a vote for "Con". Brendan, stand true to your principles and recognize that you are no murderer of buzz. Bill, if you don't vote for me I'll totally out you about the true nature of your relationship with the steamy, Latin yet black Federico (it's homosexual, just in case you guys got confused there). And to the rest of you, follow your consciences, vote for truth, vote for the free exercise of buzz, vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year. because This is so simple, It will help very little if at all. First where is this money coming from? Social Security is going bankrupt Medicare will be bankrupt even sooner. There is no money for any additional spending according to govt' officials, we have to raise taxes just to cover what is being paid for by the Govt now. So where in hell are they going to get this massive amount of money to cover all these checks! One of two things is painfully obvious here. We as tax payers are either being unfairly over taxed because they have all this extra money lying around or the federal reserve is just going to print a bunch of unsecured money and flood the monetary system with worthless cash in order to cover all the checks from the govt. If the later is true the only result will be inflation, and the economy will remain stagnent, What they are doing will cause, I hate to use the term (STAGFLATION) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against who wants to have a rap battle? because My opponent has been caught Plagiarizing!! Not only that, but he never said it was allowed, he only said that once he was CAUGHT. Furthermore, he tried to say that R5 was his only plagiarized verse... that isn't true. I have provided evidence in the Comment section which also shows that his opening verse in R3 was also plagiarized. Since we have now given an equal amount of raps, I ask that the judges please consider the fact that everything I shared was ORIGINAL MATERIAL. Whereas my opponent literally copy & pasted his entire raps for two rounds. I am willing to bet he plagiarized more, but at this point it's done. He's been caught, in not only one lie, but also in lying about the last round being the only one that was copied. I have shown otherwise. My opponent is a cheater, a liar, and someone who is now resorting to threats of physical violence since he's been caught in these lies and plagiarized raps. Please vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with KirstinKate is a kiddo because She conceded that she will be 15 soon, 15 is not considered an adult, so she is a kiddo, I must win the young contention that I brought up. Immaturity the comment WOW, should sum that up as well as the comment in the comment of the debate section and some in these sections of past debates. http://www.debate.org... You can see in the debate round she says another comment like Bull So the immaturity vote should go to me. Also, the debates like a kiddo vote must go to me as well because as shown she cannot make a very strong case, and in my opinion has not made a good one this time. Resolution affirmed <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening because My youthful opponent's arguments are certainly humorous but I don't think they make his case any stronger. To quote: "To make room for the cows McDonald's cuts down some of the rainforest, and cow crap releases a lot of gases into the air contributing to global warming. It's the penguins or a cheese burger people!" While this argument might have some merit if we were debating: "Beef should be banned because of it's indirect negative impact on the environment" but that is not the subject of this debate. "Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening" clearly covers all kinds of fast food; chicken nuggets, kebabs, hot dogs etc. as well as beef burgers. It also stipulates that the reason for banning these products is because they are fattening, not because of any environmental impact or other reason. Unfortunately for my opponent, the way he has framed the debate means that, as Con I can provide any number of reasons why fast food should NOT be illegal but in arguing that it SHOULD be, Pro needs to restrict his reasoning to the health aspects and to proving my arguments wrong or he risks going completely off-topic. This may seem unfair but this is how my opponent instigated the debate. "if we get rid of guns we will get owned by the other countries with guns." This also belongs in another debate (coincidentally one I am having at the moment) but of course cars and guns are not a perfect comparison with fast-food in this case. Alcohol and cigarettes are a better one. Vote for an individuals right to choose. Vote Con. Thankyou. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive because It is not a matter of if you can afford the surgery or not. People have the freedom to move and register in others states, therefore making this change on a birth certificate very simple. By looking at the map I posted in Round 1, there is not state too far to go to if this is an issue someone feels that strongly about. If someone is unwilling to drive/fly to change one of, if not THE, most important part about their identity, then it is not that big of an issue in the long run. Relevant note: Topics of side-notes, and the difficulties of being transgender do not apply to the gender given at birth. I strongly believe the discrimination of anyone is wrong, but being different is unfortunately looked down upon. And your statistics, which I will bring up in a moment, do not have any detailing on transgendered who felt their mis-assigned gender was the caused of their discrimination. Now, onto your statistics... Your stats on discrimination, household income, etc are all from 1999. The Employment Eqaulity Act did not take effect until October 1999. http://www.equality.ie... The Housing Equality Act started in 2010 http://www.stonewall.org.uk... Extra Health Care rights were put into place in 2012 to accomodate Transgenders and others. (which disallow discrimination and refusal of treatment) http://transequality.org... Your monthly incomes are from 1990-99 (cenus stats) that have no been adjusted for inflation. The US has made leaps and bounds to accomodate every gender, including those separate from just male or female. So not only do your discrimnation arguments not apply to which gender a person was assigned at brith, but the statistics are too old to recogonize the benfits the US has been able put in to place to protect and serve transgenders. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should alcohol – the world's favourite drug, be banned? because I thank Pro for his timely response, and will now move on to addressing his arguments. I will address them all with this: They are all hinging on the assumption that alcohol usage will go down if it's banned. But that is not the case. And thus I will move on to my own arguments. Contention 1. Banning alcohol increases usage The best example of how banning alcohol doesn't decrease usage is the prohibition act, or the volstead act, that accompanied the eighteenth amendment to the constitution. This prohibited alcohol, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment to the constitution because of the increase in illegal activity. This act was passed in 1919, when there were about 15,000 legal saloons. By 1930, there were more than 32,000 illegal saloons! (1) Obviously, banning alcohol did not decrease usage. In fact, it became a pastime to illegally drink with friends just to mock the government! Thus, all the negative effects that Pro stated would be worsened. Contention 2. Health The illegally distilled alcohol products contained more alcohol and were more dangerous to public health. So not only would there be more drinking of alcohol, it would also be more dangerous! (1) Basically, forms of alcohol such as beer were much harder to get benefit from since they did not have much alcohol concentration. Thus, whiskey became more popular simply because it had more alcohol in less space, and thus was easier to hide. (3) Contention 3. Crime The prohibition act created a new form of crime called bootlegging, which was a form of smuggling. It also fueled organized crime like no other. Contention 4. Economy The lack of tax on alcohol also affected the US. Economy until during the great depression prohibition was finally halted. If alcohol was banned, it would hurt our economy. Contention 5. Other drugs Alcohol provided a gateway to other drugs, such as Marijuana or Cocaine, during the prohibition act. (2) Thus, banning alcohol would not only increase the usage, it would end up with more people taking illegal drugs because of the gateway effect of alcohol. Summary I could continue on and on, but I will stop here. I've given 5 strong reasons why alcohol should not be banned. Banning causes an increase, not a decrease. Because Pro has not proved his side of the resolution and I have proven mine, the only way to vote is Con. Sources: (1) http://iulia-filip.suite101.com... (2) http://www.cato.org... (3) http://www.cato.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Adobe Photoshop Battle because umm my next challenge is that we both Photoshop any subject that we want and the mot creative wins <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions because ---I guess I don't see how this proves that affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. It addresses none of my points. ---Please flow through all of my points as they have gone dropped. Furthermore, I urge the judges, and my opponent, to consider that no new arguments are allowed in your final speech (if you want to be fair that is). Thanks and good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not lose this game of tic-tac-toe. because "X** *** ***" Alright, then. X** *O* *** Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Austerity is a poor way to help an economy. because First to rebut, I think there are a great many gaps and a lack of correlation in many of your arguments. Let's go through it, shall we? 1. You assert that balancing the budget would result in financial institutions having more savings. Rebuttal: A government indulging in Austerity in order to meet the goal of a balanced budget takes away both savings AND spending power from the poorer segments of the population. With less money in food stamps or subsidized housing, the impoverished citizen is forced to withdraw money from Financial institutions in order to make these ends meet. Either that or rely on yet more credit to cover the gaps. On top of that, these individuals would have less money to spend on goods and services, and the providers of those goods and services in turn have less to save. Thus, with less savings from both the upper and lower end of the economy, financial institutions would have less saved and less to invest in production. 2. Savings could be utilized for expensive purchases, such as cars and houses. Rebuttal: Again, how does balancing a budget result in people having more money to save? We're talking about funds that government uses to typically subsidize people's lives so they don't have to spend money. If, in the course of austerity, people suddenly have to live without public transportation, food or housing help, where does their extra money come from? 3. The NBER's statement on the benefits of Capital Accumulation are not partnered with Austerity. In fact a recent article by the same group very much argues the opposite of that: http://www.nber.org... "The Austerity Myth: Gain without Pain". 4. Your conclusion rings hollow in the face of both examples I have provided. Please address them. In the meantime, I extend all arguments. And my thanks for your response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ultimate Team War - On Location because Thank you, Dazedinday, for accepting this debate. Team Member 4: Mewtwo This is the mighty Psychic Pokémon from the movie Mewtwo Strikes Back . He wields powerful psychic attacks, as well as many defensive and tricky maneuvers. His wiki: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... (anime) Team Member 5: Count Bleck He is a darkly motivated count from the Tribe of Darkness, appearing in Super Paper Mario . He shields himself through the power of the Chaos Heart that he managed to bring forth. He attacks using dark vortexes and energy shots, and has general levitation and flipping powers. His wiki: http://www.mariowiki.com... And... START! Harry makes the first move, throwing the Invisibility Cloak upon himself, making him, well, invisible. Count Bleck then flips himself and Mewtwo near the opposite pole of Mars, one mile away, and the remainder of Team MONG to a general, undisclosed location on Mars' surface. Mewtwo then uses his destructive power to create an earthquake under Team DAZE. Uber Diablo, Witch King, and Light Yagami quickly fall to their deaths. This leaves the two starships. As there is nobody manning the ships, they are essentially worthless piles of metal, unable to actually do anything. Count Bleck brings in Harry Potter to cast Fiendfyre on the two ships, consuming them in its great heat. This fire would also consume any survivors of the earthquake. Mewtwo would join in by throwing Shadow Balls into the mix for general destruction. The starships stand no chance. If the Witch King is still alive, Link will be brought in for one-on-one combat. Link has fought evil overlords skilled with the sword before, and has even fought a lizard wielding a ball-and-chain so large that it took two arms to hold it; with Witch King, he won't even have to break a sweat, especially given that his Magic Armor will protect him from most hits and essentially triple his endurance. If Uber Diablo survives, things will be a bit more difficult, but far from undoable. Sniped from all sides by bomb arrows, Shadow Balls, dark energy, and even an Avada Kedavra thrown in, he will not notice Kirby flipped in from behind. Kirby can eat Uber Diablo without a problem. Light Yamagi won't survive, period. He'd probably be felled by a single of Link's arrows, let alone a full-blown earthquake. All plans are subject to change if Team DAZE manages to put up a fight in defense, or aren't at the poles as expected. That should do it for now. Good luck, Dazedinday! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Zoo's are bad for animals. because Alright, sorry about that. It should be good now. I will first state my own case, and then address my opponent's. Zoos take in animals whose habitats have been, or are being, destroyed, or that do not have enough food. Zoos help the animals by putting them in captivity, supplying them with food and a suitable habitat. Some zoos also take in animals who were orphaned as babies or were injured in an accident and can no longer fend for themsselves in the wild. Additional Info: The San Diego Zoo has a center that is devoted to the welfare of endangered or threatened animals. They have been working for over 30 years. This center is called "CRES" the Center for Research Endangered Species. It is the largest Zoo based center of it's kind. They are working world wide (20 other countries) to improve breeding and genetic pools for those species standing on the brink of extinction. This is a multidisciplinary research team, and some of their goals are to, combine field, and lab research/studies to improve long-term captive and wild populations. To maintain and share the genetic knowledge and resources to support conservation. Also to improve the health of both wild and captive populations through shared disgnostics and research with other countries. To help revitalize ecosystems by restoring these species to the wild. There is much more detail about their goals and what they have achieved in the past 30 years. If you'd like more details see the site listed below. This is just one Zoo's efforts to help animals in general. Most Zoos have some program in place to help with breeding, injuried, and/or rehab. of endangered or threatened species. Not all are as large or as estabilished as the CRES, but making an effort is the first step and that alone can help endangered species, or animals in general, by educating the public and planting the seed of compassion. Now to address my opponent's case. --HIS FIRST POINT-- He says zoos do not provide adequate space for their animals. This can be the case in some situations. Obviously, zoos cannot hold the savanna in their backyard. However, the space that is provided (which in most cases in adequate) is beneficial to the animal. As was stated in my argument, most of the animals would be dead if it were not for the zoo. Whatever space they receive helps them. --HIS SECOND POINT-- He says here that zoos affect animals' mentalities poorly. Again, zoos often rescue "problem animals." Most already have deficiencies. And again, the zoos provide another chance at life. While in rare cases the animals will attack, this is certainly not the norm. In the rare cases that this actually happens, the animal was usually either injured, or had a mental deficiency, and was in no way provoked by the zoo. --HIS THIRD POINT-- This is the same as his second contention, which I have already addressed. Having attacked my opponent's case, I await his response. Again, thank you for your understanding. Good debate! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. because :o) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should alcohol – the world's favourite drug, be banned? because I was very surprised when Pro admitted he isn't going to rebut my "outrageous" points. He conceded that he's dropping points. Dropping a point, in debate, is considered concession. He's conceding to many of my points. I will be using ">>>" to quote Pro. >>> "We need consistency in our drug laws." Consistency is extremely hard to reach. Consider that soda is as bad for you as beer is. (1) Should soda be banned? I think not. Cigarette smoking is also bad for you, worse than several drugs. (2) Should that be banned? Possibly. There are many substances out there that are worse than alcohol for you, but they haven't been banned. It would be extremely hard to be consistent. Also, realize that alcohol usage goes up when it's banned, so this wouldn't help at all. >>> Economic effects not good reason to keep alcohol Well, if there are no benefits to banning alcohol, then economic benefits are a great reason to keep alcohol. >>> "Governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending" Since Pro never rebutted my contentions, and indeed conceded to them by not addressing them, then no money would not be saved because alcohol usage would go up, there would be more crime, and thus police and health spending would go up, not down. Pro has dropped Contention 1, 2, 3, and 5. He briefly addressed Contention 4 of economy, but since he dropped all of my other analysis his argumentation is invalid. Now it is common debate form that when you drop an argument, you are not allowed to bring it up again. So Pro is not allowed to address Contentions 1, 2, 3, and 5, and therefore has failed his burden of proof unless he can bring out an advantage to his side that outweighs all that I have said. (Doubtful). I would also like to mention another point, since this debate round is yet young. Contention 6. Medicinal use of alcohol I will quote my next source: " Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer strokes, diabetes, arthritis, enlarged prostate, dementia (including Alzheimer's disease), and several major cancers." (3) This is only a summary of the rather large article that is contained at the source. Alcohol can be used for medicinal purposes, and banning alcohol would restrict that, decreasing health further. Even the Bible, which opposes abuse of alcohol, endorses medical use of it! I hope Pro at least addresses this contention, even though it would not be enough to prove his side. Thank you once again for reading, and I urge you to vote Con. Sources: (1) http://naturalbias.com... (2) http://www.wptv.com... ; (3) http://www2.potsdam.edu... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against dogs are better than cats because Though I myself own both a dog and a cat, I must negate that "dogs are better than cats". I will allow my opponent to start with an affirmative case. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Every grandmother should have an I-phone because Thank you for that post. I'm going to give a simple reason to support my side, and then I'll do my thing. My reason: Because grandmothers with iPhones are hilarious, but it wouldn't be if they all had one. Let me explain. There are several things that were funny at first that got ruined by being over played. These things include the following: The Harlem Shake, The Fox by YLvis, the music video to Happy by Pharrell Williams, claiming to be a 90's kid on every social media site ever, half of the memebases that everyone repeats memes for, Justin Beiber getting hit in the face with a water bottle, Obama failing to read his teleprompters, Spy Kids, 9gag, and Jimmy Neutron. Do you want to add something as hilarious as grandmothers using iPhones to that list? I hope your answer is "no." Regardless, it's definitely a contention for negation. Make sure to read this part if you're already skimming-> Now, my opponent provided a plan, which means we're doing this policy style. In policy, you can offer a K, which is a crituqe of the resolution itself or of the debate. You can win if you're correct in your K and your opponent can't refute it's signficance. Guess what I'm going to do. That's right. I'm going to run a few K's. First K: Why are we even debating this? Well, we have two reasons: it was Fanaths' idea, and he wants to steal my trolling badge. Now, I'm not so sure we can trust Fanath's ideas if he's just going to leave out step 2 in his plans. Also, stealing is generally considered immoral, and it hurts people. Therefore we shouldn't steal. So this whole resolution is unpragmatic and immoral. Second K: I'm the prophet of Morgan Freeman. It has been established that I am the prophet of Morgan Freeman. This is like an undisputable fact. Because of this, the fact that Fanath disagrees with me automatically makes him wrong. Third K: Dude, stop. Could I resist? Nope, sure couldn't. Fourth K: I ain't even mad. As you can tell, I'm entirely unphased by my opponent's case. This is important to remember for a troll debate. It's about who trolls the hardest too. And if my opponent brings up that he's not mad either, don't trust him. He's lying. As a final statement to keep in the spirit of policy debate, I hereby announce that my opponent's plan will bring about nuclear war. If every grandmother gets an iPhone, then demand for iPhones will obviously go up. That means that the supply must also increase to match that. To make an iPhone you need to use plastic. To make plastic you need oil. Under current US law, we need to phone a friend for that, which would be someone in the Middle East. If we keep spending more and more money on their oil, we're going to go run up our debt even faster. If we run up our debt even faster, someone who we're indebted to is probably going to get ticked off. Since we're usually indebted to countries with nuclear armaments, they'll probably launch nuclear missiles at us. If they launch nuclear missiles at us, the Middle East will attack them for trying to destroy their new biggest customer. If the Middle East gets involved, then everyone gets involved. If everyone gets involved then the world will go into a nuclear apocalypse. And we just can't have that. Thank you for reading my case, and I look forward to my opponent's response! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Bible Is Not God's Word because The bible is said to be God's word, but was written by human hands. It is supposedly God's will, testament etc. We can not say any of the bible versions are true or not, because one reason they were translated to languages that didn't have all the Hebrew words and had to replace some of the words etc.,and another reason is, they are not complete. There are books that are not in the bible, that should be. When you write a book you don not leave some of the chapters out, when you write a book series you do not leave some of the books out. The bible is a collection of books if you like it or not, you shouldn't leave some of the books out just because you think so or because you can't live up to their expectations. The bible was written by people who we are able to prove did, but not all. The problem we can not solve is if God is real or not, if the events acured, or if the bible was actually written by people who were told what to write, or if they just were influenced by something/someone. Today, there are many arguments on things that can not be proven like this one, but I do say that the bible is real and it is God's testament/will. I will do my best to prove that it is real for several personal reasons and to try to solve on of the many unsolved questions. Thank You Works Cited http://www.thelostbooks.com... http://reluctant-messenger.com... http://www.ivpress.com... ; etc. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion is Morally Justified because mr skeptic i am sorry you are unsatisfied with this debate. i think you are a very good opponent despite the disagreement we have in this debate. with that said i will jump into then. first you say "I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive." i understood that you used personhood as a topic in your argument. and i refuted it wholeheartedly. but just beacuse i am neg i cant bring up a couple points of my own? (ones that got left untouched btw) next -""EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious."" Humans have more rights than plants do because we are the dominant species and we ar generally more important. to us humanity is more important because we strive to live here and surivive among our fellow man daily. just like a plant does to survive everyday. to us our lives hold more value than the plants. to the plant, their lives mean more to them. I am not saying that their lifes aren't essential, but are theirs more important than ours? you could risk your life saving a human being because to you their life is important. but would you risk your life saving a plant? and the samee would go for a plant too. so again the plants life is essential, but its not of our species and less important to US than a human is. next you say- "*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary." again as i am sure you didn't understand but i will say it again. OUR life human life, is more important than a dogs is. to us. If you wanted to argue from the other angle you could say that eating anythig lving is bad, which is just ridiculous. HUMANS life is more important to us as human beings. not to the plants or the dogs. but to US. next you say-"I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD" I KNOW THAT!! TRUST ME YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HARD TO READ BUDDY. considering the fact that it is your only argument. funny how i am the neg and you are putting down all my points instead of me putting yours down. (oh yeah because there was only one) again I used living as a justification so its your job as pro to show how the con is wrong and you are right. and the con job is to prove the con is right and you are wrong. but everytime you hear the word 'life' in my arguments you turn tail and run from it.. so i was hoping that maybe in this round you would finally get up and argue it. but apparently not... oh well, another argument dropped. or the same one dropped again. Next -"...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead." no buddy a still born is not dead. a stillborn is a baby who is born without thought process. slightly lower than retardation, and a step higher than dead. nice try though. Next-"If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous." i am a bit confused about this part. here i was arguing about life being concieved as life. I dont know where you are coming at with the whole rock issue. Again if you believe the rock is alive, it is alive. not in reality but in peoples perspectives, and this is why they kill abortion. because in their minds they want to think it is okay to have one, so they tell themselves and every one else that it is dead so they have an excuse to kill it. Next-"No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman." nice vocabulary. i am sure that will hold for voters ha ha. and although it its the cons job to refute your case, the con is still allowed to bring up points of their own. if you think its is not a good argument tell me why. argue against it.dont just blow it off like you have been doing. Next-"*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate." ha ha i find it funny how you can get so mad over a debate. again like i said "who's life is more important, the humans or the plants?" next you say-"You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use." i know you never used it kid. i did. i am supposed to prove that abortion is wrong in at least one case. which is here. and you dropped it. thanks. My first conclusion: you said "What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides." no i have not said both sides. i have said human life is more important. for the third of fourth time now You say "LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON" because like i said you concieve whether you want it to be a person or not. its still a potential life, therefore a human being. and living. make any excuse you want to kill it, its still a living human being. you say "Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason." aren't alive in your eyes. thats what the whole argument was about. percievement. you can sit there and find every excuse to say that it is not alive where i can say it is. it wont matter. but either it had the potential to be. it had every same course of life to take as you would have as a fetus. to take that away from the world would be just as murder. My opponents conclusion: "I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time." ilogical? how? because you didnt want to argue half the points i made, and the one argument you did have you keep attacking from the same side and same angle? whose case is really filled with holes? and yes for the fifth time now i have come to the understanding that living does not mean human. human fetus = living. and if you read any of my arguments which i doubt you understood, you would realize that. And I need to pay better attention next time? lets see here (re-reads case) hmm..... (reads again) hmmmmmmm................. (asks strangers opinion) yeah i dont think so pal... contradiction big time. ok now that this debate is over, i would like him to know that i am thankful to him for taking up this debate and giving me wholehearted responses. I have no vendetta towards him because i know this is just a debate. From what i have heard from his case i am not so sure he feels the same about me though unfortunately. but oh well. THANKS BYE <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Haiku Battle because Its time to give up. The battle is now over. I have clearly won. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because Studies have shown that mothers who undergo IVF have shown "Greater warmth, More emotional involvement, More interaction, Less stress, [and] More overprotective[ness]" (Davenport) -- all of which are great qualities a mother should have. With these qualities, the child will feel and know they are loved. Davenport, Dawn. "The Cherished Child: Parenting after Infertility." Creating a Family. 2015. Web. 1 May 2016. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Giving Murderers the Death Sentence should be illegal because I stand in negation of the topic and believe that murderers should be given the death penalty. I assume by murderer that there is undeniable proof that the person on trial for murder is guilty. Look only at the price of housing an inmate (life sentence being the alternative in my mind) and look to the economy today. We don't need extra burdens. It's not that police are above everyone else, it's that the law frowns on murder. With 5 min and 500 char. that's all I've got time for. Vote CON <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. because I quite like the photo of the Japanese woman. On the technical side, the highlight details are completely lost from overexposure. For this round, I have a closeup photo of some flowers, http://quickshotartist.com... . I took the photo with a pocket camera in the parking lot of the Post Office in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, while my wife was mailing a package. I'm not sure what type of flowers it is, but it looks like a type of oleander, which is not at all exotic. (The California High Department has planted oleander everywhere.) The exotic appearance comes from getting inches away from the blossoms. I took out fine detail with a "Simplify" filter in Photoshop. That makes a sort of painting effect that works well with flowers. The intent is an over-the-top tropical look. With standard Photoshop Elements, posterize > palette knife produces a similar effect. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES because Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from "a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Aliens will come in peace not war. because I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate topic. To summarise the situation. 1: Intelligent Aliens are travelling in a space ship towards earth. 2: Humanity is aware of this. 3: The ship will arrive in a year. 4: The aliens have either come in peace, or intend to wage war. It is highly unlikely that the aliens have come from a world in our solar system, at least not originally. It is reasonable to presume that should an advanced alien race have developed in our system we would have been in receipt of their radio signals for many years, just as our own radio signals 'pollute' our region of space. It is also likely that our probes would already have crossed paths. So I argue that the aliens are from another Star System. This gives us the following options, 1: Faster than/Equal to/Near Light Travel The aliens are so advanced that they can travel between Stars in a reasonable time frame. Instantly, or a few years, as opposed to the millions of years that many scientists fear we shall be restricted to. Such a technology is so in advanced of us that its posessers would be able to view us, study us, even interact secretly with us. For instance mankind is not far from proper direct observation of interstellar planets (we are already detecting them and analysing their atmospheres) and these aliens are so much more in advance of us. In addition this technology is not consistent with the fact that the observed vessel is one year away from us. So I do not believe that this option is reasonable. 2: Sleeper/Generation ships. The aliens are not so advanced and are restricted to relatively slow interstellar transports. They may have developed suspended animation (in which the passengers are 'frozen' somehow) or Generation ships, in which the vessel is a self-contained colony and the aliens now travelling to earth are descendants of the original crew and passengers. Such a vessel would throughout it's long journey accelerate, until reaching the mid point of the journey before decelerating during the second half of the journey. This may explain why the vessel is still a year away, (which also affords time for the aliens to awaken or mobilise for war). It is also consistent with the fact that the alien technology is not so advanced that humanity can still detect the vessel. It is for these reasons that I suggest the alien vessel is a sleeper/generation ship. In such a situation the continued existence of the aliens is a precarious and uncertain one, they may have been travelling for millions of years, are very lucky to have survived and have nothing to go back for, it is almost certain that their primary goal is to find a world on which to establish a colony. Though alien life may have evolved to any number of enviroments, these aliens have decided to head for earth. Even though they should be aware of the presence of mankind. It is therefore certain they intend to colonise earth. They will know that an industrialised race such as mankind will have used up most of the avaliable living space on their world. They will therefore know that in order to establish a colony they will have to 'displace' the indigenous population, in other words go to war. My opponent may ask, 'why haven't the aliens already nuked us', the reason is that they intend to colonise us with the maximum retention of resources. Be that farmland, human slaves, or even our exisiting buildings. It is for these reasons I affirm it is more likely than not that the aliens are here for war. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Rap Battle because debate accepted. I will post my raps as responses to yours <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with uniforms for kids because school uniforms would be better for schools because a lot of kids dress inappropriate these days. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against 6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson because Rob Zombie ---> Sam Jackson 1) Rob zombie in Slither with Elizabeth banks, 2) Elizabeth banks in Shaft with Sam Jackson Jodie Foster ---> Sam Jackson <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There is proof that the Christian god exists because My opponent concedes that the person of Jesus Christ fully constitutes God, in that proof of the Father and the Holy Spirit is unnecessary. However, he claims that I must prove Jesus' omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. This is not necessary. Christianity is, shall we say...not entirely consistent. Though Christ is attested to constitute God in His entirety, he is not granted the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Arguments: 1. The Father created the cosmos, as well as man, and subsequently created Jesus. [3] 2. Jesus was never credited with omniscience. 3. Jesus was never credited with omniscience. Essentially, Jesus is the Christian God. He is stated to be such, though not granted godly qualities. The Christians believe the person of Jesus Christ to be their God, in full. I have proven his existence. Resolution affirmed. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This house would not ban smoking #3 because INTRODUCTION Human beings ban activities and object that cause grave harm to the society and individuals. There are laws to ensure members of society do not harm others and these laws are regulated so the purpose of their existence is actually served. This debate comes from this notion, that no one should harm others. Harmful substances such as cocaine and heroin are prohibited since they can ruin lives of people and weaken the fabric of the society. Other than those two, there is endless list of so-called “illegal drugs”. This debate will focus on if cigarette – a substance seen everywhere – should join the league of “illegal drugs”. The definition of ban in this debate would be if cigarette should be removed completely. In this debate, I will Pro the motion that “This house would not ban smoking”, where I will defend cigarettes. The setting of the debate would not matter because the main essence of this debate would remain identical anywhere. My opponent is free to challenge this place setting though. ARGUMENT Though I am not a smoker myself, I firmly oppose the notion of banning smoking due to three reasons: that they are unenforceable, that they limit citizen’s freedom and cigarette industry brings practical benefits. Argument 1: Unenforceable Nature of the Motion There are about 43.5 million smokers in the US solely. In the same country, 21.5% of men and 17.3% of women are smokers [1]. Cigarette is undeniable everywhere in modern society. Just about every convenient stores, newsletter kiosks and supermarkets sell tobacco. Cigarette industry is an industry that has a size of few hundreds of billion dollars. In some occasions, cigarettes are also handmade with rolling paper and cigarette leaves. From these factors, we can already see that cigarettes are easily acquired and easily made as well. When cigarette is so abundant in quantity, it is very unrealistic to enforce a cigarette ban. Passing of the ban would primarily be unrealistic. Giant tobacco companies worth billions and billions would oppose the ban with every resource they can afford. For the sake of argument, let’s assume tobacco companies decided to forsake their lucrative business and became philanthropists by miracle. Even then, we face predicament of having to sabotage all tobacco farms and infrastructures. When that happens, incredible amount of stockpile of this new illegal drug would have to be disposed and be taken care of. These few things are already unlikely to happen. But even under assumption that they happen, the ban would still have to be regulated. Are we saying we are going to place police officers in public places to follow track of cigarette smoke and arresting smokers? Again, for the sake of argument, let us imagine we live in world with cops chasing for cigarette smoke and tobacco companies became nice enough to forsake their multibillion corporations. Cigarette ban would still be ineffective since it will open up a black market. India bans cigarette from other international brands and this action enforced by Indian Government was admitted by the government (Tobacco Institute of Indian States [2]) to only result in an exponential increase of these banned cigarettes being smuggled in. Banning cigarette is fundamentally unenforceable and purposeless. Even by miracle, if total ban of cigarette actualized, the ban would not serve its purpose since market of contraband will emerge as seen in similar case of India. Argument 2: Individual Freedom The argument behind the ban of smoking is that cigarettes cause harms. Nevertheless, every single smoker is well aware of danger of cigarette. In many countries, cigarette companies are required to leave a warning message on their cigarette pack regarding the danger of smoking. Often, they are also required to illustrate the message with gore pictures of victims of excessive smoking. These are some mild examples. It is understandable why this idea of banning cigarette emerged. But it is evident that harm of cigarette is being well-informed to smokers themselves as well. Already, smokers are restricted in many ways so that they do not harm others. By law, smoking in airplane is forbidden. Many public bathrooms have “no smoking” signs. Most restaurants forbid smoking too. Freedom of smokers is already restricted to a level so that they cannot cause grave damage to others. Any further actions against smokers would be persecuting and demeaning the freedom of about 20% of a nation in the case of USA. It is a choice of lifestyle and a personal freedom. Law can prevent smokers from harming others. But law cannot step further and stop responsible adults from harming themselves. Attempting to help smokers from harming themselves can be done with a better alternative of “educating” which also fits the principle of democracy. If a government truly aims to protect smoker, they should consider something that is against the spirit of democracy and is unenforceable in the first place but consider campaign against smoking. The purpose of banning cigarette seems aimless. Argument 3: Practical reasons to not ban smoking The fundamental purpose of banning smoking seems to be missing. Not only this, there are also practical harms of banning cigarette. As shown above, cigarette industry is a gigantic industry that brings billions of profit to tobacco companies. Top 6 tobacco companies in US added up together generated about $346.2 billion of market revenue and they profited about $35.1 billion in 2010 [3]. Banning cigarette would place cigarette companies out of business and would also place countless employers of a huge industry out of work. Harm of cigarette companies going bankrupt is not only limited to personal loss of employers. Thriving tobacco industry resulted in astronomical amount of tax revenue. When an industry that thrives collapses, annual tax revenue of about $17 billion will disappear. As soon as total ban on smoking comes into action, all the tobacco companies will disappear along with $17 billion of tax revenue. CONCLUSION Banning cigarette is unrealistic. Adding on to that, there are issues with individual rights and freedom of banning smoking if this ban is to be passed. But on top of such a problematic action, there are also practical harms caused by such action. These problems that total ban on smoking carries are too significant and destructive to be seen as collateral damages to solve a social problem. In fact, total ban is not even the best answer if there is a problem to address. All in all, I am proud to oppose a ban that demeans freedom, hurts a country’s economy and is ineffective. REFERENCES [1] http://www.cdc.gov... ; [2] http://www.financialexpress.com... ; [3] http://www.worldlungfoundation.org... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should atheism be considered a religion? because I see it all the time, people capitalizing atheism in a religious context, atheist books in the religion section of a library or bookstore. I don't understand why people keep grouping atheism with religion is these ways and many more. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity with no set of beliefs that accompany it. I honestly don't see why some people seem to think it is a religion. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am right, and you can't prove me wrong because First, I would like to define the resolution. "I" refers to the author of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the instigator. "you" refers to the audience of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the contender (or the audience, but the audience can not "prove" anything within the context of the debate). To prove one "wrong" has been defined by the instigator, as "to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument." To be "wrong" clearly means to be "deviating from truth or fact." http://dictionary.reference.com... Reasons my opponent is wrong: 1) "The only rule is that there are no rules" In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself. In confirming A and ~A, my opponent has necessarily made a false statement, and is therefore "wrong." My opponent defies the Law of the Excluded Middle ( http://www.quantonics.com... ). 2) The statement "there are no rules" is necessarily false for other reasons. The following are rules: - "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" " - "I am the pro" - "my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument" - The Debate.Org Terms of Use, which my opponent has agreed to http://www.debate.org... - The Code of Federal Regulations, which exists http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov... 3) My opponent stated "the statement "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" is made without any context or reference" This is not true. It was obviously made with references and contexts. The following are the references and context: - "I am the pro/for, so my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument" - "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" " The first identifies not only who is making and asserting the statement, but who it is referring to with both the "I" and the "you." The second identifies the context of the statement to be this debate. I thank my opponent, and wish him luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I can post funnier "yo mama" jokes than my opponent. because Thanks for responding! Now for old jokes... 1. Yo mama so old that Jesus Christ was her classmate. 2. Yo mama so old I told her to act her age and the hag died. 3. Yo mama so old, when God said "Let there be light" she was there to flick the switch. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Shari'a Law because Thanks, Mirza, for agreeing to this debate. My opponent indicated via private message that he accepts the Qur'an, the Sahih Muslim, and the Sahih al-Bukhari as the basis for Shari'a law. The burden of proof will lie primarily on Pro to demonstrate the merits of Shari'a law and show why it ought to be widely adopted; I am tasked only with the burden to negate. 1. Shari'a law is paternalistic; it unnecessarily and arbitrarily, restricts individual freedom. John Stuart Mill writes: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." http://www.scu.edu... Paternalism is a malignant mutation of benevolence that treats people as objects rather than as rational individuals free to seek their own ends and satisfy their needs as they best see fit. Mill continues: "With respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else...He is the man most interested in his own well-being." b. Shari'a oppresses women. Pro has stated previously that he believes all women should be forced to wear hijab (see photo: http://www.travel-images.com... ). Supposedly, this is to prevent their sexual degradation, which I see as enormously self-contradictory. Treating people with respect means allowing them to make their own decisions; the idea that women need to be made to dress a certain way for their own good is rooted in extreme, condescending sexism. Women are viewed in the Muslim world as mere objects; too pathetic and helpless to make important choices for themselves. In addition to being nearly universally recognized as symbolic of patriarchal dominance and oppression, the hijab is ridiculously inconvenient. How can a woman participating in athletic activities be expected to do so in hijab? How can women be made to wear hijab outside in ninety degree weather? Or at the beach? Or while hiking? It seems the answer is tied to the general negative attitude in Islam toward such female expressions of independence and self sufficiency. c. Drug and alcohol prohibition are ineffective. Although the Saudi government refuses to release crime statistics, there is good reason to believe prohibition has failed there, as it historically always has. To the extent that it succeeds, it creates extremely negative behavioral incentives. Because it's difficult for people to consume alcohol safely, Saudis have turned to drinking cologne for its methanol content, which is highly toxic and dangerous. http://www.antizol.com... d. Shari'a economic policies are unsound. The ban on charging interest on loans has no rational economic basis; it stems from total ignorance of the crucial role interest plays in a market economy. Disregarding inflation, the "pure" interest rate is a reflection of a time preference. The lender chooses to forsake immediate satisfaction for potentially greater future satisfaction; the borrower chooses to pay interest for the convenience of having immediate access to needed funds. The rate is arrived at by mutual agreement for mutual benefit. Another important factor affecting the interest rate is risk of default. Lending money always involves a measure of risk; without the possibility of profit, lenders have no incentive to take on such risk. All the ban accomplishes is the drastic constriction of credit and hindrance of growth. 2. Shari'a statutes are excessively harsh and unjust. The Sahih al-Bukhari hadith (9:83:17) mandates that apostates be killed. Corporal "justice" is common in Islamic society. In 2003, a Saudi Arabian man had two teeth extracted without anesthetics as part of the literal "eye for an eye" retributive scheme. http://www.amnestyusa.org... This is far from an isolated case. The same year, a man was ordered by a court in Pakistan to be blinded with acid for committing a similar act. http://news.bbc.co.uk... In 2005, an Iranian man had his eyes gouged out for a crime he committed twelve years ago as a sixteen year old boy. http://www.freerepublic.com... This clearly goes beyond punishment; it is state sanctioned revenge. b. Retributive "justice" is morally unsound. As Gandhi famously said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Exacting revenge is punitive and does nothing to make amends for the crimes committed. I endorse the restorative theory of justice, which places emphasis on repairing the damages caused by criminality. http://www.restorativejustice.org... Rather than having their hands cut off as the Qur'an dictates (Surah 5:38), thieves should be made to work and pay restitution to those from whom they have stolen. 3. Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? The Euthyphro dilemma cuts straight to the core of the ethical debate. Regardless of which of the two horns one embraces, the Divine Command theorist is necessarily committed to the existence of unexplained brute facts. On what basis is morality rooted in the will of God? What is the ontological status of morals if they exist independently of God's character? Taking either side results in a slew of problems, therefore, I will leave my opponent to elucidate his own view before I proceed with my criticisms. b. Muslims view Shari'a as the perfect reflection of the immutable will of God. It must, therefore, itself be constant and unchanging. This interpretation is wrong; it is a fallacious conflation of moral absolutism with moral objectivism and the results are predictable. Many of the social mores prevalent in 7th century Saudi Arabia are antiquated. Christians, for example, recognize the Levitical codes as ceremonial law aimed at governing a specific group of people at a specific time. Instead they follow the underlying moral law and the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments. In addition to my previous arguments, consider the prohibition on eating pork. There is no scientific basis for this. During the fourth century AD when the Qur'an was supposedly revealed by God, there existed poor sanitary conditions and the consumption of pork products carried a high risk of trichinosis. http://www.cdc.gov... Today, the risk is virtually non-existent in modern, industrialized society. c. Even assuming Divine Command theory is sound, what evidence is there that the Qur'an and Shari'a law really are divinely inspired? Shari'a prescribes extremely harsh punishments for trivial offenses and dictates arbitrary, counterproductive statutes. Anyone who claims the authority to decide for me what I can and can't eat, what I can and can't wear, whom I may associate with, and on what basis I may conduct voluntary transactions had better be able to present unimpeachable evidence of divine authority. If I've succeeded in showing that Shari'a law is not at all conducive to human well being, is that not evidence of imperfection? If the answer is no, on what basis could the claim to divine inspiration be falsified? == Conclusion == Por's ethical case rests on three dubious assumptions: (1) Divine Command theory is a sound ethical system, (2) The Qu'ran and other sacred writings really are divinely inspired, and (3) they must be interpreted in accordance with the most extreme form of moral absolutism. I've also presented a powerful practical and moral case against Shari'a. In order to win, my opponent will have to respond to my criticisms, build his ethical case up from the ground, and find some way to make his despotic legal system appear palatable. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The consumption of meat is ethically wrong because Restrictions on Animals "I’m not arguing that any life is necessary... impositions, is unethical." There is a clear difference between imposing restrictions on humans and imposing them on other sentient life. Humanity, as a species, is capable of understanding what type of life we would enjoy having the most. Just as in your example with Joseph Fritzl, the girl is capable of knowing what life would better for herself. When it comes to a chicken in a pen, or a cow in a field, do you really think this is parallel? If the chicken was in the wild, it would still not have the intellectual capabilities to understand that it is having a more or less desirable life than if they were kept in that pen. The cow, if not in the farm field, would still eat grass and live life just as it would in the wild. A difference is food would probably be harder to come by, and there is a risk of getting eaten by a predator, creating a lot more pain that what would have been created in a farm. This isn't desirable to animals. This distinction allows for us to ethically keep sentient creatures in captivity, so long as they are not put into more suffering than they would be in if they were "free". Again, most animals are not capable of understanding freedom as we do. The Existence of Happiness "My opponent then argues that there is nothing.. Depravation then fulfilment." The mechanism in which we attain happiness is irrelevant to the happiness gained in life. The idea that happiness comes from depravation then fulfillment doesn't change what we should base our ethics on. I disagree that happiness is a "less bad" state, rather than a good state. The very definition of happiness is a state of well-being and contentment.(1) There is not a "less bad" state in this state. That bad state is nonexistent in that instance of happiness, or at the least not noticeable. "As you can hopefully see... There is no “net benefit” , there is less suffering." The creature would indeed be suffering. If the 100/200 days of suffering actually did pay off in a net benefit, then it would be worth the suffering. You are again focusing on the animal only, as opposed to everyone affected by the process. If the net happiness was maximized from that 100 days of suffering, then it is ethical. You claim there is no net benefit, there is only less suffering. Even if happiness was just an illusion, is less suffering not a net benefit? I would expect you to support having an overall less net suffering in all animals, including our species. If less suffering was created by me eating an animal than if I didn't eat the animal, it is ethically justifiable. "Happiness is not the opposite. .. Happiness is based purely on relativity, the reality is simply ‘less bad’." Happiness is certainly not based purely on relativity. Happiness comes from a chemical reaction in the brain, which results from the stimulation your senses. This is also the case with suffering. This is a photo of a synapse, which is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell. It illustrates how these emotions are transferred in the brain. All the emotions we've ever had is a result of neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are endogenous chemicals that transmit signals from a neuron to a target cell across a synapse. The only direct action of neurotransmitters is to activate receptors. One neurotransmitter actions is dopamine. Dopamine affects brain processes that control movement, emotional response, and ability to experience pleasure and pain .(2) It is also responsible for the brain's reward system. Other actions involved with pain and suffering include substance P and opioid peptides.(3) As you can see, suffering and happiness are not merely relative. They are actual things, with a lot of science put into the study of them. The chemical reactions which make up these emotions prove that happiness isn't just less suffering, it's something completely different. Whether one feels happiness or suffering depends on which neurotransmitter is being released in the brain. Zero-Sum Apocalypse "With this in mind, the best you could ever do is remove every depravation . This is called a ‘zero-sum equation’ .. ." The zero-sum equation is a poor model for ethics, as its eventual goal is the complete removal of suffering. This brings me back to my point in the last round, where I stated that the only way to completely remove suffering is by ending all sentient life on Earth. I hope you agree that removing suffering should not be the goal. The goal should be to maximize the net amount of happiness in life. "Since it’s almost non-negotiable that suffering is bad.... it’s not just the suffering involved." I conceded that suffering on its own is bad, but it is never on its own in reality. Like I said, the girl didn't know better, but she is capable of knowing. The animal is not intellectually developed like the girl. It doesn't understand freedom, nor rights. "We, as humans, are animals. We share sentience and the ability to feel... should be ethically obliged to prevent it altogether." Intelligence is a relevant distinction when it comes to having the right from being imposed upon. Suffering is justified with a net happiness. Speciesism "speciesism is rampant among humans because of this relativistic tendency (or a belief in God)..." Not all people in support of speciesism believes in a personal god. I explained in round one why I am a speciest. Animals don't deserve inherent rights because the holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. Does this mean we should be free to do whatever we want with animals? No. It means that we can take a utilitarian approach in determining the ethics of our interactions with other animals. Utilitarianism being a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Conclusion "Considering that human survival has no purpose ... consumption of animals is ethically wrong." Whether or not human survival has a purpose or value, it doesn't change how we should determine what is ethical. Ethics demands that we create a code of conduct which creates the best world we could possibly have. We have a decision to make. Do we base our ethics on eliminating as much suffering as we can, or do we base it on creating a maximum amount of net happiness? We already know where the first philosophy would lead us. It would lead to a world without the existence of humanity, and if we really kept to the philosophy, it would lead to the extinction of all sentient life on Earth. You never responded to my doomsday scenario to eliminate suffering, but I surely hope you don't think it is an ethically justifiable thing to do. Now we think of what the latter philosophy will bring us and all life. It will lead to a world of scientific, technological, and philosophical progress. It will lead to a world where human suffering will continue to diminish worldwide, and the pursuit of happiness will be a universal right for all people. This philosophy will encourage people to treat all sentient beings with due respect, and only allow for impositions which could be justified from a net benefit from those impositions. Needless animal torture will always be illegal, and animal abuse will never be allowed. This is the world I believe is the most ethically sound, and the most desirable. Though this debate has gone way beyond the topic at hand, I believe all of it has made it clear that animal suffering is justified from the net happiness it can create. I hope I convinced you and anyone that reads this that this is the best argument for the ethicality of the consumption of meat. Sources 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.utexas.edu... 3. http://courses.washington.edu... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion because Tatarize: The guy you had sex with two weeks ago has about as much authority to make medical decisions for you as your butcher. My butcher isn't carrying my future son or daughter. Tatarize: All pregnancy are dangers to the mother's health. They all carry a pronounced risk that is absent if they choose to abort. If all pregnancy really carried that much risk to the mother, then all women would abort and none of us would be here. When you have a healthy woman and a healthy fetus there's nothing to suggest anything other than a smooth pregnancy. Tatarize: She gets to carry the child to term because it's her womb, her risks, and her body. Again, this is nothing but blatant disregard for the father. It's almost like you think he doesn't even exist. Tatarize: I feel for your situation and figure it's bleeding into what is otherwise a reasonable debate. I need to clarify. I'm not a father who has had his son or daughter aborted by a mother. I'm actually a gay man with no children who has never conceived. Therefore, my logic is reasonable and free of personal emotional perceptions. Tatarize: You can't force a women to carry a child to term against her will, regardless who provided some DNA to it. The notion that fathers are just "sperm and DNA" seems to be paramount to you. Tatarize: The fact you're arguing is that it isn't her choice. You're right. It isn't her choice. It's the choice of both parents. Tatarize: Children aren't worth money. Is the father going to sue for all the child support he'll never have to pay? It's not about the money. It's about the fact that a man's son or daughter was aborted without his knowledge or consent. Given that the child would now be dead, what other recourse could the father seek other than money? Some kind of penalty has to be put in place. A simple, "I'm sorry" from the mother won't cut it. Tatarize: THERE'S NO CHILD! Your entire argument is predicated on being a responsible man demands women be turned into forced birthers. There is a child. It is a child who was conceived by a mother and father. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Tatarize: Fathers should love their children. They should be the best dads they can be. They should provide and help (mothers should do the same) and do everything in their powers to make their children happy, healthy and safe. Above you state the father is no more than some DNA. Now you're saying the father becomes a person who should be the best dad he can be. Either you're not firm on your position of fathers being just sperm donors or you're taking the double standard position regarding fathers I refer to in round one. Tatarize: The difference however, is there aren't any children. An embryo isn't a baby, it has no personhood. Women, however, are people. Now we're back again to the woman being the only person in the situation. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop flip flopping. Tatarize: The best interests of children demands that those who should be responsible for the child, must be responsible. The last I checked the father is responsible for the child and is acting responsibly in wanting to take care of it. I find it sad that there's no room in your definition of a humane society for this. NOTE: I respectfully request you answer this question in your next argument. Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools because I'd like to begin with my opponents request to see the Gallup poll that I cited in my opening remarks as evidence of the rejection of creationism by scientists. While I have been unable to locate the original poll, I am happy to provide a different poll showing similar results. According to this poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, a think-tank based in Washington D.C., 97% of scientists believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time, with 87% believing that this occurred through naturalistic means alone, as opposed to just 2% who believe that living things were created in the present form and have not evolved: http://www.people-press.org... In addition to polling date, intelligent design has been utterly rejected by numerous scientific institutions such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) who said regarding the teaching of evolution in 2006: "... A number of bills require the students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution, or to understand 'the controversy'. But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." The AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, serving 10 million individuals. This is a view supported by the American Association of University Professors, which has a membership of over 47,000. The AAUP said, regarding proposed academic freedom bills involving the creation/evolution debate, "Such efforts run counter to the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution and are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the meaning of academic freedom". Now it's at this point that I want to deal with an objection my opponent made in his rebuttals. He argued that my argument regarding the number of scientists who rejected evolution was nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or to put it in simpler terms, he argues that creationism should not be considered false simply because the majority of people disagree with it. Now, he is actually right when he says this, and if the truth of creationism was what we were debating, then I would not have brought it up at all, but we are not debating the truth of creationism, we are debating whether or not it should be taught in schools. The scientific consensus does not claim to be true, it claims to be our current best understanding held by those who are experts in the field, who actually study the matter. In a court of law, such people could and would be called as expert witnesses, as indeed they were in the aforementioned Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. My opponent is arguing that creationism is a valid scientific hypothesis that should be taught in public schools. It is not remotely fallacious to point out that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community vehemently disagrees with him. Now, onto my opponents actual rebuttals. My opponent begins by contesting my argument that creationism is not scientific. He further goes on to say that creationism is falsifiable, but he gives no examples or evidence to support either of these two claims. He claims that creationism does not have to be falsifiable to be science, however in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery, the philosopher of science Karl Popper argues that falsifiability is critical to the enterprise of science, since no amount of experiments can ever prove a theory, but just one can contradict it. Popper argues "The criterion of demarcation inherent in inductive logic - that is, the positivistic dogma of meaning - is equivalent to the requirement that all the statements of empirical science (or all 'meaningful' statements) must be capable of being fully decided, with respect to their truth and falsity; we shall say that they must be 'conclusively decidable'. This means that their form must be such that to verify them and to falsify them must both be logically possible" My opponent goes on to say "I would be interested in what evidence there is against creationism". The need to produce evidence to support the claim being made logically must fall on the person actually making the claim, but as it happens, the evidence against creationism is very powerful. The most prominent example being countless examples of bad design in nature, be it simply inefficient (such as the design of the human eye) to being seemingly downright cruel (the constant life and death struggle present in nature between predator and prey). As it happens, the eye was something that my opponent cited in his opening remarks as an example of good design, so lets analyse it a little further. My opponent referenced a quote from Charles Darwin, the full quote being "To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic abberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" This quote is a favourite of creationists, because it seems to imply Darwin himself considers the idea of the eye evolving not just wrong but "absurd". However, the quote in question has, on many occasions, been taken from it's true context in the most pernicious of fashions. Darwin immediately makes it apparent that this is nothing more than a rhetorical tactic very often seen in debating, to appear to grant the opponent victory, only for him to step by step show how the eye in fact could have evolved, spending three and a half pages detailing several intermediate stages that are all present in nature today, from a simple, photosensitive cell to the development of muscles that would allow a lens to adjust. As mentioned before, every intermediate stage, and I can elaborate on those individual stages if required, is known to be viable, because examples of each stage are present in animals living today. Darwin concluded with "... and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." As I alluded to earlier, despite being a popular example among creationists of design evident in nature, the eye is actually quite inefficiently designed. Our eyes are actually built backwards, and upside down, requiring, according Dr. Michael Shermer, here being quoted by Christopher Hitchens in his book God is not Great, "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns". It is this inefficient "design" that creates a blind spot in the eyes of vertebrates. Now I just want to make one final point regarding a theme that has permeated my opponent's rebuttal. He says that there are phenomena in nature that can not be accounted for by chance alone, but this betrays a fatal misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution, primarily, is not dominated by chance, natural selection, evolution's principle driving force, is explicitly non-random. Mutations are random, but they are only one thread in the tapestry that is evolution. Thus, to categorize evolution as being a matter of chance is demonstrably fallacious as it is a blatant strawman of how the theory of evolution actually works. He claims that to disprove creationism, I must disprove 2 premises, that biological systems show objective patterns and that these patterns can't be accounted for by chance. His problem is that evolution accommodates both these premises, and do <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with school's should not make you wear uniforms because Thank you for debating against me, bgruber93. That was an interesting video. You said,"if we have school uniforms some of the bad kids wouldn't go to school and there would more learning to the good kids." well...not necessarily. If a kid wants to shoot someone bad enough, he will shoot them if he is at school or not. If he is even crazy enough to even think about that, he will do it anywhere. You can also still hide guns and knives in your school uniform. You can hide guns and knives in any kind of clothing. And that won't stop the "bad kids" from going to school. Another reason why kids shouldn't have a uniform is because it doesn't let them express their individual style. Kids don't like it when they are told what to wear, especially if everyone else in the entire school has to wear it. The punks, preps, and other cliques will all look the same, and no one will like dressing the same way as another group. According to http://www.geocities.com... uniforms have a negative effect on student academic achievement. Uniforms were thought to be able to bring up grades and attendance record, but they actually have the opposite effect. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There is evidence for creationism. because Devil's advocate here, contending that there is evidence for creationism. Look around you. Look outside your window. Look up at the stars tonight. This world we live in is so beautiful. While this could be explained by other things, an intelligent designer is also a possible explanation. Evidence: http://www.askoxford.com... information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Well, the belief that there is an intelligent creator is certainly valid. This beauty inherent in the universe is clearly a sign that would indicate a creator. Also, let us consider the intense complexity of life. It's true that life as become more and more complex, but there is currently no rock solid explanation for how life came about. Abiogenesis, while there are some theories out there, is still a matter that, to my knowledge, is open to debate. Thus, the existence of life could indicate that there is an intelligent creator, who crafted the first steps of life. Also, let's think of the big bang. What caused it? To say that something naturalistic was the cause of it simply begs the same question. What caused the cause of the big bang? Ad infinitum. However, there could be a first cause. But anything natural would require a cause. Therefore, the logical existence of this first cause is evidence of a supernatural creator. I'll let my opponent respond now. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hulk Vs Spiderman (Hulk wins) because CROSS EXAMINATION: Since I've got 5 whole rounds, I'm gonna refrain from jumping the gun (as I had initially intended to do) and clarify on a few things about my opponent's case: Question #1: Concerning Reed Richards, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, are you saying that they have never been successful in getting savagely provoked Hulk to revert back to Bruce Banner? Question #2: What is the likely hood that this battle is taking place in New York City? Question #3: Do you mean to insist that the there have never been ANY single character who was not a friend to the Hulk but managed to sooth him? Question #4: Your parameters for this match up insisted there be no prep time. Is this to merely be understood as preparation before the fight started? Question #5: In your opinion, how does Iron Man compare to a calm Hulk? And believe it or not, that's all the questions I request to be answered before I proceed. Till the next round. :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Opponent Does Not Exist because ------>"RE:My opponents believes that the movie V for Vendetta proves their point. Does it? When V is speaking of the idea that ideas are bullet proof, is speaking of after his own death. V is speaking that what he represented will continue to exist long after he himself is gone. The people behind the puppet of "Logic Master" are attempting to prove his existence by a flawed analogy to movie. Though, I will concede that ideas exist, and I'm sure that "Logic Master" was conjured up out of someones rectal area, there is not a singular person to whom the avatar of "Logic Master" belongs." False. I merely used the film V for Vendetta to elaborate on my message and that is that an idea in definite. One cannot take away its existence. Given that my opponent concedes to ideas existing and that I am an idea, he has essentially agreed with my stance. Even if I am merely being controlled by a group of people, this does not negate my existence as an idea. ------>"RE:Of course, if my opponents seek to win via semantics, they already know they have lost." How can I have the ability to know I've lost if I don't even exist? Why is it that my opponent keeps acknowledging me? ;) ------->RE:"The person hood of "Logic Master" is what I call into question. Where are "Logic Master"'s parents? I'm sure names can be conjured for them as well. Does "Logic Master" have a job, or friends, or anyone that can actually claim to know "Logic Master"? Of course not! "Logic Master" is obviously a front set up by a group of people to try to sway us towards "his" conservative agendas." The person hood of "elgeibo" is what I call into question. Where are "elgeibo"'s parents? I'm sure names can be conjured for them as well. Does "elgeibo" have a job, or friends, or anyone that can actually claim to know "elgeibo"? Of course not! "Elgeibo" is obviously a front set up by a group of people to try to sway us towards "his" liberal agendas Of course, even with the same being said about the both of us, this still doesn't dispel the notion that we are ideas at the very least. Hence, our "existence" per se is confirmed regardless. ---->RE:"We all defy you, "Logic Master", to poison our brains with your deceptions." My opponent has slipped up and revealed the truth (seemingly by accident). Notice how he uses the word "we" when this debate is supposedly between the two of us. Why would he do that? I'll tell you. Because it is not I who is merely a group of people who have an agenda. Rather, it is MY OPPONENT; PRO has been projecting. Indeed, my opponent is merely nothing more than a group of people who are agents of the secret organization known as "the balance." Is this a conspiracy? Or the truth that's so obvious you'd never believe it? You tell me . . . Debate.org serves two purposes. On the surface, it appears to be an Internet debate website for information relating politics, society, entertainment, philosophy, relgion, and miscellaneous topics. But in actuality, the site itself plays a far more important role in your life than you've been allowed to realize. You see, this website is actually a mental prison operated by an unknown society known as, "The Balance", and you are a convicted felon and mental prisoner of the facility. You must understand, in society, and in daily life, there must always exist a balance of ideas being represented among the people. If the voices of one ideology become too strong or too loud, the balance is lost and one group may choose to exploit that lack of equality by forcing their ideas on society, simply because they control the power of the majority. When incidents like this take place, it often leads to civil violence, uprisings, and oppression of the minorities. You may not realize it yet, but you are exactly the type of person who causes these things to happen. You are confident, outspoken, not afraid to address the issues, and more convinced than not that your worldview is correct. As a result, people like you must be silenced for the sake of preserving the balance. If you were allowed to run free in society expressing your views as strongly as you express them here, you would begin a chain reaction of ideas that would ultimately tip the scales of power in your preferred direction, which would cause divisions and potential violence in society that otherwise would never have happened. To prevent this from occurring, "The Balance" has mentally confined you to this website as a mental prisoner without you realizing it. All day long, agents of "The Balance" interact with you in daily life, filling your head with subconscious suggestions that inevitably lead you back to where you are at this VERY moment - sitting at a computer reading these messages. The suggestions are subtle. Anyone around you at any given moment could be an agent of "The Balance", making a casual comment about a politics here, making a statement about religion there, or perhaps they are a stranger who strikes up a conversation with you while waiting in line at the grocery store. Agents of "The Balance" are charged to influence you to return here again, and again, and again to debate the issues. So long as your beliefs and thoughts are being expressed in this place, to mostly the same group of posters on a daily level, you are not infecting society and upsetting the balance of represented ideas in the actual world. Don't be offended. Your mind is so great, and your thoughts are so strong that secret societies are required to prevent you from destroying all other societies. You must be influenced to return here to express your thoughts on politics and religion, because if you expressed them elsewhere just as frequently, you could singlehandedly start wars. Its called Chaos Theory - that your one thought, passed to someone else, spreads and grows until it becomes many thoughts, and those many thoughts upset the balance of represented ideas until mass violence becomes the inevitable result. So you are a convicted felon serving an indefinite mental sentence in this virtual prison that masquerades as a debate website. You will return here to post your thoughts about religion and politics because they are too dangerous for the outside world. You have been subconsciously isolated from society for the sake of all societies. Of course you talk about some of your discussions and concerns away from this site, but the strongest of your thoughts are siphoned into this virtual vacuum which prevents you from upsetting the balance. If you have made it to this sentence, that's a few more minutes you've spent serving time rather than threatening society. Indeed, even in this debate, the balance have sent several agents to pose under the name of this individual who calls himself elgeibo. The reason he is so gung ho to claim that I do not exist is because he is onto me and my ideas and he is well aware of the threat I pose to his corrupt organization. Thus, he seeks to silence you all the idea that I don't exist and that I am merely puppet. Do not be fooled debate.org. The truth MUST BE REVEALED That aside, let us keep in mind that PRO has agreed that I am an idea and concedes that ideas exist. If you don't manage to see through his true goals on this debate website. At very least, you should be able to see this and agree that I am the victor of this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio because My opponent states, "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." For this debate, we will be focusing on TV and radio, however, my opponent has made it clear that their position is for the absolute ending of government censorship, rather than just the reduction of it. In this debate, I will argue that a degree of government censorship is needed. I will also argue that my opponent has already admitted that they support government censorship by their approval of the V-chip. 1) V-Chip is government. Let us start with a little history of the V-Chip, to show that it is a government censorship tool, rather than a private sector censorship tool. The V-Chip was created by Tim Colling, and he took his creation to the Keith Spicer, head of the Canadian Telecommunication Commission. Keith presented the technology to various american networks, but none of them were interested (they claimed to be, yet they took no actions upon it) [1]. The Telecommunications act of 1996, then forced cable providers to adapt the rating system, and forced manufacturers to include v-chips [2]. Since this censorship was originally ignored by the market, and had to be forced by government legislation, it would be fair to call this government sponcered censorship (as many called it government censorship at the time). 2) Government Censorship is needed for some things. The government will often censor news reports for publishing anything classified, or certain pieces of information that may prove harmful to americans, such as plans for a battle, troop movement, or intelligence gathering tactics. Such information can easily get to military opponents and so undermine the entire effort. Another reason for government censorship is in legal cases to prevent defamation of individuals. People can easily be accused of various crimes, and at their trials, mis-information, and fallacious information can be presented. Open courts that allow the press to report on any and every aspect can cause serious comlpications, especially with jurors that need to remain as impartial as possible. We saw such issues with the Amanda Knox trials, where news would report that she was involved in Rogue-like satanic sex rituals [3]. Yet another reason for censors is the protection of privacy and private information. It would be highly unethical (by most ethic standards) and potentionally harmful, for a news story to release a person's bank account info or social security number. While there is little reason for this to ever be done, people are known for doing things for no reason, other than spite. This becomes more likely when you come across shows the are for political entertainment. We've seen individuals place cross hairs on their opponent's homes, telling people to "stay armed" and to "reload" [4] and to "kick the bastards out" and various other stirring words. As such, a line needs to be drawn that says "do not cross." It would be ideal that telecommunication networks would be able to draw this line themselves, however, as learned from the v-chip, they will not do so unless required by the government. This shows that there are numerous cases where government censorship is needed, and that government mandated and sponcered censorship was needed to get to where parents even have the option of control. Thank you, [1] http://www.docstoc.com... [2] http://transition.fcc.gov... [3] http://news.nationalpost.com... [4] http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation. because It is true that the ACLU is biased toward the Liberal side, but really who isn't? Their purpose is to keep and eye on dangerous things such as The Patriot Act, which none of the congressmen who voted "yes" for actually read most of the bill. It is important to have organizations such as the ACLU to keep an eye out for our rights. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God because I suppose my opponent's definition of moral will work... Again, we are back to the notion of whether or not killing people is right or wrong. It is clearly wrong, so my opponent cannot get off the hook by stating that killing people is moral only when God does it. That simply sounds silly. Responses: >> "What you call circular reasoning is simply giving you a chance to use sarcasm to embarrass me with your coke can remark." Your comment about God being moral because his purpose is to be moral does not need my help with a coke can to be embarrassing. >> "God never says killing is wrong or immoral he says don't do it because VENGANCE is his." Was there some part of "Thou shalt not kill" that you didn't understand? And if vengeance is God's alone, doesn't that indicate that it's morally wrong according to God for man to take revenge on man? Furthermore, most of God's killings are not revenge - they are simply wanton murder and disregard for human life. >> "If Satan was so moral why would he sentence men to their doom to make them suffer for all eternity in a fiery prison?" Two problems here - first, I never said that Satan was moral - just that he was more moral than God. And furthermore, it is not Satan that condemns people to hell - judgment is reserved for God. GOD sends people to hell, not Satan. >> "God however gives us hope of following his laws we will dwell and prosper in a place that we will forever be happy." Considering some of God's laws include taking the women of conquered nations for your harem, keeping slaves, and killing homosexuals, this doesn't seem like such a moral God... >> "If one man will kill a million but knowing this you commit murder and kill him have you not saved millions from death and emotional torment?" Well this would definitely be an example of a moral action. However, God spends a good deal of time smiting babies... who are fairly unlikely to go kill a million people. God smites with wanton disregard, not just the evil ones. >> "I will tell you that your argument was solely based on death caused by the greater power but the main focus was that Satan was more moral than god. Which is clearly wrong Satan simply does not have the means to harm people physically or even more would be dead." My opponent contends that my argument is incorrect because Satan doesn't have the means to physically harm people, even though he is capable of possessing them with demons, and in the book of Job, kills 10 people. Seems to me there is a problem with his line of reasoning. ********************************************************** The body count still stands: God: 2,301,427 Satan: 0 If killing people is immoral, then God is more immoral than Satan by a Biblical Body Count. AFFIRMED <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned because Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will provide a *brief* response to izbo's prior round and then proceed to my closing argument. == Rebuttal == Izbo complains, yet again, about various debates he has had. He complains, yet again, about the "stupidity" of the entire site. It makes you wonder why izbo even *wants* to stay. If he dislikes the site to such an extent and dislikes *everyone* on it, why stay? His only possible motivation would have to be to cause as much mayhem as possible on a site he dislikes and against people he despises. At the end of the day, you are left with the impression that you are doing izbo a favor by banning him. Izbo complains that Man-is-good stalked him on Facebook. If he was truly concerned with this, he would have set his Facebook settings to private. The only reason that Man-is-good was able to verify, with 100% certainty, that Erik Dickerson was izbo was because izbo posted (bastardized and out of context) quotes from JustCallMeTarzan, Cerebral, ReformedArsenal, and others in order to mock these quotes with his Facebook friends. Izbo really has no right to complain about this. Let's evaluate izbo's 5 "defenses" of his actions: 1) The people on this site are stupid and deserve to be mocked Izbo has repeatedly shown that he considers everyone but "yes men" to be stupid. Failure to wholeheartedly agree with izbo's points is considered stupidity, by him. Playing devil's advocate will draw izbo's wrath. Voting against izbo because his arguments weren't convincing will invoke his wrath. Asking him one simple question will make him your mortal enemy. This is clearly *not* someone who belongs on a site devoted to honest intellectual discourse. 2) Izbo says I have presented no case that there is a right and wrong Izbo has moved on into the realm of new logical fallacies. The latest one is demanding negative proof. If izbo had argued in favor of moral nihilism, I could have argued against it. But izbo, instead, agreed via PM that if I prove harm to the site that would jive with his views on morality. For someone who purports to be the sole authority on "logic" on this site, izbo sure commits a great deal of logical fallacies. 3) Freedom of speech/theist oppression Izbo seems to be hatching some strange conspiracy theory that we're all secretly theists sent here to thwart his plans. The fact remains, izbo ends up harassing mostly atheists merely because they question him or play devil's advocate. As to freedom of speech, izbo concedes that a privately owned website can restrict not only membership, but speech as well. He further concedes that hate speech and harassment are not protected forms of expression. 4) Izbo creates activity Izbo says that he is a positive force because he has generated many comments on this debate. What I see when I look at the comments section is people rallying around a common enemy. The same style argument as izbo's would say that Hitler was a positive force for helping to rally so many diverse groups to oppose him. Hitler, also, made the world a "less boring" place. Valuing "activity" above all else would be a perverse mistake. As I've stated, not all activity is good activity. If it were, we'd allow all trolls to stay. Most activity surrounding izbo involves either: complaints about him or counter-trolling measures designed to annoy izbo. Neither of those are reasons to keep him here. Lastly, I've shown that izbo has gotten worse recently, resorting to full on trolling on the Debate.org Forum, calling for Man-is-good's ban and announcing his own campaign for president in order to "stop fucktardery." 5) Izbo reads books and tells us about them Izbo names a number of books he has read or will read. In all honesty, if I wanted a simple, easily digestible summary of what any of those books contained, izbo is the last person I would ask. == Closing Argument == 1) Vote bombing This is a ban-worthy offense all by itself. Izbo never contests the fact that *at least* half of his 39 votes are vote bombs. He never contests the allegation that he didn't read most of those debates and vote bombed specific members due to a personal vendetta against those members. He left horribly derogatory RFD's in all cases. He seems to want to chase new theist members off the site with RFD's like: "stupid christians are stupid" or "ignorant christians are ignorant, take your head out of your a$$ and throw the bible away." Ninja_Tru left because of izbo's vote bombing. InquireTruth, a top 10 debater, has not been back in 3 months after being vote bombed by izbo and admitting discouragement at izbo's vote bomb and RFD. We cannot maintain the quality of our membership with someone consistently vote bombing. Refusing to ban izbo *sanctions* the practice of vote bombing. If we don't ban izbo, we cannot ban others for similar offenses. Unless you want a site full of vote bombers, vote to ban izbo. 2) Harassment Izbo admits to harassing various members via PM. Again, he fails to apologize for his behavior and refuses to curtail said practice. Cliff.Stamp, who was a valuable addition to the site and who voted extremely often on many of our debates, left the site because of izbo's harassment. Again, we cannot maintain the quality of our membership with someone who consistently harasses other members. It is *unacceptable* to call another member a "fvcking moron" or a "piece of sh!t" via PM merely because you did not like his or her RFD. If you, ladies and gentlemen, would not enjoy being the target of izbo's harassment, please respect the people who he *has* harassed by banning him. The harassment and vote bombing are the reasons why one in three DDO users has stated that izbo's ban will increase their enjoyment of the site. If you vote to ban izbo, you make *one-third* of the site significantly happier. 3) Carte Blanche Izbo has made clear that he would consider a favorable outcome from this trial to be a carte blanche to act however he pleases. If you refuse to ban him, expect his behavior to escalate. Expect more troll topics. Expect more harassment. Expect more vote bombing. Expect more cussing and insults. Expect izbo's glee to be documented on Facebook. Innomen has been able to remove some of the most offensive content izbo has posted, but will not be able to do so if the community sanctions his behavior. Also, consider the precedent you are setting here. If you ban izbo, you are giving innomen the go ahead to continue to ban people for similar offenses. If you refuse to ban izbo, we may as well not have a moderator. Izbo's offenses are just about as bad as they come, so if his behavior is not ban-worthy, no behavior is ban-worthy. 4) Degraded the quality of the site If you would not want to frequent a Religion forum where someone insults everyone and calls them "fucktards" all day, then vote to ban izbo. The Religion forum and comments sections of many debates have become unbearable to read for many members. High quality members will not frequent a site where the top 3 threads in a particular forum all contain the word "fucktards" in the title. We may not all care deeply about the Religion forum, but some members on this site *do.* Respect those members by banning izbo. 5) Moderator If you want anyone to ever replace innomen as moderator, you're going to have to ban izbo. I personally would never become moderator if I knew that I'd get 500 reports on izbo that I was not empowered to act upon. I would not want to deal with izbo reporting 4-5 other members each day. A vote not to ban izbo is a vote for no moderation. In conclusion, izbo adds nothing *positive* to this site. Izbo has done nothing but degrade the quality of the site in various ways. Izbo is a deterrent to attracting and keeping high quality members. And for many reasons, a vote in favor of izbo is a vote for "no moderation" of the site. Please do the right thing. Do izbo the favor of voting to ban him from the site he so detests. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should we be allowed to own firearms? because Thank you for responding. "They have such a short range because they are intended for close quarters combat. In other words, self defense." What happened to my argument about how you can't use self defense to justify the use of guns? "No where [sic] in the constitution does it say that the federal government cannot restrict the theatre." I suggest you read this wiki, or even just the first sentence ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Although the wiki does need citations, the first sentence is pretty straightforward and good. Now click on the word, "media." Read through that, and you will find that it is inclusive. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Soviet Russia. The government CANNOT censor the media. As much as I'd like to see the government do away with Desperate Housewives and American Idol, it is illegal for the government to do that. "How do they do it? They can't just say "All citizens report to the nearest police station and turn all firearms" because the criminals wouldn't do it anyway and the honest citizens would and how would you propose the unarmed mother protects herself and children should they be attacked? " Your run-on sentence (sorry, had to be said :-)) is absolutely right. You couldn't just have everyone turn it in. That is utter nonsense. You can see how well abolition worked. What you do is you offer a sizable bounty for each gun turned in, you stop selling guns, and you stop making ammo (or rather, don't allow companies to make and sell guns and ammo to regular citizens). Realistically, you can't get everyone to follow the law, but things would significantly lighten up. Just like if we legalized shoplifting, nobody would pay for anything anymore, but since it is illegal, some people still steal, but most people pay. "Although, then bow and arrow would be the main method of hunting. Most people I know that hunt are not skilled at using a bow, and I'm afraid that the number of hunting accidents could even increase when hunters are limited to the bow and arrow, since most hunters that use rifles are not skilled at bow hunting." Sorry to have to take away your fun activity, but what you do is go to the supermarket and buy meat that was shot by someone who works at a farm or something. Those guns would be provided by the government, and obviously, there would be severe punishments if they used it for anything else. Or you could learn to use a bow and arrow. "...moms who carry pistols in their purses to help protect their children from kidnappers and themselves from robbers is not the answer." Well, it might be different down where you are, but up in Lake Oswego, Oregon, you'd be thought of as a real redneck and a creep if you did that. I recognize it's different in other areas, but to me, it sounds ludicrous. I mean, I'm a pansy, I know, there has never officially been a murder in my town, but still, that doesn't make guns right. "To help reduce that, I would suggest at least censorship of music, movies, and plays that promote gang violence, murder, and just violence in general. Heck, let's even add video games to that list. THAT stands more of a chance of success in my eyes." The government cannot censor the media, BUT, if you get rid of guns, the amount of that media will inevitably go down. Wow! Round 3 already! I'd like to thank you for instigating a wonderful debate, and you debated very well, but may the best man win! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens because Much thanks to daley for the fun and engaging debate. In this final round, I won't be making any new arguments, merely responses and summary. I'm disappointed that Pro is "regretting that [I, feverish] was the one who accepted the challenge". I apologise if my opponent resents my modest attempts to add a touch of humour to some of my arguments, but I think I have given objective and, for the most part, serious arguments throughout. "Chief of the Belgian Air Force comes live in a news report and says that the speeds these things were travelling at would kill any human being. That rules out man-made planes, choppers, and so forth." This argument relies entirely on the assumption that the short-lived bizarre radar readings represent exactly the movements of actual objects in the sky. This has not been established by any means. All of Pro's assertions about speed rely on this unsubstantiated assumption. Pro has ignored the evidence about the radar readings not making sense, as the relative direction remained the same while the aircraft on which the radar system was based was itself turning. He also hasn't commented on my other link about radar failure and the various types of "clutter" or interference that can show up on radar. He says the radar information is true because so many people on the ground saw similar stuff, but I've already shown how he has grossly misrepresented the numbers of witnesses and not provided evidence of how many statements support each other, let alone support the radar data. "I will address all of Con's suggestions one by one: "Light beams operated by human hand" etc. In the previous round Pro asked a series of questions asking what would be able to perform some of the different capabilities he has attributed to these UFOs. I responded to each of these questions individually and provided lists of different known earthly phenomena that could display such attributes. Pro seems to have interpreted each of these responses as me suggesting actual plausible and complete explanations for the events he's been referring to, rather than the individual responses to his individual questions about what could move so fast, or what could manoeuvre so well etc. Obviously I don't think fish were flying over Belgium, or that people on the ground were looking at leaves, these were simply examples of earthly things that can manoeuvre better than an airplane, as my opponent asked for. It is in this section of the debate that daley seems to get a little frustrated and complain that I'm not taking things seriously. If this stems from a misunderstanding of what I intended by my lists of examples, then I apologise for not being more clear. As I have stated from the beginning and daley hasn't disputed, it is not my burden to provide the most plausible explanation, rather to rebut his assertions about why we should accept the alien hypothesis as the most likely. "The answer for the design in nature "is" other-worldly, God! The answer for the UFO's in Belgium is other-worldly too, aliens." I'll have to congratulate daley here for his skilled exploitation of the semantic loop hole I unwittingly left for him. Good answer. "On one off tangent point, let me just say that abiogenesis is the evolution of life from non-living inorganic material; abiogenesis is merely the beginning stage of evolution but is evolution non-the-less; hence, the term, "the evolution of life." Maybe Con hasn't heard it." I'm afraid that Pro is misinformed here. Go on Wikipedia (a great site as me and my opponent both agree) and search for "evolution of life". You won't get a page about how life began; instead you'll be redirected to the main evolution page: http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a very large page, full incidentally of great links to evidence of how evolution works. Halfway down is the section "evolution of life", which isn't about origins of life at all, but starts off with how prokaryotes developed into other simple life forms and tracks the history of evolution all the way up to mammals. It is only right at the bottom of the whole evolution page that anything whatsoever is said about the origins of life, two sentences, right next to the link for the abiogenesis page. The above two paragraphs are totally irrelevant to the debate anyway. "it is difficult to imagine the all-wise, omniscient God having nothing better to do than fly around the Belgium skies at night!" Well since he's also omni-present, anyone who believes in this God would surely have to acknowledge that He was indeed in the Belgian sky that night, just as He is here with me now. Also refer back to my previous point about God moving in mysterious ways. One man's miracle is another man's mystery. I encourage voters not to vote according to their beliefs about UFOs but rather according to who they think performed best and fulfilled their burden in the debate. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should Quebec be recognized as a sovereign state because The economic situation in Quebec is favourable. In terms of income per capita Quebec is less indebted than other countries. Quebec's economic performance is surprising and they're doing pretty well. Right now Quebec is just a province without control over all their means. Without letting Quebec take control of its own economy Canada will suffer by losing $18 billion (1) dollars annually due to a recent $5 billion (1) increase in federal support to a province who doesn't even wan't to be a part of Canada (1) "Federal Support to Provinces and Territories." Government of Canada, Department of Finance. Department of Finances, 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. < http://www.fin.gc.ca... ;. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Aliens will come in peace not war. because My opponent state that, "I still think it more plausible to use a small vessel that would not cost enormous amounts of resources to make. Also, if the aliens were on the brick of annihilation, they would not send their only hope to a planet already inhabited with intelligent life. It would make most sense to look for a uninhabited planet where there is nothing to fight first to start back up again." This however fails to address my logical speculation. A sleeper vessel would only be plausible if it was on a large scale. These vessels would have to be 'arks' containing everything needed to rebuild a civilisation. In addition my opponent has accepted it is a sleeper vessel, therefore from the perspective of the aliens they are on the brink of annihlation, everything depends on their vessel all their eggs are in one basket (quite literally in fact). In addition my opponent has accepted that they are travelling to earth. To summarise. 1: My opponent accepts that is a sleeper vessel. 2: The most likely motive of a sleeper vessel is to establish a colony. 3: It is likely the aliens are observing earth during the journey. 4: The settling of an inhabited world suggests violence. 5: Therefore the intent of the aliens is war. "Even a colony ship would want to observe everything they will pass for its usefulness. A ship with no turning back will not pass up chances to find out if there is usable resources, even for later use. I again I say that it would not make sense to send your last hope against a potentially powerful enemy." My opponent accepting this is a sleeper vessel and defining it as heading towards earth has accepted this situation, even if it now feels nonsensical to them. However in addition the aliens are close enough to determine how much of a threat mankind is. They have a whole year for scans, weapons training and battle plans. "I disagree. If it did take a million years to reach us, so what? What is one life or a few, when trying to find one of the ultimate answers of the universe, "what will other intelligent life be like?" I think it more likely that a species that has learned to cooperate well enough with itself that they are space-faring means that they will understand coexistence and recognize it's importance." By the time the aliens wake up it is almost certain that their parent civilisation is dead, is it plausible that they will accept exploration on these terms? Humanity is already capable to detecting alien worlds and analysing their atmospheres, the aliens are much more advanced than we are, and so can probably determine many things about earth without actually leaving their home system. It is equally likely as an advanced intelligence that they will place equal value on co-existence and genocide. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust. because Alllrighty then: "This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time." It is seemingly unclear as to how this counteracts my assertions and points of contentions made in my Round 1. I fail to see any rebuttal continuity. Therefore, my arguments are standing quite firmly, residing intact. If it were not implied in my Round 1 argumentation, I remind readers, voters, judges, and my opponent that, as stated in the comments section, my value and criterion for this debate are basically as follows: As implied in my opening round, the central value I, as the contender, am utilizing is justice. In order to achieve justice, societal benevolence is essential, aiding in greater ethical parameters and social order. I await the remainder of this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. because My last photo http://quickshotartist.com... is an autumn scene from the Apple Hill region of California in the Sierra foothills, near Placerville. In much of the U.S. autumn scenes and apples are pretty much everywhere, but in California it takes a special trip to the mountains. The photo shows the "station" for a kids' train ride set up during harvest time. The pixels have been flying for five rounds. I'm not sure what it all proves, but it was fun! Pro got the format right: five rounds and a thousand works well. I have enjoyed looking at his photos. He has great enthusiasm. Viewers of the photos may want to consider the effort it takes to look critically. My R3 photo of the flowers takes no effort, it just hits you in the face. R1, R2, and R4 have something going on that, I think, bears pondering. R5 is in between, but it mostly just hits you. Neither approach is necessarily better, it depends how well they are executed. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ALL THE SOLDIERS ARE DEAD - TOBY KEITH Is this a good song because All the Soldiers are Dead, by Toby Keith, is not a good song. It obviously depicts death (as seen by the title) and it shows that the Singer is glad to support ISIS, a radical Islamist terror group that kills and brings oppression to innocent people. I would have made much more in-depth arguments, but I have heavy time constriants (I only have 5 minutes to post this argument). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Flying Unicorn will win in a fight with a Bear because Challenge accepted. Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against .9999 repeating = 1 because Sorry about the grammar in the last few rounds I have had a lot of work to do and not much time to look over my arguments. So in this last round for the sanity of the people reading this I am going to be short and sweet. 1.1/3 There is one critical reason that you are not going to buy my opponent's argument and this he makes no response to my attack that .333… only approximately equals 1/3, thus they only way to find what 1/3 actually equals is to use remainders which when multiplied by the cause one to be added in on the 9's causing them to become 10's and carrying the 1 to the next 9 repeats the cycle to equal 1. This proves that multiplying 1/3 doesn't .999… it will equal 1. This argument goes dropped in my opponent's last speech meaning that there is no way that my opponent can hope to win this argument. The only argument that my opponent even attempts to extend is the example of the hotel, but this doesn't matter for 2 reasons 1 even if there were an % number of rooms there is always one left over meaning that you will never get an exact answer, and 2 you should prefer my example because it take into account for this flaw and is the only way to get an exact answer to the problem. 2.Rhs lhs My opponent drops too many of my arguments in the last speech for him to have a hope to win this point. First my opponent seem to ignore all of the arguments I make, what I am saying is that even if % is not finite and is constantly increasing then when it is used in a math equation you change the rate that % is increasing, this is supported my example ,that my opponent miss interprets, that if % theoretically for the purpose of easy math equaled to 1 and if you added 1 to that % you would get 2 which acts as a higher power of infinity now even if infinity were to increase without bounds the answer to the equation would always be one above infinity. To explains further in the same situation if % increase to 2 adding one to % would equal 3 they same would happen for 4,5,6,7,8,9 even if infinity was constantly increasing the %+1 will always be bigger. This proves the flaws of the rhs lhs equation because it shows that even if there % number of nines behind the decimal when you multiple it by ten it acts as if there are %-1 9's behind the decimal but it will always be on less than the original .999… thus proving my point. The only other thing my opponent has to support his claim is that there couldn't be a 9 at the end of repeating 0's, but my opponent gives nothing to support his own claim I have proof of how we never able to reach infinity yet we know it is there and the numbers between 0 and % infinity as we attempt to reach it this proves how we could have a 9 at the end of the sequence of 0's because even if we can never reach it we know it is there. All my opponent's attacks are based on nothing he gives you no examples no base for his arguments all he says is that he is right yet I am wrong but I am the only one giving examples and proof to back my claims meaning you are going to prefer my arguments over his. Because these critical failures by my opponent he has no proof backing his rhs lhs theory meaning that there is no way that he can win. 3.His limit equation On this argument my opponent drops one critical argument and that is that 1/% ~0 this shows that this equation could only prove that .999… can only be approximately equal to 1. Because in the final step of his equation where he takes 1-1/10 the % power, the 1/10to the % will be approximately equal to 0 and when you subtract this from 1 you get approximately equal to 1. This argument goes completely dropped by my opponent meaning that this completely disproves his attempt to prove his point 4.Number line paradox This is going to be critical in this round because my opponent make no arguments against it. It disproves that .999… could equal 1 because they are located on different position on a number line even though they are very close together they are not in the same place meaning that they can't be equal. Because of the fact that my opponent drops this argument it proves that .999… doesn't equal 1 and is going to be this finishing blow because there is nothing from my opponent that attempts to disprove this meaning it is going to win me this debate. 5.Closing statements Because this is the last speech I feel that I should reinforce the fact that when as judges vote on this round base your vote only on what has been presented in the round. Weigh the evidence that both sides present and look at the arguments and how each one proves or disproves the topic. Don't base your vote on what you know, but only the information given to you in the round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is dance a sport? because "This would still qualify things like writing singing, working on cars as sports."- Writing is not a physical activity so it is not a sport. Singing would not be considered a physical activity either. Working on cars in physical, but there is no competition. "There are ways through each move that they are looking for."- Each person participating in figure skating has their own routine. In snowboarding, they all do different jumps. In diving, each diver does a different dive. In dance, dancers do their own routine. Dance fits all of the components of other sports. Dancers need skill, flexibility, endurance, and passion. They work for hours a week just like any other athlete. They compete against others and receive scores from talented judges just like other sports. Dance has unique rules and equipment. Dance is a sport that requires hard work and dedication. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga because He forfeits. Ergo, he drops. Ergo, extend all arguments made. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711. because It's very easy to prove that Hunton711, or any other name Pro might have chosen, would have won this debate had he accepted. In fact, I am so confident I can prove it that I will use Hunton's own way of posting (a separate line for each sentence), in honor of the would-be winner. "Had he accepted this debate, I would have beaten Hunton711 (in this debate)" semantically consists of one categorical, "Hunton711 didn't accept this debate", and one hypothetical: "If Hunton711 accepted this debate, I beat Hunton711 (in this debate)," or generously, "...I will have beaten..." The first version of the implied hypothetical must be false, as it is impossible to have won an ongoing debate. Had Hunton accepted the debate, the categorical would be false. Therefore, the debate's titular statement would be false. Therefore, Pro would lose the debate. Therefore, trivially, the second version of the implied hypothetical would be false. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned because Full resolution: By way of undue harm to the site and the community as a whole, Izbo10 should be permanently banned from DDO. Rules: There will be 5 Rounds. R1: Opening statement R2: Additional charges/rebuttals R3: Rebuttals R4: Cross Examination/Additional Rebuttals R5: Closing Arguments Izbo10 also stipulates by accepting that if he uses this debate as a forum for additional abuses and TOS violations that he will be instantly banned. Welcome ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We all want a quick trial, so let's proceed immediately to the charges against izbo10. 1) He has sent harassing private messages to users. Izbo10 shows open contempt towards a large number of DDO users and has initiated personal vendettas against many of them (both vote bombing those users and harassing them). Throughout this debate, I will not have enough character space to present ALL the evidence against Izbo10 (you could probably fill a book with his insults and TOS violations). Instead, I am forced to pick a few brief excerpts to exemplify izbo's patterns of behavior: After Double_R voted against izbo10 on one of izbo's debates and explained to izbo in-depth why he lost, izbo sent Double_R the following harassing private message: "double r before fvcking voting on debates and whining that i am discussing rks argument you might have wanted to figure the fvck out that guess what the debate was about rk's argument. Fvcking moron." When this trial process began, izbo sent innomen the following harassing message: "Why are you such a piece of sh!t? I want to defend myself in this joke of a trial . . . This is so unchristian of you bastard." ReformedArsenal complains of izbo's harassment and verbal abuse. "[izbo] swears and calls me names a lot. I've reported him for hatespeech several times . . . some people have left because of it (Cliff.Stamp is one off the top of my head)." ReformedArsenal was also extremely upset to have seen izbo mock a DDO user with Autism for being "retarded." Izbo consistently harasses members who either enrage him in the forums or vote against him in his debates. Harassment not only violates the TOS but is also illegal under both federal and state law. 2) Izbo10 has consistently engaged in vote-bombing. Reviewing all 39 of izbo's votes, at least half of them are vote bombs. All of the following vote bombs gave all 7 points to one person with horribly derogatory RFD's: Izbo10 vote bombed two times in a row against Renascor. [1] Izbo admitted in the comments section of the latter one that he didn't read the debate and was retaliating against Renascor for an RFD he didn't like. Izbo said, "renascor, I didnt read the debate which means I had a far greater understanding of what was going on when I voted here, then [sic] you did when you voted on my debate." Man-is-good, in his counter-vote bomb RFD, writes that this is "clear evidence that Izbo10, due to his personal grudge with Renascor, decided to vote bomb him....Sad, just sad." Izbo's vote bombing was the sole reason Renascor did not win both debates. Izbo vote bombed Cerebral_Narcissist three times. [2] Here are some of his RFD's: "Reasons for voting decision: cerebral is a moron who doesn't understand objective. [sic];" "Reasons for voting decision: Cerebral vote bombs me, so I am just countering." Clearly, these votes are merely retaliatory voting behavior. Izbo has also vote bombed against ReformedArsenal twice (due to a personal vendetta) and against contradiction (due to admitted dislike). Izbo admits to vote bombing SuperRobotWars because he didn't like the manner in which SRW voted on one of his debates: "Reasons for voting decision: I don't care what the stips [sic] of this debate are superretardboy you don't understand how to vote on debates I ll [sic] do the same to you ok?" [4] Izbo vote bombed TheHistoryProfessor twice, leaving these two charming RFD's: "Reasons for voting decision: stupid christians are stupid" and "Reasons for voting decision: ignorant christians are ignorant, take your head out of your a$$ and throw the bible away." [3] The problem in the above cases isn't JUST the vote bombing, which is ban-worthy by itself, but also the horrid RFD's that could convince a new user like TheHistoryProfessor to leave the site. And izbo *has* successfully convinced at least one new member to leave the site (although probably countless others as well). Izbo harassed and vote bombed Ninja_Tru for an RFD that Ninja_Tru left on one of izbo's debates. Izbo wrote Ninja_Tru the following RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really read the debate, but then again neither does ninja before he votes, so i think he should lose a debate based on my vote as he did to me." [5] Ninja_Tru left the site shortly after izbo's harassment started. He has not logged in for 5 months. Izbo's harassment and vote bombing are threats not only to current members, but to new members as well. Growing the site is impossible while izbo's harassment and vote bombing continue unabated. Izbo may be the first and last interaction that many new users have. As our wise president has stated, "the core value of this site is the integrity of honest debates." Izbo consistently violates that core value. 3) Izbo is verbally abusive in the comments sections of debates. Izbo exhibits this behavior consistently. I'll just provide two brief examples: Izbo: "You bring $hit to an intellectual discussion then expect me to respect you, go fucks yourself." [6] "This is basic you fuckin moron. Why did I know you wouldn't have the guts to say that I am wrong on this when it is the same fuckin thing." [7] 4) Izbo has degraded the forums. Izbo has made the Religion forum, which he frequents, an unbearable environment for many users. Rusty explains this issue far better than I could: "From what I've noticed, [izbo has] been slowly tearing away at the quality of one of our most popular forum sections for months now. True to his reputation, his most recent thread begins with "Since people on this board are too fuckin stupid to grasp this..." and ends with a charming "...so stfu and learn." It's this nauseating blend of ‘intelligence' and (arguably unwarranted) arrogance that has even caused a few decent members to stop frequenting the religion forum, as made evident by responses I received a few weeks prior to this statement, when questioning members of the community about their stance on the issue. In an environment designed for intellectual discourse, Izbo brings nothing to the table aside from both personal and general attacks on a frequent basis." Phantom says, "Probably in 100% of my interactions with Izbo he has insulted me with ad hominem attacks. He insults many of the members I hold in upmost respect. It's impossible to reason with him. He's extremely stubborn. He creates many forum threads just for the purpose of insulting people." I flipped to a random page in the Religion forum to help exhibit izbo's behavior. This is the first page I came to: He says to popculturepooka (who we all know is anything but), "You truly are a fuckin moron." [8] A few posts later, izbo says, "wHY DON'T YOU FUCKTARDS ACTUALLY GO OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS PLEAS3!!!! please for fucks sake educate yourselves, its not that hard." Given the above 4 charges of harassment, vote bombing, leaving hate-filled comments, and degrading the Religion forum, it is no wonder that a poll of 39 DDO users found that 23% said banning izbo would "significantly" increase their enjoyment of the site. If izbo bothers one out of every four members of this site *to such an extent*, his ban is clearly necessary. I'll provide a few more charges against izbo in later rounds. Sources: see comments section Note: the profanities in the PM's were completely uncensored, but I had to alter them to be able to post them here. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with George W. Bush is a bad president. because Since my opponent failed to respond in Round 1, I will take this opportunity to elaborate on some of my previous points. I agree with the resolution that George W. Bush is a bad president. I support this for several reasons, including: his broken campaign and State of the Union promises; his failure to take action in appropriate situations (9/11 warnings); the lies he told to the American public (Remember those WMDs in Iraq? Saddam's link to al Qaeda? Oh that's right - they don't exist); the numerous accusations of conspiracy theories and scandal; his horrible decisions as president that have hurt the economy (he spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury, not to mention he acquired the biggest annual deficit in history), gave the U.S. a bad reputation worldwide and went through with an illegal and unsupported war; dissolved treaties, unnecesarilly led us into a situation that has killed thousands and cost hundreds of billions; gone against fiscal conservative policies; his extremely low approval rating, not to mention having the record number of people protest his presidency; the fact that over 2 million Americans lost their jobs between 2000-2002 thanks to Bush and his policies, and on top of that he cut unemployment benefits for those workers; he presided over the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period, and now wants to make tax payers bail out irresponsible home owners; Bush is presiding over the biggest energy crisis in history and not taking appropriate action against corruption; he also presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world, and refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions... JUST TO NAME A FEW. To counter this, my opponent will list the few and far between "successes" of GWB such as the No Child Left Behind Act. However, research shows that NCLB is actually a huge failure - just one of many. In fact, most of GWB's "good deeds" are in fact not good at all with many negative repercussions. I'm sure this will be detailed further in the next round when Con attempts to present Bush in a favorable light. Anyway, even if Bush DID accomplish a few things here and there over the course of an 8 year period, they will never be able to counter or even slightly make up for the damage Bush has done to this country and the set backs he has created for citizens. Granted I don't think that Bush is the worst president in U.S. history as many peole ignorantly assume, however, he is an awful president and one who obviously does not know how to prevent iminent threats while exaggerating unlikely others; has no problem lying to the American public in order to gain support for an unfavorable position; is secretive and shady about his past and present actions; and whose costly mistakes have greatly failed the American public. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing because Extend <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President because Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving his rebuttals. It is the round for counter rebuttals, and I will give them now. Rebuttals My opponent begins by denouncing "the mass media or right-wing-biased foundations," also stating that he "will trust the economists before" he trusts those organizations. He then states that since CNN "is biased towards establishment politicians from the left and right," if it "publishes a story in favour of certain aspects of a Sanders presidency," it must be true and "we can open our eyes." This, however, is irrational. CNN, as opposed to Fox News (a right-wing organization), is a liberal leaning news corporation that often favors the top Democratic candidates. Just as I do not use Wikipedia as a source for my arguments, I do not use articles by any of the mainstream media because they are biased in every realm: The researchers are biased, economists are biased, anchors are biased, etc. CNN is the antithesis of a reliable source. This is why I feel the need to point out that a little over 43% of my opponent's arguments come from CNNMoney, and just over 14% of it comes from Huffington Post, making it a grand total of 57.3% of his arguments being copied directly from other sources. I also feel the need to point out that the Huffington Post article was written by Catherine Pearson, Huffington Post’s Women and Parents Senior Reporter, also the author of the articles “Why So Many Women Love The ‘Pull-Out Method’” and “What You Shouldn’t Say To A Mother Who Is Struggling To Get Pregnant.” The CNN article cited was written by Tami Luhby, a left-leaning Senior Writer. Both sources my opponent cited are from writers who are biased toward the topics they write about, negating my opponent’s point about using an unbiased source. Moving on to the main rebuttals: My opponent cites Tami Luhby, who cites Gerald Friedman’s economic growth predictions, stating that “would result in average annual output growth of 5.3% over the next decade, and average monthly job creation of close to 300,000.” According to respected economists Christina Romer, Ph.D and David Romer, Ph.D (long-time Democrats, if I might add), “careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, ‘if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.’ We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.” Their three problems are as follows: Sanders’ plans assume that the effects of his policies occur through their “impact on demand. … However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible .” When you assume that the economic demand stimulus can raise productive output by 37% over the next decade, it is also assumed that the US economy performs far below its capacity, which is not the case. While there is indeed an output gap, it is nowhere near the level Sanders’ plan assumes it is at. “[A] realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best , and possibly even negative.” The above three issues are issues with Friedman’s analysis of Bernie Sanders’ economic plan. There is more: The level of redistribution Sanders’ plan would advocate for comes down to between 1% and 1.45% of the GDP. Friedman has also concluded that Sanders’ healthcare plan would cost roughly 4.3% of the GDP. According to the Romers, “Since a permanent change would raise the level of GDP in the first year and then leave it at the higher level, summing is not appropriate.” And, as Tim Worstall says, “the effects being claimed are too large to be even vaguely reasonable, the growth projections require us to be much worse off now than we actually are and the analysis assumes that all the bits of the plan will boost the economy, when in fact some parts will be a drag upon the economy.” My opponent next goes into how a $15 minimum wage would “do more than merely increase economic activity.” (It was actually Luhby who said this). I must continue to make the same assertion I made in my original arguments: Increasing the minimum wage to such a level would decrease low-skilled jobs that are not worth such a pay. This would in fact lose jobs instead of create them. It is a common misconception that because big companies like McDonald's or Wendy’s generate so much revenue annually, the minimum wage can easily be increased by them. Proponents of an increased minimum wage forget that these companies are franchises, and their employees are actually employees of the individual franchises. Their wages, like that of employees of small businesses, come from the revenue of each store, not the corporation itself. Just as your local mom-and-pop store cannot afford to pay a $15 minimum wage to its employees, neither can franchise owners. My opponent moves on next to free trade, though he claims his arguments in the previous round were sufficient enough to prove his point. I beg to differ. Free trade increases prosperity for all the people involved, because it gives consumers more purchasing power and better-quality products at lower costs (due to the lower cost of manufacturing). The increase in imports and exports in a free trade system accompany enhanced economic growth. Free trade also does not decrease Americans jobs. In addition, non-free trade does not necessarily increase jobs either; rather, protectionism focuses on jobs that a closed market cannot sustain. When the market is opened to the global stage, companies are able to compete at a greater scale. Sanders cannot seriously consider the idea of getting rid of free trade if he knows what he is talking about. Not only to hundreds of foreign companies operate in the US, hundreds of US companies conduct business in foreign lands as well. Take Apple, for example, which conducts business in 18 countries, including the US. If it were to stop operating in 17 of them, the effect on Apple would be devastating. Yes, they would liquidate assets and keep that wealth, but it would run out as their market essentially disappears. An increased tariff would also harm the company, as they would have to increase their consumer prices in order to make up for the drastic loss of their net income. Finally, the wage gap. My opponent asserts that the gender wage gap exists and that women earn 78 cents to every $1 a man makes for the same job. As I said earlier, the idea that women are paid 78 cents to every dollar a man makes is true only to some degree. This is an average. It is not 78/100 for the same job and same amount of work; instead, it is overall. Women prefer different jobs than men, and the jobs that men prefer tend to be higher paying. In Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It (Which is a great book and you should read it), Farrell explains that the wage gap is not because of wage discrimination; no, that was made illegal in 1963 when John F. Kennedy signed it into law. Instead, they make lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. This is not the case with all women, obviously, but it is a fact. The majority of women make the choice to have children instead of work full-time or seek higher-level jobs. My opponent did not say anything about my point concerning the capital investment decrease of 18.6%, so there is nothing to refute there. Conclusion I have made sufficient refutations and have argued my points. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources 1. http://www.nytimes.com... 2. “Senator Sanders’ Proposed Policies and Economic Growth” https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com... 3. http://mercatus.org... 4. http://www.cato.org... 5. Free Trade Today by Jagdish N. Bhagwati 6. http://www.apple.com... 7. Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It by Warren Farrell <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Shari'a Law because Although I'm itching to reply to my opponent's arguments in full, I realize he has a lot to respond to, so I'll keep my round to less than 4,000 characters as he requested. 1. Pro has not offered a substantive reply to my claim regarding paternalism. His response demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is intended by the word freedom. Freedom, in the political sense, is the absence of the fraud and initiatory violence. Oliver Wendell Holmes stated it best: "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." http://freedomkeys.com... Pro claims that Shari'a prohibits what is harmful and permits what leads to happiness. This response is circular; its merits need to be considered in light my other arguments. He has also ignored the core of my contention: that an individual is the one best qualified to seek after his own happiness. Different things bring different people varying degrees of happiness; it is subjective. In a libertarian society, individuals make their own determinations without others arbitrarily deciding for them what is in their "best interest." b. In order to keep my round brief as Pro requested, I won't go into detail about sexist practices in Islam at this time. The fact that men are also oppressed under Islam does not justify the oppression of women; two wrongs do not make a right. I fail to see logic behind taking away a woman's ability to make such a choice for herself in the name of upholding her rights; you cannot increase freedom through use of coercive power! Moreover, in a voluntaryist system, women who see the merits of wearing hijab would do so freely without needing to be forced. Muslims who view with disdain the "cultural corruption" of the West would be able to form their own communities, setting their own laws, within which a strict interpretation of Shari'a could be observed. c. Pro's entire response is essentially a bare, unsupported assertion. The only statistic he has cited in "support" of his claim is an article explaining that Mecca is giant drug trafficking hub. My contention is rooted in the simple economic principle of supply and demand. The more something is suppressed, the greater the profits involved, this the greater the incentive to break the law. For this simple reason, drug and alcohol use can be slightly hindered, but never eliminated. Driving the trade underground only increases the risks and magnifies the harm done to the individual user. d. I fail to see how offering loans is "taking money from people who actually need it." As I explained, banning interest only constricts the availability of funds. My opponent also fallaciously sees finance as a zero-sum game. http://www.wordiq.com... By putting the loan to use, say, to start a business or to buy something now rather than having to save and wait until later, the borrower benefits; by receiving interest, the lender benefits and overall prosperity increases. 2. I understand the difficulties that early Muslims had to contend with, and while I sympathize with my opponent's point of view, I fail to see how this justifies punishing apostates with death. On the contrary, this is just as unfair and tyrannical as the suppression of Islam in the past. Moreover, without a compelling case for Divine Command Theory and divine revelation of the Qu'ran, such preferential treatment for Islam is extremely unfair and arbitrary. b. Even if, as my opponent claims, "eye for an eye" punishment is rare, the fact that it is allowed at all is a perversion of justice. Pro also has yet to fully address the moral reasoning behind my opposition to retributive punishment schemes. == CONCLUSION == As I stated earlier, I've kept this round brief at my opponent's request so as to allow him to build his case in support of divine revelation and Divine Command Theory, which I'll respond to in my last round. I feel this is the most crucial part of the debate and look forward to seeing how Pro attempts this. The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because High oestrogen levels associated with high stimulation of IVF shows signs of increasing the chance for a baby to have a premature birth accompanied by low birth weight. There is a connection between this and long term health problems for the child in the future. This includes obesity The high oestrogen levels has been shown to affect the intrauterine environment which is essentially the uterus <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My oppenent doesn't care as much for me as I care for him because haha well as awesome as ur resolution sounds, i wont axcept ur challenge because I dont want to know who would win. Sorry Christina, all I can say is that I really really do love you to death christina and that ive never cared for anyone else like i do now for you. and that you are the most important person in the world to me :) nothing you could ever say could change that :) i love u :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The theory of Evolution is incorrect because The argument is not that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans came from ape-like creatures. There is a huge amount of evidence in regards to human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org... There is proof that mammals have evolved into whales. Animals which loosely resemble the tiger, which was near the sea, over time adapted more and more to life in the water. Again, there is fossil evidence which supports this claim. http://bit.ly... My opponent claims we have not observed macro-evolution, but supports micro-evolution. That always seems kinda odd to me. If small changes can occur, why, then, can large (macro) changes over time occur to create a new species? It seems as to the concession that microevolution is correct follows that macroevolution is likely correct also. Further, the fact that there is 1) fossil evidence, 2) the existence of microevolution, and 3) significant change within genomes all point to the fact changes occur. http://bit.ly... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part because You said only donors should have the ability to get transplants but they are donors they give organs for people who need new organs if they ever need a transplant they can have on but that means 1 of 2 things they have a bad organ or they need an organ because they just gave up an organ why should they only get organ transplants <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Atheism is the default position because First round is for acceptance only. For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God". <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god. because A Fool™ By Any Other Name It's disheartening to see The Fool™ resort to ad hominem . In one paragraph I am accused of: Becoming evil Becoming more insulting and deceptive Inciting creepy feelings Engaging in slander and distortion Not attempting to argue whatsoever This seems to me to be both totally inaccurate and hypocritical on his part. First of all, all references to term "The Fool" and "The Hill" where done tongue-in-cheek, and even then only because he uses those terms for himself. Moreover, he refers to me repeatedly as a sophist, which given his manner of speaking could easily be understood as "a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound." It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black. Secondly, I did respond to his arguments about language. I clearly pointed out a dichotomy when I said: Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway. Perhaps he's just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That's just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology. Then I pointed out that either conclusion fails to refute my argument. The Fool™ refuses to recognize my arguments, but that does not make them suddenly nonexistent. He must respond to my contentions on language if he wants his refutation to be taken seriously. Notice that, even if he were right, that I am utterly evil in my argumentation, it does not actually prove anything in his favor. That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™? Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top? This is a completely arbitrary, absurd constraint. I can't use a definition of God until I've proved God? How is this nothing more than blatant question begging? The Fool™'s Analysis Fails The Fool™ accuses me of the Fallacy of Improper Transposition. [2] This occurs when failing to switch the antecedent and consequent upon their negation. So, premises 7, 8, and 9 have the form: If not-P, then not-Q I would commit the Fallacy of Improper Transposition if I made the following conclusion: Therefore, if P then Q Thankfully, I do not do that. You see, it is perfectly logical to negate the antecedent so long as you swap them, like so: If not-P then not-Q. Therefore, if Q then P. That is exactly what I do with my argument: If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. Therefore, if there are abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is an immaterial, invariant and universal mind. If have not committed a logical fallacy, and therefore my argument remains valid. The Fool™ keeps referring to negative absolutes as non-existent. However, he doesn't explain why anyone should accept such thinking. At every turn, he keeps arbitrarily saying that my terms don't exist, yet all his terms seem to exist just fine. Well, non-existence is a negative absolute also, so I guess non-existence is non-existent as well, so his contentions all fail. Conclusion The Fool™ was apparently insulted by my use of propositional symbolism, as though I wrote them for his benefit. Sometimes, in order to be clearly understood, it's helpful to use such symbolism to help communicate my intentions to the reader . After all his complaining and arbitrary hand-waving, he goes back to his usual conceit and says I've been outclassed. Well, now I'm insulted. I spent a great deal of time contending each and every point of his single-sentence rebuttals in Round 2 only to be greeted with a giant dismissal of 80% of everything I said. His entire argument rests on a prolific use of ipse dixit . He does not explain why one should dismiss my negative antecedents. He does not attempt to answer my challenge that matter cannot account for abstract entities. He does not respond to my transcendental argument. "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." – Plato Sources http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.fallacyfiles.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The U.S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia. because I accept the fact that the debate isn't about whether certain solutions would or would not completely eradicate piracy. I am saying that we SHOULD invade because it would eradicate the problem in Somalia. I disagree with your points because they DON'T fully achieve destroying the piracy problem, which is what I would hope happens when we invade the country. So my points are based on the assumption that we should invade BECAUSE it would eliminate the problem, which is what I personally want. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because Is pro afraid?He thinks he will beat me?He has relented.With my submissions,I think I have convinced my learned opponent and the debate community because my opponent shows signs that he has been convinced.If he had not been convinced,he should have disagreed with my points.Thanks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against To poop or not to poop, that is the question.. because Sorry for forfeiting that last round. This debate was pointless. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best Yo Mamma Joke because Yo momma so fat she's on both side of the family. Yo mama's a convenient proof that the universe is still expanding exponentially. Yo mama is so old that she walked into an antique store and they kept her. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with illegal imigration is wrong because My opponent has not provided any arguments, thus my points flow through. =D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne because Mothers Get to Pick I told you that I should get to pick because I have more of an investment in the childbirth process, and he says that gender roles are outdated. Unfortunately for him, however, this is not a result of a gender role, this is a result of my sex. I have to carry the child for 9 months and regulate my body. He doesn't have to do any of those things. So, my investment in the process is greater than his, so I should get to pick the name. He also says that he is also listed as a female. That doesn't make difference. He is really a male. I could post videos, but I would get banned ;) Olga is Ugly He turns my argument and tells you that the fact that Olga is ugly is good because it means that we will surprise everyone when our gorgeous baby has an ugly name. Turn this back because surprises are actually bad. They prevent us from getting what we expect and instead deliver us a nasty shock. I mean, who likes nasty shocks? Plus, surprises are known to cause mental damage because of the fact that they do not deliver to us what we expect. Do you want to cause mental damage to yourself when you see an absolutely stunning baby with the name "Olga'? Ariadne is a Princess He's lying! Ariadne was not fictional! She was real, and right now she gets to see all of those gorgeous gods on Olympus *swoons* . . . Ahem, anyways, he also says that Olga is a restaurant. So is Ariadne( http://boston.citysearch.com... ;). So, if you pick Ariadne, the baby gets to be a princess and a restaurant. I outweigh in terms of awesomeness. Unfashionable He says that he is ok with our daughter wearing petticoats. That's a bad thing. Yuck. She will look like a hag. If he likes them so much, he should wear them! (pics, please!) He also says that she will not be an uneducated housewife because there are famous runners named Olga. The problem is that Olga was popular when women were housewives. So, even if there are some non-housewife Olgas, I still win in terms of probability because the vast majority of Olgas are housewives who spend most of their time cooking, cleaning, and making sammiches. Ariadne is Not Common I win again! Ariadne is less common than Olga ever ways. Royal is dominant Don't believe thett! He is hiding the fact that I am always the one leading the sex by pretending that he will be banned if he posts the vids! I am not less dominant . . . well, except for that one time that he approach me on April Fool's Day to start our relationship . . . and the time he made me tell him my first impressions of him. . .and that other time that he made me make him dinner . . . and that time-well, you get the idea. I am clearly in charge of this relationship. Vote for Royal because she is Royal My opponent drops this! YAY! New Argument: He Promised Me I have evidence that he promised me that I could name the child when he was trying to catch my eye. I can post this if he wants :) Nuclear War Turn this entire contention because Nuclear War is a good thing. According to scientific evidence, the only way to end global warming is through nuclear war. That's a good thing. The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict. (Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... ) Second, Nuclear War is good because it will end the suffering of humanity much more quickly than humanity would end otherwise. Apparently, by the year 2050, petroleum deposits will have been substantially depleted and there will be famines. Nuclear War prevents this by reducing the population size greatly and killing off people quickly and painlessly. He is being evil by trying to prevent nuclear war. Proof: http://www.cross-x.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink. because I apologize in advance for this debate; I have nothing against fat people, some of my best friends are fat. Contention 1 Making sand less dense will not cause people to sink. The density of sand is irrelevant to its ability to support obese humanoids. A typical engineering value for dry sand would be a density of about 100-135 pounds per cubic foot [1]. We can then calculate that if the capacity of sand to support humanoids was based on buoyancy, a 300 pound fatty mcgoo would displace 300 lbs/(135 pcf)=2.22 cubic feet. Human body fat has a density of about 0.9 kg per liter [2], or roughly the density of water (62.4 pcf). Thus a 300 pound calorie converter has a volume of approximately 300 lbs/(62.4 pcf)=4.8 cubic feet. We know that fatties walking on sand do not become half submerged, thus it is clear that sand does not support goo monsters through buoyancy. Sand is a solid state material which does not flow, so density is not the crucial parameter in its ability to carry load. The actual physics behind the behavior of sand and soils is quite complex, but the short story is that the shear strength, and thus the bearing capacity of the sand, is impacted by a number of factors and simply making sand less dense will not solve the problem of fat people. Contention 2 Pro offers an incredibly obtuse solution to a very simple problem. Pro would have us invest massive amounts of resources into creating a device which would make sand less dense and then undergo the huge effort of using such a device on all the world’s beaches. Such a plan is clearly inane and unrealistic. The more obvious solution would be to create a device which would make fat people less dense so they float away off the beaches like so many cheeto-dust covered balloons. This preserves the natural order of the world- the bronzed and beautiful get ham-beast free beaches while the fatties stay in their basements or risk floating into orbit like the fleshy planets they are. Contention 3 Letting fat people sink to the bottom of beaches would ruin our beaches. The fat people would die, decompose, and then explode like a beached whale- spewing half-digested slim jims and squid parts all over everyone on the beach.[3] [1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage because Again, my opponent has presented an argument WITHOUT evidence to support his claims. Again you claim, "The government does not want allow gay couples into marriage because this relationship does not have a direct link to the family unit (therefore making it a private relationship, which the government has no interest in)." WITHOUT a source to support this. Where did this point come from and where is your evidence to support it? Again you also claim "This denial of gay couples is not because of sexual orientation, rather it is because the relationship does not have the public means of benefiting the society through the family unit directly." WITHOUT listing said "benefits" that I have asked for MULTIPLE times. What can X do that Y cannot? And why is this relevant when allowing gay couples to marry? This "direct link to the family unit" claim is not valid UNTIL you provide evidence to support this claim because as of now you have yet to present even the smallest form of evidence to support this. This leads me to conclude that you fabricated this claim and tried to pass it off as some form of valid argument. And I think I have made it clear that having children is NOT a legal marriage requirement, so even if you could find evidence to support this claim, it is irrelevant. Every major accredited source I have read says otherwise. Even if having children was a legal marriage requirement (which it's not), gay couples are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual couples. Children need loving PARENTS, not just a "biological mother and a father". What the parents have between their legs is irrelevant when raising children to be productive citizens in society. Children need parents, whether those parents are two men, two women, a men and a women, adoptive, biological, their grandparents, their aunts, their uncles, their older siblings or extended relatives. The "direct link to family unit" is NOT a logical, valid reason to deny gay couples the right of marriage, especially when having children is NOT a legal marriage requirement. Gender is not linked to parenting skills. http://www.psychologytoday.com... Also I must address this claim... "It simply does not make sense that the government recognizes marriage for absolutely no reason." The government does recognize marriage for a reason. Marriage is a LEGAL bond between two people. It allows two people to file taxes with one another, it grants them visitation rights when their spouse is hospitalized or in critical condition, it allows them to make medical decisions for their spouse when they are not able to, it gives two people the right to own property with one another, it grants rights of inheritance and control of their property when their spouse dies, and much more. Having children has nothing to do with this and is, once again, NOT a legal requirement in marriage either. I don't think you truly understand what marriage is, because based on this entire argument so far it seems as if you feel that marriage is some sort of "breeding bond". You don't have to be married to reproduce and that isn't a valid reason to deny gay couples from marriage either. People don't just get married to pop out babies. At this point in the debate, it is clear to me that you do not fully understand the legal implications that come with marriage. And you have yet, to present a logical argument to support your side. It just keeps getting repetitive. For example, you claim "The family unit is overall great for the society and the government wants to promote these units." Once again, you are speaking on behalf of the government but haven't presented any form of evidence to support this claim. You just keep saying it as if it is true, but it's not because it's not the government's responsibility to "promote the family unit". That is something you made up because that is not factual. If it is, feel free to provide sources to prove me wrong. Until then, you are wrong. You also claim, "I would like to note that the reason having children is not a requirement in marriage is because the government wants to promote any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, not the family unit itself." Again, this is not true, at all. You also claim "Gay couples however, do not have direct means of having children. That is the point. One of the requirements of having a direct link to the family unit is that through your own relationship only, that the couple themselves have children." This again, is not true. And you have yet to present evidence to support this. Not only is this not true, it's also irrelevant. The purpose of this debate was for you to present a clear, logical argument against legalizing gay marriage with evidence to support your claims. You have not done this yet. Hopefully you would be able to do so in your next argument. Until then, I await your response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Genetically "enhancing" babies (Designer Babies) because *Sigh* <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Quote Debate because alright time for Disney my quotes... "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. " -Walt Disney "All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you." -Walt Disney <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Animal testing should be banned. because I actually plan on going into the medical field and tho i haven't started it yet, i have had to write numerous research papers in order to get accepted. Most every day medicine that has been used has tested on animals like flue shots, to diabetic medicine. Plus things like cosmetic test are completely overblown, the reality is that very little cosmetic test are actually done on animals. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is 69 and 420 funny?? because 69 is a sex position. 420 is a number that is code for smoking weed. both of thise things are pretty funny i thiink. sometimes i see these numbers as i go about my day and can't help but laught at them. but some people think that they aren't that funny?? please answer - austin <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era. because Queen has had a number of great international hits that have risen to dominate charts in more than 15 different concerts. Queen is also known for their audience participation involvement during concerts, making the crowd feel at unison with their music. "We are the Champions" was voted the most recognizable song in the world (internationally.) Bohemian Rhapsody was also another of their major hits that stayed at #1 in the charts for two weeks. Though bands such as Led Zeppelin or Kiss have been extremely popular, the fact remains that no other band has even come close to matching the legend of Queen. Have I also mentioned that Freddie Mercury was voted the #1 male singer of all-time? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with is Jesus real? because Let me start by saying, yes I AM a Christian. Do I believe Jesus was real? Yes. I don't see how anybody can deny Jesus actually living on this Earth. Whether He was really the Son of God is what is in question. Even most Atheists don't deny that Jesus was on the Earth. They just don't believe that He was who He says he was. My point is this. If Jesus really did even one or two of the things in the Bible, He obviously had divine powers that nobody could have unless they were a "Supernatural" being. Since there IS scientific evidence that some of the things that happened during New Testament times did happen, I don't think that there is any denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal because :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Ultimate Team War - On Location because We come to a bit of a problem here, as my opponent accepted the debate when he shouldn't have. However, the debate shall proceed anyway; everything will be shifted back one round, leaving only three rounds for arguments instead of four. My opponent chose the location of Mars. More specifically, it was Mars from the film Red Planet ( http://www.imdb.com... ), in which Mars is indeed breathable. First, I shall rewrite Rules 1 and 2 accoring to Mars: 1. The war shall take place on Mars, as described in the movie Red Planet and science in general. Mars is currently in a fall equinox. 2. Any team member that escapes Mars' gravitational pull, essentially floating in space, shall be immediately disqualified and vaporized into nothingness (even if they have immunity to such things). My team shall start on the northern polar ice cap. My opponent's team shall start at the southern polar ice cap. Now, to my team members: Team Member 1: Harry Potter Harry is an Auror, a powerful wizard. He's also the Boy who Lived, and the Chosen One, and all that. He uses magic. He brings with him his treasured wand and his Invisibility Cloak. His wiki: http://harrypotter.wikia.com... Team Member 2: Link Link is a corageous Hylian clad in green, who wields a sword and a shield, altough he also has an array of other equipment to choose from. The specific Link I choose to use is the Hero of Twilight, from Twilight Princess , who also has the power to turn into a wolf. He also has the Triforce of Courage, which seems to grant him protection from dark magic and innate skill with weaponry and such things. His wiki: http://zelda.wikia.com... Team Member 3: Kirby Kirby is Popstar's gluttonous hero. He eats things and gains powers from them. He can also float on air, and can run very fast. I am using the anime canon. His wiki: http://kirby.wikia.com... In the next round, my opponent shall pick his five team members, and in Round 3, I shall pick my remaining two. The war will then commence. Good luck, and choose wisely! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued because The first round will be for introductions, definition, and observations and introduce some of your arguments, but not go in depth. I would also like to clarify the topic. Debate topics- in this case, refers to the topic of debate which is either a question or a resolution Critique- in this case, it means that members of this website should evaluate the quality of some resolutions. It can either be a con argument, if the creator of the topic is pro; or, it can be a pro argument, if the creator of the topic is con. The reason is that it can be a pro argument is so that topics will be able to be critiqued even if the author chooses to be con. Also, by affirming the resolution, it does not mean that every topic should be critiqued. By accepting the debate, you agree to the above terms. ===================================================== Observations: 1. Communication is the most important aspect of debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because There are a number of definitions of waterboarding. The definition of interest for this debate is the technique used by the Central Intelligence Agency to interrogate terrorists. Wikipedia quotes a CIA manual: "In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated." [1. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] The resolution affirms that waterboarding should be legal in the United States under certain limited circumstances to be specified. The negation argues that the techniques should never be legal in the United States under any circumstances. Rules The burden of proof in this debate is shared, meaning that the better case should prevail. This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. The Pro case will be given at the start of the second round. Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate: DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments. DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. DR 6. Dropped arguments are not counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case. This debate is part of the 99th percentile tournament http://www.debate.org... Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate. Waterboarding is a much-debated topic. More information has come to light recently, so I'm looking forward to an interesting debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Sonic will not lose to Mario. because I have figured out a way to turn this debate from hypothetical to literal. I drop all of my previous points and will now refer my opponent to the video that I have graciously provided. In it is indisputable proof that Sonic will in fact lose to Mario. For those of you unable to view videos for some reason I will offer a commentary of the scenario. It is a video of a match between two level nine computer controlled characters in the video game Super Smash Brothers: Brawl. All of the items have been turned off so that the characters are fighting using only their skills which includes those listed by my opponent for Sonic. In addition to no items being used they are fighting on a stage that is only a flat surface with no environmental factors that could contribute to their deaths and they both only have one life to work with. My opponent and the audience can clearly see that in a fair fight against equal level computer controlled characters, no items, and no dangerous environmental factors >>>Sonic will in fact lost to Mario<<< at least some of the time. The resolution is negated. I await my opponent's response. [1] Video <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits