text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because Much thanks to Logical_Master for that initial argument. I shall begin by pointing out some attributes of my bear opponent before I go at the individual arguments. First, I am dealing with a grizzly bear that stands at 6-8 feet tall on its hind legs in attack position, and weighs about 300-500 pounds http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. Finding a tree and waiting for the bear to attack. Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole Pines http://www.shannontech.com... http://home.earthlink.net... Lodgepole pines grow quite high, at least up to a height of 30 meters. The lodgepole pines that grow in Yellowstone are of the variety that are branchless from the bottom for the majority of the 30 meters: http://photography.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.wildnatureimages.com... It is then not feasible for me to climb a tree such as this because not only are there no handles or knobs to latch onto, my physical strength will fail me in climbing the tree because I am very, very weak. I can barely lift a 30 pound weight with one arm. Straight-climbing a tree such as the Lodgepole Pine is simply not possible. Even if it were, the nearest branch would be a very long climb upwards, one that I simply could not sustain because of my poor stamina. And since the Lodgepole Pine dominates large expanses of land, and other trees are located far from that location, the time it will take to find such a tree will be much more than 30 minutes. And although I can sprint (in this debate) a mile in five minutes, a bear's top speed is 35m/hour http://www.thebigzoo.com... This translates to running a mile in less than 3 minutes. If we take into account the fact that I am extremely clumsy and unfamiliar with non-sidewalk terrain, it would take even less time for the bear to catch and eat me. This negates my opponent's tree-related suggestions. 2. Using academic knowledge to defeat the bear My opponent greatly exaggerates my intellectual resources. Though I am well versed in pharmacy, I am unable to recognize herbs and flora for their pharmacological uses. This rules out the use of plant poisons. Furthermore, according to: http://www.yellowstoneparknet.com... There are no such poisonous animals that my opponent has stated. If there are, they are far too rare to be catalogued by Yellowstone national park and thus, the time it would take for me to find, kill, and extract the poison from such animals would be well over 30 minutes. As for the targeting of vital spots, I know the locations of vital organs in the human body, but am not aware of their general location in bear anatomy. 3. Playing dead It is a common myth that playing dead will fool a bear. In fact, it is the action of complete submission and outward defensive behavior that will stop a bear attack (such as curling into a ball as my opponent has cited). Since it has been stated that this bear specifically wants to kill me (it is not seeking to ensure my death but specifically to kill me) we can then say that playing dead or curling into a ball will do nothing but lead to my demise. As for the creation of a trap, the preparation of such a trap would probably take a substantial amount of time, not do to thinking, but actual construction. I am sure that my opponent remembers the situation in the first season of Code Geass where Lelouch attempts to trap an animal for food by digging a pit. Though he has spectacular reasoning abilities, his weak frame and lack of tools led to a spectacular failure. A case which will be the same for me. Subduing the bear in the manner my opponent has illustrated is also impossible. First of all, the bear's front limbs and chest are immense bulks of muscle, whereas my spindly little arms will be nothing more than annoying twigs. Second, the bear will stand to heights of 10 feet tall in offensive position (see first few cited links) making its shoulders and head far above my range. 4. The three situations my opponent has listed. http://neveryetmelted.com... ... http://www.freerepublic.com... ... http://query.nytimes.com... ... First, my opponent has mentioned that these are all black bears and not grizzly bears. My opponent seems to be confused by his very own sources. While the first two sources depict black bears, the final source clearly states that the bear was a grizzly. However, for the first two situations: Grizzly bears are larger, heavier, stand taller, have longer and more dangerous claws, and are less herbivorous than Black bears. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Gmt6lk2IbZwJ:www.mountainnature.com/wildlife/Bears/BearID.htm+grizzly+bears+vs+black+bears&cd;=2&hl;=en&ct;=clnk≷=us In the first example, the man fighting the bear had at his disposal, a dog. The dog obviously served as a distraction, allowing him to stab the bear several times in the back. In the second, the bear was shown to be heavily malnourished, as it had little fat (bears tend to have a substantial amunt of fat) and suffering extensive damage (broken jaw, severed tongue) this gave the man a heavy advantage. In the final example, the bear took two bullets albeit to non-vital areas. This would do a substantial amount of damage. In addition, the man fighting was a General with military training, and the bear was preoccupied with attacking the Judge. TO SUM UP: None of my opponent's proposals are feasible. Each one of the possible courses of action that my opponent has listed contains one or more fatal flaws, making it impossible except by way of miracle for me to not only survive, but actually vanquish the grizzly bear. To further add to the near impossibility of mine accomplishing such a feat, must also add that I abhor cruelty to animals and that I find it very hard to perform violent actions to them. This is the result of my being raised in a sheltered household. As far back as I can remember, I have never actually participated in a fight, or actively tried to hurt someone. Faced with a situation such as this, instinct will not fuel my ability to fight, but rather, to flee. This works against the debated notion that I can vanquish a grizzly bear. As more evidence, my opponent probably took quite a long time planning out these tactics. More than 30 minutes, I would say. With access to information such as the internet and between the two of us, we still have come up with no way to survive this grizzly bear attack. Should this have actually happened, the 30 minutes of preparation time would have already been up and I would have been killed because all of the ideas my opponent has put forth so far, would have failed. I await my opponent's response and thank the audience for their time. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate.org should have a better search because My opponent's only argument for why DDO should have a better search was that the results he gets back are preposterous. I have shown that they are not. Since my opponent bears the burden of proof, I win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best original rap because You've admitted to being gay multiple times. It is shown in your profile, and is in your rhymes. Although you wouldn't be put in jail in America for your sodomy crimes, You would allow the police to stick their nines in your behind. Why offer me this challenge? It is so astounding. Oh wait I know, you wanted a good @ss pounding. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Opponents Choice because Thanks to my opponent for actually providing something which resembles a rebuttal. "Any way you see it, killing is morally wrong." Actually, I just presented a way I see that killing would not be morally wrong. "Instead of killing him, you should put him in jail." I am not debating between killing him and putting him in jail. This debate is not about whether killing someone is worse than sending them to jail; sending him to jail was in fact never on the table. I am debating between killing him and letting him go about his merry way. In a utilitarian sense killing him is obviously the better moral choice. (1) Therefore it is not bad. "According to the ten commandments, thy shall not kill." It's actually "You shall not murder." (2) Murder means 'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.' (3) As long as he was not killed in a what that was inhumane, it would not be murder. Bringing down a brutal dictator is hardly barbarous. And that's assuming we even accept that the Ten Commandments are an absolute moral law, which I do not. Conclusion: I have proven that killing Robert Mugabe would not be bad. My opponent has failed to negate my arguments favoring this. Robert Mugabe is someone. Therefore the resolution 'Killing someone is bad' is false. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.biblegateway.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion because :: vi_spex said: "cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe" EVERYTHING is beyond my absolute knowledge due to my flawed senses and perception, thus, I cannot absolutely know ANYTHING. I can, at best, very strongly BELIEVE that I know something. There have been many times in my life where I was *certain* about something within my "physical experience" and then learned that I was wrong. Do you have perfect sight? Perfect hearing? And so on? If not, then you cannot be 100.0% certain that what you see is correct, either, because of the possibility of misperceiving something. Have you ever been fooled by an optical illusion? In that case, "physical experience of now = FALSE" "Knowing" is the same as "believing", except that "knowing" implies a significantly greater degree of certainty, due to evidence of faith (neither of which is necessarily true). You have to BELIEVE that you KNOW something. We don't normally say that we "believe that we know", because it is built into the meaning of the word: know : Be absolutely certain or sure about something. [1] [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Now, "certain" and "sure" have the same basic meaning: sure : Completely confident that one is right. [1] Note that these words imply confidence that one is right; NOT that they are right in actuality. Believe = "I think this is true." Know = "I think this is true without a doubt." :: vi_spex said, "do you know i am wearing a hat right now?" Let's say I was shown pictures of you. Then, let's say that I meet you in person. You are wearing a hat. Surely I would then "know" that you were wearing a hat because I can see it. However, what if I was sent the picture of an imposter, and that I was looking at the imposter instead of you. Even though I am wrong in reality, I "know" that you have a hat on. :: vi_spex said, "if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great" I tasted the cake. I did not accept that you claim it is great. I do not hold the opposite belief from you. I know because I tasted the cake. :: vi_spex said, "for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based" Why does it matter that the matter is opinion based? It still mimics the disbelief situation. If I say to you, "I don't accept that yellow is the best color", that means I'm calling you a lair?!? I don't think so. That just means that I don't accept that AND that I don't accept the opposite of your belief, either. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence because Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate and thank the users for reading. I shall make this debate as simple as possible (due to being in a hurry) by negating the resolution in two ways: 1) NUDITY OUGHT NOT TO BE A CONSIDERATION WHEN RATING A FILM Ladies and gentleman, our ways of life are in need of some serious change. Exactly what is the problem with nudity? What problem is there with features we all have? What is the point to hiding these features when it comes to the silver screen? Why should we be ashamed of our bodies? We seem perfectly fine with allowing mere students to explore the human body at their own whim in health and science classes, via textbook pictures. Other countries seem fine with allowing mere nudity on screen even in innocent children's cartoons. Clearly, our culture needs to progress and stop considering nudity as a factor in the film rating system. Otherwise, I challenge my opponent to point out the problems with mere nudity being presented on screen. Though be warned: If he presents any problems which have been instigated due to our mere repression of onscreen, he shall only be fueling my argument. 2) EXTREME VIOLENCE ALONE OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO GIVE A FILM AN R RATING On the other, extreme violence is a different matter. When I think of extreme violence, I think of small children being skewered/mutilated graphically, human beings slowly having their skin ripped off their body and all other gruesome acts that may leave an impressionable image on a weaker mind (which, typically, is the mind of a non adult); acts that a younger mind may not be prepared to handle. Additional support for my claims can be found here: http://psychcentral.com... Thus, for a brief overview of this round, I'm positing that nudity alone no longer be considered a factor based on the fact that it produces real harmful effects (not to mention that we seem to have already given our children access to it (in the form of textbooks) and that extreme violence alone should be enough for a film to earn an R rating based on the fact that it alone can leave impressionable images on those who do not have a developed mind. I now await PRO's case and shall expound of any of the claims I've made if necessary. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States because I thank Con for his response. :) PRO 1A 1. Living wage is the wage it takes to survive. If a student without a diploma can't earn a living wage, then you vote Pro because I give more people diplomas. Clear link. 2. Con ignores all data I provide in my 1A that gives me a big margin of maximizing employment. The US is calibrated to individual rights. The majority can't succeed without the success of the minority. 3. On pro's source: this article lists 25 jobs that don't require a bachelor's, but there are 2 problems with it. 1: It says nothing of a *diploma*. 2: These jobs can't absorb millions of people, or they already would be. Extend my data on average pay from RD 1. 1B 1. Go back to Con discrimination. If we use his own analogy, these students don't choose not to eat—they are denied food. Homeschooling is a perfectly viable way to exercise one's right to not attend compulsory public education while still protecting children who have no stable home or resources available to them. Con's world represents a net loss in rights for people who need the most protection. 2. Con has yet to show us *how* non-compulsory education will maintain equal opportunities. He's said it, but he hasn't warranted it. 3. Con misunderstood my reference to US laws. That was merely an example of the state being able to mandate behavior for the good of all citizens collectively. CE is the same story. 1C 1. How is it that equal educational opportunities will be provided to underserved students outside of CE? If education is voluntary, then it's voluntary. All motivation to provide equal access is eliminated the moment we do something like privatize schools, which is essentially what a voluntary model looks like. 2. Actually, it is the state's job to provide its citizens with basic necessities. The tax dollars that I am referring to are directed towards these students only because CE exists. The whole "hot meal" thing is being blown out of proportion by Con, but legislation in all 50 states is what has made it the school system's responsibility. The will of the citizens of this nation is to make the education system a *support* system. 2A 1. This made me laugh. Not only are abstract math concepts integral to the development of problem solving & critical thinking skills, but Con *actually* said that persuasive writing is a useless skill! What is Con doing RIGHT NOW? I do believe he is on a website designed for the sole purpose of writing persuasively. 2. You've given us a claim that education is worthless with no warrants, & then tried to distract us by saying that you don't have to prove yourself universally true. I have yet to see a warrant, though. 3. Extend the standards I quoted. The meat of my argument lies in those warrants. The standards cover *essential* skills, which directly counters the Con advocacy. 2B 1. Con has yet to address the fact that not every child has a parent that is willing or able to fulfill their parental obligations. Since social and life skills are directly tied to successful citizenship & stable individual welfare, the state's obligation is evident. 2. No system is perfect. Con seems to think that I have to eliminate ALL people who don't graduate from high school in order to win this debate. That's not the case. I just have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms. 3. Con still has yet to warrant how he'll be accessing all of the benefits of a Pro world without using CE. He'll need to do that sometime soon. CON C1 1. I quoted you. You admit you can't prove that education is actually useless. I've given you a block of evidence to the contrary, but apparently we should just believe you anyway. 2. The hot meal thing is provable. First of all, it's the reason that the federal government created the free/reduced lunch program [1]. Not only that, but the world community has already come to the conclusion that schools have an obligation to provide food to their students: "WFP School Feeding Programmes encourage children to attend school by providing a free nutritious meal…In many cases, this may be the only meal children eat during the day. This simple meal helps children concentrate on their studies & ensures they attend class [2]." The US is part of this community, & participates in & funds WFP. [1] http://www.fns.usda.gov... [2] http://www2.hawaii.edu... 3. Taking out hot meals doesn't really affect my offense. Education being useless, on the other hand, is key to voting Con. If I prove this claim untrue (which I have), then you can vote Pro on that alone. 4. Moving target, Con. You say in RD 1: "Compulsory education doesn't serve a meaningful purpose…The only skill education has successfully imparted is obedience & the will to accept authority." That entire C1 is talking about how *all* CE education is useless. Now, you concede that some education is useful. Which is it? 5. Con does have the obligation to prove CE a flawed system. Again, in RD 1, he says, "CE makes kids accept being a tool of the working machine…CE fails to educate…CE has dissipated intelligence…CE is purposeless." He's trying to get you to eliminate a system based on flaws he either can't prove exist, or that have proved fixable. He *must* prove that CE harms outweigh the benefits. C2 1. When do I say schools, teachers, & students are equal? In fact, I've maintained throughout that they aren't, which is why we need CE & the standards movement. I'm working to fix inequality. He's entrenching it. 2. So we both accept that my link is a legit piece of evidence illustrating the essential skills being taught in K-12 education. 3. This basically stated that education is being improved by the standards movement. If education continues to improve as it is now (which researchers predict it will), then the statistical gap between homeschooling & public schooling will disappear. 4. I don't understand how this translated argument gets you any offense. C3 1. "If we make education voluntary, then maybe the need for a diploma will just go away." 1: Says who? 2: How many people have to starve & rape the economy before that happens? My crystal ball is currently out of service, so I guess he'll need to consult his. Extend specialization again. The need for more advanced degrees is currently RISING, not falling, & it has more to do with global competition, which Con cannot solve for, than internal employer preference. 2. You didn't cover institutional discrimination at all. You can't. Your advocacy cannot solve for it. Mine does. Also, it doesn't matter who you were addressing; the casualties of adopting your advocacy don't change. Con talks about people who will logically seek out food if they are hungry as if there is always just food laying around for the hungry to eat. Education is the same way. Without available resources, it ain't gonna happen. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Haiku Battle because I'll win this debate, There is no doubt about it. For I am awesome. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Convert Me because Thank you. -- Content -- Rebuttal Section: • Argument 1 • Argument 2 • Argument 3 • Argument 4 o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an o Abrogations in the Qur'an • Argument 5 o Prophecies Argument Section: • Argument 1 o Historical Evidence -- Rebuttals -- • Argument 1 My opponent said that even if he accepts the safest bet argument, that does not confirm the truth of Islam. In theory, if no religion besides one claim exclusive truth, then they do not say that Islam cannot be the truth. So, by being a Muslim, you are safe if Sikhism, Hinduism, or whatever religion out there may be right in its teachings. They are universal but set some criteria. • Argument 2 My opponent accepts that the six/eight days (the word used for 'days' is 'yawm', which can also mean period) misinterpretation is not a contradiction. • Argument 3 Regarding the theory about seven heavens, I did not ultimately conclude that the Qur'an is "right," but that the verses are not in conflict with science, as my opponent claimed. Maybe future evidence will confirm it, maybe not because Homo Sapiens may be extinct, but right now, it is not valid to say that it is a scientific error. I know that my source about the layers was adding one more, meaning six in total, but I gave an example. Magnetosphere is also a part.[1] • Argument 4 o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an My opponent stated that my source contains contradictory claims. The Qur'an was in its full form during the lifetime of the beloved Prophet, but it had to be compiled into one book. Many people memorized the Qur'an, wrote it on many things, and this way, it was easy for people to compile it later on. After his death, few problems occured, and Uthman had to find a quick and effective solution to this. What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original, and burn the unoriginal ones. He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one. This one is not in its full form, because it is old, but it is still logical that the Qur'an has remained fully pure to this day. Arabs used to write every single 'event' down. Had the Qur'an been different, they would have written about different copies etc. They wrote about Uthman compiling it, and burning unoriginal copies. Had even one Arab male and female known an unoriginal form of the Qur'an, memorized it, gotten offspring, and passed on their memorization of it through generations, would we not see at least one single different Qur'an today? Yes, we would. Islam is split into many 'sects'. However, all sects have one Qur'an. If we argue about anything, we can refer to the Qur'an. If Catholics and Protestants argue, what will they refer to? Some will refer to the Bible of 73 books, others of 66, etc. They are in conflict over their 'versions' of the Bible. We Muslims are not in conflict over that. Look for any video on YouTube for any Qur'an recitation, and you will find 0% difference in the text. See sources: [2], [3], [4] o Abrogations in the Qur'an I validly rebutted my opponents claim, but he said, "This is also consistent with a man made Religion, with a Prophet acting very much as a politician." It is not obligatory to follow Islam. The Qur'an says that in [2:256], [10:99] and other similar passages. If one wishes to be a non-Muslim, he is free to do so. He can be intoxicated, or anything similar. Islam, being a religion that calls for good good hygiene, good conduct, healthy lifestyle etc., will not allow things like intoxicants. A person can feel free to follow what Islam teaches. If he wishes to remain safe, he can follow the teachings of Islam. They are nothing but guidance for people. Whoever follows Islamic system of life, marriage, hygiene, behaviour, etc., will be a successful person to an extent. So, in an Islamic country, Islamic teachings are followed (note: they are not fully applied in any nation this day). Intoxicants etc. are therefore prohibited. Why? They cause family problems, sadness, health problems, accidents, bad behaviour, etc. Similar things are also prohibited. It is to protect people and let them live safe lives. The world is big enough, so if people wish to ruin their lives, they are welcome in most of the world. You are not a disbeliever if you do things that are sinful. Islam sets rules that are good. They are safe for all to follow. A person who follows them will have no confusion in his life. Islam tells him how to keep a good hygiene, such as washing himself five times every day before prayers, making sure his clothes are clean, etc. • Argument 5 o Prophecies My opponent states that the prophecies are 'highly simplistic' and concern 'moral issues'. They are simple per se, but all of them being correct, or showing signs of being correct in the future, indicates that someone greater than humans knew all this. For example, something about men looking like women means men will wear make up, etc., and there is also the thing with transsexuals, who are able to get surgeries that can make them look like the opposite gender. This has never been able before the latest centuries. Who could have known this? "Great distances will be traversed in short spans of time"[5] "Smog will appear over cities because of the evil that they are doing"[6] Who could have known all this? Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also said, "The Hour will not begin until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers." (Muslim) Compare it to sources: [7], [8] No other religion has these extraordinary, true claims. Also, 'once again' means that it was once meadows and rivers, and even that is proved scientifically. As for the completeness of the Qur'an, I have addressed this, and will refer my opponent to source #9 and #10. -- Arguments -- • Argument 1 o Historical Evidence The Qur'an speaks of historical events. A good example is one of Pharaoh of the time of Moses (peace be upon him). The Qur'an speaks about the famous story of the splitting of the sea, saving Moses, drowning Pharaoh. Is this true? Read [Qur'an 10:90-91] please. [Qur'an 10:92] "This day shall We [Allah] save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" God told Pharaoh that his body will be saved as a sign for future generations. Somewhere in 1970's, at the Red Sea, a body was found. It was not mummified, yet it was perfectly preserved. Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a great scientist and a former Christian who converted to Islam, was called to examine the body. He said there is no doubt that this is Pharaoh of Moses' time. Muslims told him that the Qur'an already said this. He was amazed, learned Arabic, etc., and converted to Islam. He studies the Qur'an entirely, and found it to speak amazingly about astronomy, geology, etc. This is God speaking of an exclusive truth, saying something no human could ever do. [Qur'an 41:53] "Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth." Thanks. -- References -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.saudinf.com... [3] http://www.sunnipath.com... [4] http://www.islamic-awareness.org... [5] http://frameshiftcoaching.files.wordpress.com... [6] http://www.pollutionissues.com... [7] http://io9.com... [8] http://www.cbsnews.com... [9] http://www.answering-christianity.com... [10] http://www.amazon.co.uk... [11]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=_f7b3pDZAxY <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC) because I stand in negation. As my opponent is PRO, I will allow him to open. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against College admissions should give preference to minorities because The fact that they're helpless should mean that they wouldn't do very good in school. Especially in schools like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Bible Is Not God's Word because You can not prove if God does exist or not, its all about your faith. The errors in the Bible I can not prove to be false, but if someone wishes to believe in them I, nor you have the right to say they are wrong. If they wish to believe in these fake texts let it be so. I am afraid that you just might have proven that God does not exist. After this debate ends I want you to find the reason for all those testimonies and all those visions, because if they are true you can not say God, his will, etc. are fake. I rest my case when you prove that! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive because The conquest and evangelization of the American continent by Spain in the 16th century is a much maligned aspect of the history of my country. I maintain, however, that the Spanish conquest was extraordinarily benign, particularly in comparison to contemporary colonization attempts. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Hunting should NOT be illegal. because First of all, I think biopower should be completely disregarded since we have two definitions that are equally accurate. I'd like to point out next that if you choose to keep biopower and go with my opponents's definition, you may want to ask my opponent were they got their definition for biopower because I checked ALL of the sites they offered, and not one refers to biopower even once, at least not in the way my opponent uses it. Finally, in reference to biopower, my opponent uses it as a reason to say that "because a deer does NOT consent to death, we are infringing on THE ANIMAL'S RIGHT to LIFE."(this came from round one). I want to point out that a deer has NOT consented to death when it's lying in a field or the woods dying slowly and painfully of disease and/or starvation, therefore, a "natural" death also violates the idea of biopower. As you can see, I have shown three flaws in my opponent's use of biopower, and I would recommend dismissing biopower all together. Granted, I can't tell you what do to, and this leads to something else I want to point out. My opponent, throughout the debate, tells the voters to dismiss certain arguments, I want to point out that whether or not an argument is dismissed is neither my nor my opponent's choice, it's the choice of each voter individually. Next my opponent states that I said I am "interacting LIKE other animals". This is a fallacy, I stated that I am interacting WITH other animals in the WAY THAT I WAS MEANT TO. THAT is why bunnies aren't blasting away wolves and mountain lions. RABBITS ARE MEANT TO BE EATEN! MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES ARE MEANT TO EAT, THEREFORE, MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES EAT RABBITS! See how that works? I have already shown why biopower should be ignored. Finally, I did NOT say the excise tax keeps wolves and mountain lions out of our back yards, I said the excise tax went to education courses and land conservation. And while the money doesn't HAVE to come from excise taxes, it generally does. My opponent would know that if they had taken a hunter trapper education course. I'd also like to point out that there is no rule that states I can't introduce new arguments in the middle of the debate, therefore, conduct point does NOT go to Con. My opponent states that we don't need meat. This is not entirely true, while it's no longer a staple like it used to be, most people still eat meat, and taking it away would destroy their lives. Being a vegetarian(not eating meat) is a choice, but us being omnivorous(we eat both meat and plants) is scientific fact, therefore meat is still something we should be ingesting. Visit this link.( http://wiki.answers.com... ) Next, my opponent states we have the technology to avoid meat. While this is true, it does NOT mean we have the money. Ex: We have the technology to send people to the moon every year, but we don't have the money. Next, I will drop the God given rights, and pick up natural rights. First of all, natural rights apply only to man(visit this link http://www.u-s-history.com... ), so they hold no ground in this debate. Next, my opponent states that they do NOT insure happiness. Now WHAT is the POINT of LIVING if you aren't HAPPY?! There is none, a miserable life is just as bad, if not worse then, death. I'll consent that my third argument is not really an argument(there is also no bad conduct there). This is because in order for my opponent to be forcing their views on me, they would have had to stick to the debate topic of why hunting should or shouldn't be illegal. They haven't been doing this, they have been arguing why killing is immoral, and that is not what the debate is about. My opponent also comments that taking life isn't fair. Guess what. LIFE ISN'T FAIR! I'd like to address genocide again. My opponent claims that hunters are wiping out deer in certain areas. This is, once again, a fallacy. My opponent fails to realize that hunting has regulations to avoid deer being wiped out in any areas, and if they are wiped out in an area, it is because of poaching(an activity done by a poacher. Visit this link for the definition of a poacher. http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Since poaching is illegal to begin with, outlawing hunting would NOT eliminate that problem. Next, my opponent states that death is emotional for some and not others. A fallacy. Death is ALWAYS emotional, but the emotion doesn't have to be that of sadness. The emotions can range everywhere between depression and apathy. I'd also like to point out that there is NO RULE AGAINST EMOTIONAL APPEALS. Because of this, my argument still stands. My opponent has admitted there have been no traditions around as long as hunting, so the other short traditions listed cannot be used in this area. If my opponent agrees, I propose we drop tradition entirely since it is getting neither of us anywhere, and just wasting characters. I've shown how emotional appeals hold strong, so keep my response to my opponents third contention. I'd also like to point out that the point of a debate is to persuade the reader to your views, therefore, arguments do NOT have to be based solely on logic.(not that this matters because my emotional appeals are based on logic and emotion together anyway) By the way, the comment on Euclid's Elements was just a fun fact, not an argument. Where you live DOES have something to do with debate. Now, since you have kindly asked me not to quote comments, I won't. I will, however, use the idea from a comment since it is a better way of getting my point across. My point was on how you comment about land usage. Where you live matters because you must use things that used up land, and this is not the fault of hunters. The rest of what my opponent says is just recap that I've already addressed. Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for not bringing up safety as a reason for why hunting should be illegal(not that they really gave any solid reasons for hunting to be illegal, just reasons for why killing is wrong which doesn't address the debate topic.) because statistically speaking, hunting is a very safe sport. Soccer is eight times as dangerous and cheerleading seven times. Go to this link for exact details. http://books.google.com... Finally, just as a reminder to all, the closing statements will contain NO NEW ARGUMENTS. They will only contain recap. A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance. A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Apathy is not a f****** ideology! because My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Religion can be considered important because Thank you for accepting! I know we will have a great debate! Your arguments can be summarized simply as "my resolutions are not being fulfilled by religion, but by the mindset that accompanies religion". In this case I should simply say that I agree with the attributes of mindset you presented, however, I should point out that the cause of that mindset is religion. Ergo, religion is considered to be important. If it was not for religion, the individual would not be able to develop such a powerful mindset on life. Since those few premises I presented in round one have been accounted for, I should now present a new premise: 4. Religion is important to the individual by: a. Something is important if one will guard or share it with others. b. People will defend their religion with their own life. c. Ergo, religion is considered important because people will guard it with their life. I thank you for your time and attention in this debate! And I look forward to your next argument! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Debate.org classic: FINAL ROUND: LOGICAL-MASTER VS THELWERD because [ Introduction ] Thanks again to Johnicle for starting/running the tournament, Phil for sponsoring it, the debaters who participated and the judges for judging. I would also like to congratulate LM for making it this far in the tournament -- he is certainly an esteemed and formidable opponent! I look forward to a fun and challeneging debate. That said, Welcome to the Final Round. Let's go!!! [ Defining Love ] What is love? It is a word composed of 4 letters - 2 vowels, 2 consenants (in English) in an attempt to define a truly ambiguous, controversial and ineffable emotion. Unfortunately the dictionary.com definition provided cannot suffice as a true indicator of what the term actually means; my opponent himself discusses the various 'types' of love one can have or share. One interpretation of Protagoras' take on relativism is the notion that "Man is the measure of all things," which was a concept expanded by Plato when he stated, "Knowledge is nothing but perception." Socrates agreed, "What seems true to anyone is true for him to whom it seems so." In other words, how one perceives or defines love is relative, and that discrepancy provides many holes in my opponent's argument (especially his first contention). The point here is that one can define love in many ways, for instance by measure of acceptance, trust, happiness, etc. At the same time, you hear phrases like "fatal" or "poisonous" love in an instance where 'love' leads to negative consequences such as death or destruction, be it figurative or literal. If my opponent wishes to introduce the argument that love is a broad term (i.e. not limiting the debate to romantic love specifically, but encompassing all types of love such as the love between a parent and a child, for instance), then we must acknowledge that subsequently a perception of love can also include highly negative connotations as well. An example of this includes killing in the name of love. Consider, for instance, the millions of lives lost in holy wars throughout the ages where people have waged destruction based on the idea that god = love and that their god and consequently love is worth killing for. Under my opponent's parameters for the debate (in terms of the definition), this idea must be considered as a way in which the indistinguishable term 'love' can equivolate to not only positive terms, but also negative realities such annihilation, genocide, evil and hate. [ Contention 1 - Love as Experience ] Ignoring the fact that my opponent has presumptiously and falsely eluded to what my arguments for this debate must entail, let us simply evaluate the facts -- Pro argues that failure (in this case failure = losing love) incorporates the valuable life lesson of experience, which helps formulate the concept of maturity. There are two huge flaws with this ideology: A) Pro has not proved that a loss of love is necessary or even beneficial in terms of one's growth as an individual. For instance, say Tom Jefferson failed numerous times at 'creating' the light bulb. Let us also suppose that at the inception of his journey; however, Person A was simultaneously after the same goal as good ol' Tom. Assuming that Person A had the opportunity and the know-how to accomplish such a goal, and that Person A not failed numerous times as Jefferson had, then he or she (Person A) could have invented the lightbulb even before Jefferson had succeeded. In that case, the result would have been the same (artificial light), but without an unnecessary waste in time, materials, resources, etc. And if you try to argue that Jefferson's failures could have sent him down a different path in terms of his discoveries, I could just as easily argue that the resources and efficiency saved in having invented the lightbulb sooner would have left more opportunities for Person A to further his development and create something even more creative or advanced than the lightbulb. * The point here is that failure is not always a pre-requisite for success. * B) Pro writes, "through gaining the knowledge and experience of love and losing, one is better able to decide whether or not they feel that the pain of lost is too great to pursue love any further." If we are to buy into this contention, we must also realize that via the same logic, someone can also choose NOT to pursue love any further. Anyone who has experienced true heartbreak can attest to the unequivocal and incommunicable suffering such a loss may elude to. For some, the pain of losing love is so great that they may choose to close themselves off entirely to new relationships and experiences, or even go so far as to end their own lives. Consider the various Shakesperean plays or other works of art which supports the notion that love can lead to permanent damage or irreparable anguish which can destroy a person's sanity/soul. [ Contention 2 -- Love as Sex ] For this premise, my opponent wishes to define love as a sexual act, and the flawed logic he uses to sustain such a notion is abundantly evident: A1) Simply because the phrase 'making love' is sometimes used to describe physical intimacy does NOT make love a necessary or even commonality when referencing sexual intercourse! Let us not confuse love and sex just because certain beliefs - religious, moral, social or otherwise - promote this unsupported, highly disputed and illogical ideal. That said, my opponent cannot suggest that the topic reads, "It is better to get laid and no longer get laid by the individual you've gotten laid with than to have never gotten laid at all." It is simply and blatantly false, as it does not actually pertain to the topic of debate at all. A2) For laughs, even if we did assume that love = sex, my opponent is wrong in suggesting that losing sex/love "is not really that big of a deal considering that just about any other potential partner can offer it." This disregard for the 'act of love' tells me that 1 - he already argued his own point that sex = love if sex is so easily replacable, and 2 - that he has probably not had a lot of sexual experiences, as those who are sexually active can attest to the fact that no two lovers are the same or offer the same or even especially similar physical/emotional reactions/results. B) Perhaps most absurdly of all, Pro argues that 'love' a.k.a. sex is necessary as it is the basis of the continuation of our species - reproduction. This could not be more wrong! Surely Pro and the judges alike are aware of technological advances which have made sex (not to mention love!) a completely unnecessary aspect of reproduction. Religious and moral implications aside, it is not only possible but increasingly popular for the use of "unnatural" means to pregnancy, such as in vitro fertilization, 'test-tube' babies, surrogate mothers, sperm donation, etc. Thus no type of love OR sex is required by any means for the continuation of our species. [ Re-Cap ] My opponent points out that his sole points have been: love as experience; sex as pleasurable; and sex as a means of reproduction and the continuation of humanity. The latter 2 points have been entirely disputed by the reality that sex does NOT equal love, for starters. And in regard to experience, I have made the claims that 1 - one can gain life experience without having lost love, i.e. It Is Better To Have Loved and Not Lost, and 2 - Sometimes the experience of lost love can have far more damaging effects to an individual than never having loved at all. Let us also recall my contention that the concept of love can also lead to horrible fatalities and other tragedies causing severe harm to the human race and individuals alike. That said, like Pro I am also reserving the right to mention any additional arguments in Round 2 as well as elaborate on the former proposed contentions. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate -- Good Luck, LM! -- L <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Breathing is good for you because I thank my opponent for this debate and will now wrap up. 1. Yes, but the liquid in the water will prevent gas exchange in the lungs, making the air inside the water negligible. 2. Agreed, but it is still a situation in which breathing can be harmful. 3. Yes, but they are uncomfortable. You might as well hold your breath for a few seconds until you pass by the odor. My opponent has refused to comment on any of my other points. Thus, I have proven that there are at least a few occasions in which breathing would be BAD for you. To recap: 1. Breathing while underwater 2. Breathing toxic gas 3. Breathing too much None of these points were debunked. Thank you audience, Vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better) because I dont know halo is just too fake <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against A border fence is needed along America and Mexico. because Arguments extended. Please note that, according to the rules set forth in round 1, this debate is over. Awaiting a "no round as agreed" or the time limit to enter the voting period. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past because Thank you for the answer, Con. Now i shall proceed with a rebuttal. Con admitted that given enough time, one could theoretically hit a certain point on a dartboard. Now that that is settled,let's see what Con presented. "Pro erred concerning the area of points on the tip of the dart. There are a an infinite number of points there as well." True,there are infinite number of points on the tip of the arrow (i prefer to call it arrow). But i was talking about the measurable area that hits the dartboard. That area is NOT a mathematical point,once again. If we were to look at it like Con did,the infinite number of points on the arrow will hit the infinite number of points on the fraction of the dartboard. In this case we have two infinites to deal with and we cannot make any proportion with just infinites. 1/infinity is undefined as infinity is not a number. But we know that if a number we are dividing with approaches infinity (in 1/x , x->infinity) then the product number is approaching 0. If the number is extremely small,we can start treating it as 0,but it is not the actual 0. So if you choose an AREA on the dartboard (that is the area of the tip of the arrow or bigger,say 2cm^2) Then chances are, of course bigger than 1/x , x->infinity,because x in this case does not go towards infinity,but is a finite number. I used the example with mathematical points to explain that the concept of infinity is meaningless to the argument,therefore proving that the chances of something happening are greater than 0. Of course that something had to happen within the constant laws of physics. In this case it's the past. We have enough proof of amino-acids combining to form proteins (we depend on that),and we have been able to prove that it is possible and even project it and see what could have happened. Just like if we choose an area of the dart so small that we have 10^67 chance to hit, given the time of 100 billion years. Though this is only the chance of that happening, it does not mean that it has to happen in the exact 100 billion years. We can hit that small area that we have 1 in 10^67 chance in one try. It is possible. It is also possible that proteins necessary for life can form in 1 billion years and less. We are not breaking any laws here. By this i proved that Con's claim that my analogy accomplishes nothing is false. I do not understand this from Con,i beg him to explain this sentence to me: "The probability for life coming about, on the other hand, is the dartboard equivelant to the probability for making a bull's eye once during one's entire life." Moving on: Occam's razor doesn't always mean that a solution with fewest assumptions is true. Con's Columbus analogy assumes that a law must be broke in order of something being achieved,that is, the law needs to be broke for that something to be achieved. It is possible and practical that someone altered the sources and did that unscathed. The example is with Hitler, sources tell that he shot himself in the bunker,but i read the news earlier this year on a popular website and in the newspaper that Hitler was alive,living in South America for 20-ish more years or so after the war. Though this is quite arbitrary,it is theoretically possible and "practical",since no one else saw Hitler's body besides a few dozen of his generals,before being thrown in a hole and lit on fire,so the allies wouldn't find/identify the body. And he was known for having an identical double. Now let the assumptions fly all over the place. "Ahem. Probability is the chance something will happen in the future. We are taking the pre-life view on earth for the purposes of this discussion. We can't calculate the probability of an event that's already happened. It's over. However, we can calculate the possibility that a view of history is correct. Pro could be arguing here that life did arise from non-life, and that therefore the event of abiogenesis occuring was obviously possible. However, that argument falls flat also. Why? Because abiogenesis was not recorded historically, and there is no evidence for it." So if probability is the chance something will happen in the future, then it means that probability is not meant for explaining the past. Well that is the point. Probability argument fails when it comes to explaining the past,it's meaningless! The evidence for abiogenesis is not relevant to this debate. And also scientists propose multiple number of hypotheses and then test them. The ones that pass the test become theories. So far we have a lot of evidence that life came from non-life during a series of chemical reactions. Now how exactly it came,scientists are still not sure,but as science progresses, we will eventually have the answer. Since this is not relevant to the debate,i will not go into detail here. For the raindrop analogy...Yes the chances of a raindrop to hit your nose is definite. But a chance raindrop that did hit your nose in the past,to actually hit your nose is 1 in 10^58 as i calculated. We are talking about that particular raindrop. See what is happening here? For your closing example you are looking at the Rushmore mountain faces as an uninformed person and assume that they formed naturally. However it's not just the calculating you have to do,as you already know. You have to do a research,collect the evidence and then form a theory. This is what scientists did. The theory of abiogenesis from non-life is a valid theory. You falsely assume in your final example that scientists are uninformed about the topic under discussion and research. That is all from me, can't wait to hear Con's rebuttal. Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Crew the best sport because Actually I understood that paragraph rather well. But I still have to disagree. Crew is one of the least mental sports you could participate in. Its all about rote movement and programming your body to do the same thing over and over again. It has been proven that stupid people are better at stuff like that. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abel Would Have Killed Cain because Rebuttal (numbered arguments continued from prior round) 6) CON: "God wanted animal sacrifices so that man's sin could be forgiven, but more importantly, he wanted to teach the value of life." This is asinine to the extreme. CON would either like you to believe that i) by killing living beings in their prime, you learn the value of life, or that ii) "killing for the glory of God" is the path to forgiveness and salvation. i) By this measure, Cain learned the value of life by killing Abel, and that what Cain did by killing Abel was righteous, as much so if not even more so than Abel's killing of animals for the glory of God. This is a moral contradiction in CON's argument, as Cain was condemned for such killing and not held to be righteous. ii) If there is such a thing as "killing for the glory of God", perhaps we can say that Osama bin Laden "killed for the glory of God" when he carried out the 9/11 attacks, or that we "killed for the glory of God" when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To describe such acts as "Biblically moral" would more than likely rub most people the wrong way. The morality that CON wants you to think the Bible is advocating is absurdly contradictory and can be used to justify the most heinous acts of genocide and terror. One need only look at Joshua's treatment of Canaan to see how such Biblical morality can justify what most people would consider to be the pinnacle of immorality: "... in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. " (Deuteronomy 20:17-18) "... they set fire to the city and burned it to the ground, along with everything in it... " (Joshua 6:24) The Jews of Joshua bear much resemblance to the pastoral Mongols of Genghis Khan, who were also genocidal, monotheistic, and marauding. What is Detestable is Arbitrary What were these "detestable things [the Canaanites] do in worshiping their gods?" We can look to Cain and Abel and a bit of Jewish history to get an answer. The Jews were pastoral. They managed livestock while in Egypt, and took what animals were under their care when they left (Exodus 12:31-32). Job's wealth was measured in the livestock he managed, not in the numbers of acres he tilled (Job 1:1-3). The Jews evidently favored meat and livestock over farming. And so, of course Cain the farmer is evil, and Abel the shepherder is good in the eyes of a Jewish God. This is all Biblical morality boils down to when it comes to the story of Cain and Abel - Cain was evil because he was a farmer. Such a standard of morality is absolutely arbitrary...the civilizations of Eden (i.e. the Tigris and Euphrates, Genesis 2:14) that grew crops in the Fertile Crescent would have considered the Jews and their marauding ways to be evil, a sentiment which manifested in the Jews' Babylonian captivity and enslavement (book of Daniel). Killing out of Love 7) CON: " The Torah is actually rooted in love and compassion, not in commandments. What pleased God was not the fact that Abel killed animals, but that he recognized his own sinfulness and was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, sacrifice an animal, and repent of his ways..." Again, this is absolutely asinine. Perhaps dropping the a-bombs and flying airplanes into skyscrapers were "sacrifices" done as "acts of love and repentance". Or perhaps it is only when a Christian does it. Again, this "standard" of morality advocated by CON is totally arbitrary. Etc 8) CON argues that " no matter what happens, Cain will always choose to do evil, not that God is preventing him from doing good." This fully supports that God created Cain to be evil, that God created evil at the very least in the instance of Cain. An omnibenevolent God does not create evil...this is a Biblical contradiction. 9) CON then concludes that " The Bible gives very good explanations as to why Abel would not have killed Cain based on his nature, " yet CON does not describe what this nature is. The explanation is simple. Abel descended from Adam...Abel was sinful like Adam. Cain was a farmer, and farmers are "bad" to pastoral societies. So Cain was banished to the east (which happens to be where the Fertile Crescent was located). Conclusion CON does not contest that a) Abel was descended from Adam and thus was sinful like Adam, and that b) human nature is sinful and acquisitous according to the Bible. Abel managed flocks, and Jews were pastoral. Abel was thus "good" and Cain "evil". Such is the depth of Biblical morality. Had God looked upon Cain's offering with favor instead of Abel's, Abel's sinful nature would have compelled him to kill Cain. My argument holds. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Preschool Is A Waste Of Time because Phil, I do agree with your closing argument. First and foremost being a parent is a serious decision that is often taken to lightly. It is your job, your entertainment and your life from the day that the little one is conceived. A cherished gift that should never be pawned off on anyone. Second, I agree that the government should not be paying for preschool. I also believe that most preschools are set up primarily as a day care and that parents often use them as means to get a break from their children. This is NOT what preschool should be. I do know first hand that preschool can be a positive experience for a child. I had the privilege of going to a christian preschool where we were read Bible stories, went on nature walks and sang songs like Jesus loves me. The fact that I still have fond memories to this day about the time spent there says a lot, but I do agree that it may not be for every child. It is a decision that should not be assumed but one that should be discussed and decided with the individual child in mind. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. because Will do. =) 1. Popular Vote vs. Equality: To clarify, I never stated that the popular vote is meaningless. I merely stated that there is an exception that cannot be forgotten nor ignored. Take the civil war, for example. The events that led to such a "civil unrest" were similar in that the majority was in direct conflict with the idea of equality. Although my opponent fears for an "inevitable" chaos following the legalization of gay marriage, there is a more subtle chaos at work as things are now. The popular sentiment clashes with the core value of equality. The civil war demonstrated the struggle between the two ideals. Take, for example, the following quotes. >>>The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race".<<< (1). Abraham Lincoln, 1855: >>>As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics."<<< (2). Although the oppressed demographic was different then than it is now, the same basic idea applies. So was it wrong to abolish slavery? Of course it wasn't. 2. Definition of Equality: My opponent states that the definition of equality is uniformity. However, this is only one take on the definition of equality. Equal opportunity is not so static as to deny others the lifestyle of their choice. I define equality as a complex consideration of ability, situation, etc. It's not fair to deny someone something because they aren't exactly like you. 3. Homosexuality is innate: I have seen any logical reasoning on my opponent's side to say that it isn't. The fact that such a "correlation" exists just lends support to my argument. Thus, it is not immaterial to this debate. 4. Children and animals CANNOT give consent: First off, children and animals both lack the cognitive abilities to give legal consent when it comes to marriage. Particularly in the case of animals, seeing as my opponent confuses instinct with consent. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. 5. Polygamy and Polyandry: There is a reason that polygamy is not allowed besides that it would "re-define" marriage. One person cannot collect insurance benefits from multiple spouses. That is a blatant cheating of the law. Again, legalizing homosexual marriage would still require monogamy. 6. Education: We have already indoctrinated our youth and society with homophobic propaganda. Conclusion: Gay marriage is an extremely important issue in society today. Homophobia and anti-gay violence is a common and remarkable occurrence. The grounds of denial of consenting and monogamous individuals are littered with hypocrisy, fear, and inequality. America should no longer allow such grounds and stick to the value of true equality. I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. =) Sources: (1) - http://www2.tsl.state.tx.us... (2) - The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 323. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God because Again, I thank my opponent for his contributions and appreciate the humility and integrity it takes to admit defeat. As such, please vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Richard Dawkins because Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. Although the resolution title and my opponent's position are quite confusing, my opponent's first round makes clear what we will be debating. My opponent has asserted that Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist, and it is my task to show otherwise. As there are no arguments to rebut, I will define a few terms and await my opponent's first argument. Fundamentalism: "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life." SOURCE: [1] Religious Fundamentalist: "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation." SOURCE: [1] I await my opponent's arguments and hope this is an enlightening debate. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God Failed in his Duty as a Protector because Thank you very much. My opponent argues that God forsook Jesus (peace be upon him) by letting him die on the cross without saving him. However, did God's promise about protecting Jesus come true, or did it not, as my opponent implied? I will, by the will of God, ultimately prove that God fulfilled His promise and never let Jesus die on the cross. As a matter of fact, I will use the Bible itself to prove this. I will prove that the lies about God not protecting Jesus, even though He promised to, are indeed horrible, deceitful lies that have no good basis in the Bible. -- Arguments -- God promising to save Jesus: [Psalm 91:3] "Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence." There are many similar passages. God ultimately promised to save Jesus from the wrath of his enemies, and I will prove that the promise came true. o Jesus came back in human form In the Bible, there is not one single verse that speaks of a ad person being resurrected in any other shape than as a ghost, or a spirit. When Jesus was allegedly crucified, he was most definitely a ghost. However, what happened once he returned to his people? [Luke 24:36-30] "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (37)But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (38)And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? (39)Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (40)And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet." What do we see here? Jesus talked to his disciples and asked what they were troubled with. He made it clear that if he were, in fact, crucified, he would be spirit - but he was not spirit! He told his disciples to touch him, to see his hands and feet. A spirit does not have hands and feet, so how could Jesus have tasted death? What happened was that people got deceived and believed that Jesus was crucified, but he was not. he never got crucified. He himself made it clear that he is not a spirit, but flesh and bones. Moreover, may I ask if a dead man eats? Would Jesus ever eat as a spirit? No. Let us see what the next passages say. [Luke 24:41-43] "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? (42)And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (43)And he took it, and did eat before them. Jesus asked for meat, and he ate it. He would never have done that if he got crucified. Now, we must also ask whether or not the alleged witnesses were, in fact, witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus. As I have made clear, Jesus came back in human form, making it clear that he never got crucified, and I will elaborate on other points in the next rounds. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK because PRO begins his third round with a positive argument, but I urge you to ignore it entirely. As I noted earlier, and as PRO has completely disregarded, new arguments are *not* allowed in the final round of debate. Nevertheless, PRO has opted to lay waste to the ethics of debate. Judges, please bear this in mind when dolling out conduct points. As I also noted in Round 2, I am not obligated, as the person without the burden of proof--and you'll note that PRO never once contested that he had the burden of proof, so it extends through that it lies solely with him--to provide a positive argument. Nevertheless, I have done so, and PRO has completely dropped it. This is even more reason to immediately vote CON. I'm going to rebut PRO's arguments, even though I'm not obligated to at this time since it's, again, illegitimate and unethical to initiate new arguments in the final round of debat. PRO states, " I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have been interrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off ." PRO is basing his entire case on his own subjective experience. Not only is there no evidence at all that this actually took place--nor should you buy that it actually did--but this is not in the slightest a rational reason to draw a line in the sand and say "Do not do X." Life is not, and need not, be one size fits all, nor can we reason from any particular subjective experence to a general rule. PRO provides only the former and claims it as a basis for the latter, but this cannot possible obtain. Further, he ignores that he's (1) more likely to either not speak with those individuals than to have contentions relations with them; (2) he may in fact befriend them, and again is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" by also eshewing any opportunity for friendship; and (3) has several means of recourse--blocking, "stopping threads" and deleting the PM conversation, contacting a moderator, etc.--should he feel that a member is harassing them, though again we have no reason to believe that this was the case. PRO states, " Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me? " This is irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary because Extend my arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My opponent has just lost the game. because Thanks again for the quick reply. Pro says, "Since you admit that you are thinking about the game, you were "just" losing the game then, and you are still "just" losing the game now." With this argument, pro is attempting to alter the resolution, in an attempt to create a "no lose" situation for himself. The resolution clearly states, "My opponent has just lost the game". "Just", meaning at that instant. With "just" being there, and being used as it is, changing the word "lost", to "losing" is grammatically incorrect, and alters the resolution, therefore I ask that this argument be invalidated. In round 3 pro concedes my earlier arguments, in favor of this attempted change, therefore I ask that they be considered valid. In light of his concession, and invalid attempt to change the resolution, I ask for a vote for con. Thanks to Brainmaster for the challenge. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective. because Ya it is a shame. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Vote-Bombing Contest! because You know what, nevermind. I'm doing the challenge. I'm just unsure because so many people hate me. Lets test that hate. Simple. Just accept. Then you have to try and get as many people to vote-bomb for you as you can and I have to do the same. Whoever gets more votes within 10 days wins the debate. Round 1 is for acceptance and round 2 is for any additional questions. I won't respond as quickly in order to give people time to see the debate. I think I will lose though... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Society would be better off without religion because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended. because Resolved, that the federal government should end its current War on Drugs. http://en.wikipedia.org... This debate will start in Round 2; Round 1 is for acceptance only. Good luck, 16kadams. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Star gate better then star wars because First you said the Emperor wouldn't destroy earth and find evil people for sith. If this statement is true then why did the emperor only have one apprentice. The emperor only cares about taking over the universe. Then you said the ancients have a force field that can deflect anything well so did the planet that the Death Star destroyed and the empire just attacked over and over until the planet is all out of defenses. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers because No worries on the delay :) RD 3 order. Profiling: 1. Profiling is still a wash, which my opponent doesn't bother to address. At the point where, decal or no decal, we have profiling, my opponent can't use it as an offensive reason to oppose the decal. He also can't warrant that profiling will increase enough to even notice a difference in enforcement. Any claim to that effect is hyperbolic. Decals & Defensive Driving/Safety Precautions: 1. I had to laugh at his total misquotation of my RD 1 statement. Here's what I actually said: "Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers), the statistics on the matter prove that youth drivers are more likely to commit driving errors than those of older demographics." Notice that my opponent quotes only a clause of my entire sentence, and leaves out the part where I prove definitively that young drivers present the nation with a safety hazard that the state feels compelled to address based on empirical warrants. 2. Why not put decals on old people's cars? I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is demographically accurate research to back it up. On Permits Being Removable: 1. Aw crud. The source must not have pasted properly. My apologies. However, that is a direct quotation from the text of the law: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us... Interestingly enough, this isn't the link I used initially. However, this version, published by the NJ legislature, has been amended to read "hang tags" rather than decals. Not only is the law written to allow transferable permits, but the legislature is making them hang tags. Though this actually changes the nature of the debate by totally nullifying anything my opponent says about profiling (since he says in RD 2 that hang tags are less conspicuous), please don't count this as an offensive argument. I maintain that the original information, which discusses the decal being removable, is enough for me to win the argument. Plus, I don't want to introduce a new argument in the last round. Bottom line: the permit is transferable, and my opponent is plain wrong on that count. Furthermore, what logical sense would it make to create a non-transferable decal? Do teens never switch cars? Sex Predators Cont.: 1. Sexual predators stalking cars around town is just illogical. It's impractical (if we can speak of criminality in terms of practicality for a moment). I've stated this previously. Despite documented behavior patterns for sexual predators, my opponent is under the impression that an orange decal will make all the difference in the world. I call shenanigans. 2. My opponent isn't able to argue against the fact that the permits are removable. Without even considering the fact that they are going to be hang tags, at the point where they can be taken off of the vehicle when parked, there's no reason to believe that a sexual predator would even have the opportunity to latch onto a victim in such a way. That is a ton of wasted effort, when predators can just hang out in a public park or mall for a few minutes, and have a much easier time of it than following around a car all day. This also assumes that sexual predators, specifically pedophiles, have their sights set on someone who is 16 or 17, which is pretty far fetched. Source Debate: 1. "According to the link you cited (link number 2), there is a chart located on the page"—you said my second source. Hence, there was no way for me to have found this supposed chart in the first place. But, now that I know which one you meant, I went ahead and looked at it. My initial conclusions in RD 2 were right. 2. Again, without a more broken down statistic other than aggregate deaths, you can't mitigate the other evidence I present. Aggregate deaths doesn't really matter at the point where car crashes kill far more teens every year than *any other cause of death.* Furthermore, my sources also detail that teens cause an overwhelming percentage of fatal car crashes (in comparison to adults). I only need to prove that teen driving safety is a serious enough concern to warrant safety measures, not that more of them aggregately die than adults. 3. I already covered old people earlier. When their law comes up, I'll be in support of that one, too. 4. My opponent went ahead and dropped what I said about the federal government's concern with teen driving safety, as well as an extension of the source that he, apparently, didn't actually challenge. That's critical, as it proves that teen drivers are a specific concern of the state on a massive level. This isn't an arbitrary law. Old vs. Young Drivers/Blame: 1. This argument relies on the validity of my opponent's profiling argument. I've already addressed profiling as flawed and unwarranted. 2. Decals have nothing to do with blame. They are simply one of many safety measures imposed by the state on a higher risk group of drivers. Decals Don't Stop Kids From Hitting Trees/Education: 1. Correct. Decals aren't magical safety shields that would stop the force of a tree. However, since we are all about throwing new arguments into this last round, apparently, I'll respond thusly: with the decal on the teen's vehicle, and the teen knowing that more people, including police officers, will be watching said vehicle when they see the decal, the teen will most likely be coerced into driving better than they would if they were more anonymous. This is the same principle that applies to most drivers when they see a cop approaching them or anywhere near them on the road. Presence is enough to enforce. 2. Again, I agree that education may be the most effective way to solve this issue (despite the fact that my opponent failed to bring it up in RDs 1 or 2). In the meantime, though, safety precautions are not a bad thing, and he can't prove that they are. We don't stop ourselves from implementing a plan because it has drawbacks. Every plan has drawbacks. This plan has far more benefits than harms. Dropped/Non-Topical Arguments: 1. I read your statement of topic. However, that doesn't invalidate my 4th counter-argument about the court system. Allow me to quote my opponent: RD 1: "Not only will the police be looking for these decals to pull these young drivers for an easy citation *(which will go through)* but sexual predators can as well." Here, he makes the court system a key part of his profiling advocacy, since he states that not only will profiling result in more tickets issued, but more "guilty" verdicts since he doesn't believe that judges will dismiss or discharge them. I referred to what he said in RD 1, and clarified again in RD 2. My opponent needs to be held accountable for what he says in round. 2. The counter-plan (involving striking a different clause from the law and keeping the decals) is still, no matter how many times my opponent repeats the same non-argument, a part of this debate. As stated in RD 2, if the goal of the debate is to create, even if just in this round on this website, a more just law, then I'm still operating within his framework. My opponent frames the debate in terms of justice achieved for teens, and then ignores the only argument in the round that *actually* manages to achieve a net benefit in justice for teens (i.e. protecting their due process rights). We are both still debating decals, but we've also been debating about justice since the beginning of the debate. In summation, given that my opponent cannot achieve any justice for the teen drivers of NJ, ignores a Pro plan to do so as "non-topical," and cannot win the cost/benefit analysis with regards to the decal clause, I urge a vote in favor of Pro. Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and wish him good luck in his future at DDO! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War because <"In the anime, he had the ability to use people as puppets. In the manga, he had the ability to use a spoon."> Using a spoon isn't a power. Besides, that in no way rebuts what I said: "I never used two sources to give Mewtwo any powers, equipment, etc. Mewtwo's powers were generally described, and then it was mentioned that he/she/it uses a piece of equipment specifically in the manga. I didn't use anything 'non-canonical.'" <"Doctor Manhattan still doesn't have a limit... which makes him against the rules..."> Seriously, I've negated this. More rehashed arguments -- again, just because it's stated doesn't make it so. It's useless to just say so, and not support yourself with something that hasn't been negated. Essentially, my opponent's claim is another, useless, rehashed argument. <"It is always five-o'-clock. You think time is passing, but it isn't."> Which is exactly why it helps my team. Time doesn't pass, which, as I showed, means that nobody can move, except Manhattan, which means he's capable of doing what he wants to whoever he wants, which means I will inevitably win. Stopping time before Manhattan does only plays into his and my hands; my opponent is doing our work for us. <"The tide doesn't change. The clock is frozen."> Yeah, and oxygen stops flowing, which means you'd have to move around to get some -- but moving isn't possible when time is stopped, so yeah, anything which requires oxygen would die. My opponent's own setting works against him. <"Margaritaville freezes our concept of time at five-o'-clock, nullifying any additional time powers. The margarita trumps all."> No, it doesn't "nullify" them -- it assists them. Freezing time at five o'clock is only doing my team's work for them, considering that Manhattan can still operate when time stops, while nobody on my opponent's team can. <"The Millennium Puzzle *is* dark magic."> Too bad my opponent's chosen canon doesn't say that, eh? Again, he's applying something to his team which is non-canonical, which is in violation of the rules. <"Nowhere in your member descriptions is any ability to traverse through dimensions mentioned."> A excerpt of the Surfer's description: <"He can navigate space, hyperspace and dimensional barriers,"> So...yeah. My opponent is wrong. <"This obviously means that they have unlimited ability."> I mean, seriously, I've already explained twice why that isn't the case, and it's yet to be rebutted, which means it stands: <"you cant place a limit on something in which limits can't logically apply, which means it cant be with nor without limits. it's essentially like asking if there's a limit on one's ability to walk -- sure, you can get tired, but there isn't an energy bar which runs out, rendering an individual unable to walk. It's the same thing with Manhattan's ability to manipulate time, energy, and matter -- there isn't an energy bar, which means limits don't apply. The mentioned abilities aren't really fields in which having a magnitude of power makes sense."> <"If Ganondorf is in space, he's just floating out there."> Uh...yeah. Which is exactly why he's defeated -- to quote my opponent: <"However, in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed."> <"Link and Yugi still don't drink."> Considering that's a claim that can't in any way be substantiated, I'd think it would be better to not say it. <"The Triforce of Power holds his body together."> Again, the Triforce wouldn't be too difficult for the Surfer or Manhattan to break up. I've already explained that. <"Well, at least Ganondorf can be defeated."> I played the Zelda games. I'm well aware of that. He was defeated more than once. Also, sending him to the outer limits of space would make him unable to participate in the battle, which therefore means he's defeated. <"1. CON has broken Rule 2 multiple times, with an apparently unlimited Doctor Manhattan and Silver Surfer, and therefore loses the debate."> I didn't break rule two at all; I've already shown how, and my opponent never rebutted it with an argument that wasn't already debunked, which means my argument stands. <"2. Both teams are wasting away in Margaritaville, so it's a draw."> Margaritaville is an advantage for *my* team, considering time is already stopped, which leaves everyone at Doctor Manhattan's mercy. <"3. Team PRO hides in the Shadow Realm, where Team CON can't get to. Therefore, it's a draw."> Team pro running away doesn't equate to a draw -- it means I've won. Team pro would be avoiding the battle on purpose, which is essentially a forfeit. In closing, despite pro's assertion that I've broken rule two, I've shown how I haven't, and my argument wasn't rebutted with anything new; therefore, what I said stands. Not only that, by my strategies still stand, considering my opponent either hasn't offered a retort, or used negated arguments: Me: "My opponent hasn't offered a logical retort to #3, #4, nor #5, either; Manhattan can still easily vanquish them to the outer limits of the universe, or some plant which would then be destroyed, and he can still evaporate them (as can the Surfer.) I've already shown that my opponent's team is still susceptible to mind control, so yeah. <"Simply put, my team cannot be defeated by my opponent's team; my team's ability to know what my opponent's team will do before they do it makes it so that they can counter anything my opponent does."> This point still remains, as well." ... Also: "My opponent admits that Manhattan cannot be defeated, which means my team can't be defeated, which means my opponent can't win. He's essentially conceded the debate." Actually, Manhattan can be defeated -- just not by anyone my opponent has chosen. He's unable to be defeated in this debate, which means I win. I've fulfilled my side of the argument; I've shown how any why I win. My opponent hasn't fulfilled his side; his arguments were negated. I also shown that he broke rule five twice. Lastly, my opponent has essentially assisted me with his argument regarding "Margaritaville." Essentially, there's no way for his team to defeat my team, which means my team win. Thanks to mongeese for starting this debate, and thanks to all the readers. Considering the above points, I urge you all to vote con. Also, since I can't vote, I'd like to ask my opponent not to vote, either. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Who was the worst political leader of history? because Thanks, Pro. [ REBUTTAL ] 1. Stalin had 20 million people killed; Pol Pot killed 2.5 million First off, the number of people Stalin supposedly killed is often disputed. Many say he was responsible for 17 M deaths; however, only half a million were actually killed by his order [1]. Now, I think Pro will agree that any leader who kills millions of people is evil - period. The number of deaths at the hand of each leader should not be the determining factor in who is considered the WORST leader in history. Pro clearly agrees, or else he would have chosen Hitler whose leadership resulted in 34 M deaths, or Mao Zedong who caused 40 M deaths. Instead, Pro obviously finds it important to look at other factors which is precisely why Stalin causing more deaths than Pol Pot is irrelevant. Additionally, if we look at it as a ratio, Pol Pot killing 21% of the Cambodian population beats out Stalin in terms of death percentages. Furthermore, Stalin ruled for 31 years in comparison to Pol Pot's 4. This means that if you look at the RATE that each leader killed, Pol Pot exceeds Stalin. PP has the highest percentage of massacring his own people in such a short amount of time; he easily had the most deaths in proportion to his controlled population. Thus I think it's pretty safe to say that Pro loses this argument. Next, in R2 Pro mentions that Stalin cared more about land than people, and was ruthless (though sane) about killing - even choosing to murder his own allies when it was convenient. Once again, not every psychiatrist agrees that Stalin was "completely sane" nor can Pro prove this to be true. In fact, there are countless reports of him suffering at the hand of abusive parents and showing signs of masochism from an early age. Regardless, wouldn't you want a SANE evil leader rather than an INSANE evil leader? If so - or if you believe there's no difference (as each is careless, erratic, violent, etc.) - then you agree that Pro's point about Stalin being sane but evil is also irrelevant. So let's move on. 2. Stalin adopted the 'raised ground' policy to scare peasants into submission. True, but the way Pol Pot treated his peasants (after forcibly turning everyone into peasants) was far worse which I will explain in the next section of the debate. 3. Stalin disregarded his army; he worked more on brainwashing soldiers than preparing them for combat. So? Clearly Stalin did not care about individuals and only focused on accomplishing his goals. He didn't care whether his soldiers lived or died so long as his aims were achieved. Pol Pot had the same disregard for his soldiers (and everyone) which I will outline in the following section... [ POL POT AS A LEADER ] During his short time in power, Pol Pot expeled foreigners and closed down embassies; banned the use of foreign language or giving any type of medical or economic aid to foreigners; killed anyone known to have any contact with America, Vietnam or the west; confiscated radios and bicycles; curtailed use of mail and telephones; forbid money; closed all existing businesses; banned all religion, halted education and revoked parental authority just to name a few [2]. In addition, Pol Pot evacuated Cambodia's cities and people were forced at gun point to work slave labor in the countryside where they were forbidden to eat anything not rationed to them, causing many of them to starve to death. For those who don't know, Pol Pot's goal was to instill a Zedong-like form of peasant communism. More than 20,000 people died on the journey to the countryside, but those who didn't died when they were there due to overwork, disease and malnutrition. Work days in these "killing fields" as they came to be known lasted from 4am to 10pm, and armed soldiers were ready and willing to kill anyone who didn't work 'hard' enough much like in Hitler's concentration camps. Fifteen families would live together and often go hungry; workers were told "Whether you live or die is not of great significance." As you can see, this is a common trait amongst both Stalin and Pol Pot, so Stalin having that mentality isn't really indicative of him being 'worse.' Additionally, deadly purges throughout Cambodia were conducted to eliminate remnants of the "old society" - the educated, the wealthy, Buddhist monks, police, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and former government officials were among the first to die. Pol Pot's goal was to eliminate the educated people first, because those, he felt, were the ones most likely to rebel or reject his authority. Pro talks about Stalin's treatment of soldiers, but under Pol Pot ex-soldiers were killed along with their wives and children on a regular basis. Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot including many leaders was shot or bludgeoned with an ax [2]. Also under Pol Pot, unsupervised gatherings of more than two persons was forbidden. Young people were taken from their parents and placed in communes. They were later married in collective ceremonies involving hundreds of unwilling couples. To save money on ammunition, Pol Pot had soldiers smash people's heads with rocks. The torture prisons were Pol Pot's mass genocides took place incurred not only death and violence but rape of men, women and children. Almost all prisoners were innocent and beaten into false confessions. Only 7 out of 20,000 (!!!) prisoners survived. The Killing Fields: http://www.historyplace.com... http://theunexplainedmysteries.com... [ WHY STALIN WAS A BETTER LEADER THAN POL POT ] Pro concedes that Stalin was a good leader in several ways. For instance, while Pol Pot was busy eradicating all of his nation's intellectuals, Stalin created an almost completely literate society, and was one of the first leaders to offer equal rights to women. He also modernized the USSR to the extent that it was in a position where it could take on Nazi Germany. Without the modern industrial base to call upon, the USSR would have been unable to out produce Germany helping to lead to their demise in 1941 [3]. Additionally, he provided stability after anarchy and civil war. His policies helped to industrialize Russia and increased farming by 200%! In short, he was responsible for Russia's economic success, and though many do not like collectivism, he allowed Russia to become the major world power that it was and continues to be today [4]. So, ultimately Stalin helped improve his country. Meanwhile, Pol Pot destroyed his country and offered absolutely NOTHING useful to his people (aside from possibly... population control?). Now obviously we can agree that both leaders were evil and malicious human beings. However, many leaders such as Machiavelli can justify doing evil things in an attempt to establish a greater good or at least bring some kind of positive or beneficial change. Stalin accomplished this on at least some level, whereas Pol Pot failed completely. I'd like to remind my opponent and the audience that this debate isn't about which leader was more evil, but who was a WORSE leader. A bad leader is one whom disregards the people he leads and does not bring them anything of value. This is true of Pol Pot, whereas it is not true of Stalin. Some people today still defend Stalin and his achievements whereas Pol Pot accomplished absolutely nothing but devastation and destruction. Pol Pot not only destroyed Cambodia for the time he was in power, but ruined Cambodia's future by eliminating all of the educated people necessary to run a competent and successful society - which is why Pol Pot surpasses Stalin as the worse leader. Thank you. [1] http://www.scaruffi.com... [2] http://www.davidstuff.com... [3] http://www.historum.com... [4] http://www.associatedcontent.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed because These fights would differ from those held in Ancient Rome in the following ways: 1. All contestants would be contestants by choice. 2. They would be competing to win cash prizes. 3. There would be no unfair advantages betweed contestants. The weaponry and armour would be similar to those used by the Gladiators of Ancient Rome. I believe that these fights would benefit society in the following ways: 1. Those with nothing to lose might be tempted to take part rather than commiting the crimes that they do. In this way it would transform the misfits of society into respectable or dead people. Neither of which we need worry about. If the contestant won he/she would earn an honest wage and would more than likely become a celebrity. As a celebrity he/she would not be able to do much wrong without drawing attention to himself/herself. 2. It would create plenty of jobs. Stadiums would be built, armour and weapons would need to be crafted, merchandise to do with the fights would be sold and it would definitely be broadcasted on television and radio. 3. A requirement of entry could be that the contestants agree to be organ doners which could lead to as many lives being saved as lost. I've already thought of so many counter arguments. Ah well. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust. because Good morning, and I thank my opponent for creating this debate and allowing us to discuss this topic. First, I'd like to address the definition framework. Second, I will present my arguments against my opponent's syllogism. The negative's "burden," if you will, would be to prove this syllogism false. Hence, while I don't technically have an offensive negative advocacy, I don't feel that this debate requires one. If my opponent disagrees, I will provide one in round 2. Conscription: This is clearly out of context and abusive to the negative's ground. Not only is the word choice of this definition particularly non-universal & prejudiced, but motivation is artificially inserted to weigh the debate toward the affirmative unfairly. Hence, I would like to redefine to something far more accurate: Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: A compulsory enrollment of men for military or naval service; a draft. This is more equitable within the round because it accurately describes the governmental act of conscription, and it fairly limits the topic to the subject of the draft. My opponent's definition draws no brightline between Siberian labor camps, for example, and the actual draft, which are clearly different situations. If my opponent wants to link slavery and conscription, let him do it in his case, and not by skewing the definitions to make it so without citation. Military Conscription: Again, apply my above definition instead as more equitable. 1A: 1. Most of my opponent's case arguments are taken from Ayn Rand without citation. While this isn't a reason to negate on-face, I ask that my opponent properly declare his sources in the future. 2. This argument is oversimplified and hyperbolic. The draft does not imply that a person has no right to life. Rather, it utilizes the social contract in order to defend the liberties and rights that a democratically minded state is founded upon. It would be irresponsible of the government not to protect its citizens from outside invasion and enslavement via a standing military, but a government is of the people if it is legitimate. Hence, the army must be of the people. Not only that, but a legitimate government is made up of officials who we vest with the authority to declare war on a dangerous state or to defend a nation if that time comes. If the military is required to preserve a given state, then the citizens should be required to participate in its maintenance. 1B: 1. Conscription, in and of itself, does not entail soldiers as property. In a legitimate government, conscription is merely a clause in the social contract. In fact, if the citizens of a given nation are governing themselves properly, conscription would not be necessary as every citizen would feel a communal responsibility to protect the nation in which he or she lives. While some illegitimate governments may enact conscription unjustly, you are arguing in absolutes. As the negative, if I can prove that countries could use conscription in a manner other than you and Ayn Rand assert, then I've won the debate. So, let's consider the US and slavery for a moment. In the US, African American slaves, for example, were treated as property. Quite literally, in fact. They had no right to vote, no right to property, life, or liberty. However, does a soldier, even on the battlefield, lose his right to all of the benefits of American citizenship? Besides the possible danger to his life (which can technically be said of ANY profession, even a chosen one—think construction, deep sea fishing, police work, fire fighters, etc.), a soldier retains all of his rights as a US citizen. This is not to say that becoming a police officer is the same as conscription, when it clearly is not. No one is compelled by the state to be a police officer. It merely proves that the possible sacrifice of life to serve a community is not restricted only to conscription, and therefore it cannot be argued that the possible sacrifice of life is inherently unjust, nor does it automatically make a person property of the state. The affirmative fails to link soldiers to property past the fact that they might have to die in battle, which is no evidence of the state's ownership of a man. 2A: 1. Again, the affirmation insists that conscription always entails a dictatorial government forcing people into military service, in which they are doomed to die. This is entirely exaggeration. Since my opponent is arguing conscription as a universal concept, I remind the readers that I need only prove that this concept, in and of itself, does not equate to slavery. And clearly, by examining conscription's role in legitimate governments who recognize the social contract and follow it, we see that legitimate governments use conscription only to defend the rights that have been established within a state by defending against outside aggressors. This is the state's job, and if the state is comprised of its citizenry, then its citizenry has an obligation to chip in. This would, obviously, include military service. At the point where the state is under-resourced, either people must be compelled to protect their own rights and the rights of the community, or the state perishes. 2B: 1. I'm not sure I need to respond to this, since my opponent makes no specific scriptural reference, but I challenge my opponent to find this passage and actually relate in it any way to the proper conception of conscription. If my opponent would like, I will detail for him how many people are held unequal in the Bible, though I find it useless to the debate at hand, as the Bible is Christian mythology, rather than a text on governmental workings or motivation. While I will admit the importance of Christian doctrine in informing many governments and constitutions, the direct link of slavery or equality to the Bible doesn't really provide offensive ground for the affirmative. 3 all: 1. First of all, conscription has opt-outs. National guard service, religious exceptions, and documented anti-war or pacifism exceptions are only a few. I would not characterize a legitimate state's use of conscription as completely non-consenting, "unspeakable martyrdom." Second of all, as I have stated on numerous occasions in this round 1 post, the affirmation's descriptions of conscription do not speak to the whole of the concept. In a legitimate state, not only is the conflict engaged in or declared by the people or representatives of the people, but the social contract strongly implies that citizens have an obligation to help protect the state if the state is founded by and made up of its citizens. To refuse to help defend your state is akin to withholding the resources that a state requires in order to remain a viable state. If that state is the state that has freely awarded you the rights you have, then you have an obligation to help protect it. 2. In fact, you can turn most of my opponent's arguments on the obligation argument alone: a conscription, in general, equally distributes the weight of protection of the state amongst citizens as a whole, rather than a volunteer service with incentives, such as what most first world militaries practice today. This leads to a phenomenon of a military comprised of socioeconomically abused soldiers, as they are the only ones that need the incentives in the first place. Hence, the elite remain out of military service more often, and the burden of military service is shouldered by the poor or disadvantaged. Because my opponent's syllogism clearly fails to prove that conscription, as a concept, is akin to slavery, and because conscription is logically more equitable in times of conflict than volunteer service, I urge a strong Con vote. Thank you, and I await my opponent's response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Natural Selection Disproves Theism because I'd like to welcome Anaxa to this site. I would contend that the specific God under discussion having the ability to actualize any logical facts would make it necessarily impossible to disprove him. I will, however, let my opponent go first. Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates. because Expansionary Monetary Policy vs. Contractionary Monetary Policy Expansionary Monetary Policy Wins! My Case; Expansionary Monetary Policy In the United States, when the Federal Open Market Committee wishes to increase the money supply, it can do a combination of three things: Purchase securities on the open market, known as Open Market Operations Lower the Federal Discount Rate Lower Reserve Requirements These all directly impact the interest rate. When the Fed buys securities on the open market, it causes the price of those securities to rise. In my article on the Dividend Tax Cut we saw that bond prices and interest rates are inversely related. The Federal Discount Rate is an interest rate, so lowering it is essentially lowering interest rates. If the Fed instead decides to lower reserve requirements, this will cause banks to have an increase in the amount of money they can invest. This causes the price of investments such as bonds to rise, so interest rates must fall. No matter what tool the Fed uses to expand the money supply interest rates will decline and bond prices will rise. Increases in American bond prices will have an effect on the exchange market. Rising American bond prices will cause investors to sell those bonds in exchange for other bonds, such as Canadian ones. So an investor will sell his American bond, exchange his American dollars for Canadian dollars, and buy a Canadian bond. This causes the supply of American dollars on foreign exchange markets to increase and the supply of Canadian dollars on foreign exchange markets to decrease. As shown in my Beginner's Guide to Exchange Rates this causes the U.S. Dollar to become less valuable relative to the Canadian Dollar. The lower exchange rate makes American produced goods cheaper in Canada and Canadian produced goods more expensive in America, so exports will increase and imports will decrease causing the balance of trade to increase. When interest rates are lower, the cost of financing capital projects is less. So all else being equal, lower interest rates lead to higher rates of investment. What We've Learned About Expansionary Monetary Policy: Expansionary monetary policy causes an increase in bond prices and a reduction in interest rates. Lower interest rates lead to higher levels of capital investment. The lower interest rates make domestic bonds less attractive, so the demand for domestic bonds falls and the demand for foreign bonds rises. The demand for domestic currency falls and the demand for foreign currency rises, causing a decrease in the exchange rate. (The value of the domestic currency is now lower relative to foreign currencies) A lower exchange rate causes exports to increase, imports to decrease and the balance of trade to increase. For these reasons I urge a Con Vote. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should chickens be allowed in city apartments? because Well, through the reproduction system, you need two mammals to make an egg. So scientifically, you can't just get one egg from one chicken that is okay to eat. And I'm sure no one wants to be that neighbor next door with the annoying chicken that clucks 24/7. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Science is not evidence against the existence of God. because I thank Con for his arguments, though it seems like he still doesn't quite get the points I'm making. I hope readers and voters can follow my logic. Hopefully things will be clearer in this last round. Con says "You cannot fail to make an observation." Observations are made by humans, perception and interpretation play an important role in the act of observing. By definition both perception and interpretation are subjective, and usually that which is subjective can vary from person to person. What this means is that many people can look at the same event or phenomena and perceive it differently. Perception is at the heart of all observation... you can not observe without perceiving. What one perceives is limited in many ways. It is limited by their senses, by their mentality, by their understanding of that which they observe, and by their spatial and temporal location in relation to that observed. These are just a few possible factors limiting one's perception of something. What all of this means is that one can observe something, but fail to perceive it in it's entirety. Furthermore one can interpret an observation incorrectly, even if they happen to observe and percieve it accurately. Ultimately, while one can easily make an observation, their observation can just as easily be incomplete, or incorrectly interpreted. Con says "If you see the sun going across the sky, that can only be wrong if it wasn't the sun." Most humans who have lived on Earth have seen the sun going across the sky, this does not however mean that they all correctly interpreted what it means. As you so kindly pointed out, it was once believe that this meant that the Sun revolved around the planet. This is of course incorrect, but the observation remains the same. Even now our observation of the sun crossing the sky has remained the same... we have a different interpretation for it though. Observation is one thing, but the real business of understanding and explaining begins with interpretation. And interpretation is not only subjective, but the interpretation of something has no bearing on the thing itself. The sun didn't actually revolve around Earth when everybody thought that it did, everybody was wrong and their interpretation didn't change Reality. That is the nature of any interpretation, it can be correct or wrong but it does not alter Reality. Con says "You asked for proof that God doesn't exist" Actually I'm just debating that science is not evidence for God. I have not asked for proof that God doesn't exist. Most atheists know perfectly well that there is no proof that God doesn't exist, on the other hand there is no proof that he does exist either. Since there is no proof that he does exist, they see no reason to believe in him, which is perfectly understandable and logical. Arguing that there is proof that he doesn't exist... is not a claim to make lightly. Being skeptical is one thing... asserting that God does not exist is a whole other ball game. Con says "yet it can't make it past the scientific methods" I feel like a broken record but let me say it again anyway. The scientific method, is essentially a way of examining and interpreting Reality. This does not mean that it determines what exists and what does not exist. Please differentiate between determining what exists... and determining what is believed to exist. They are very, very different. Existence is not synonymous with that which is believed to exist. Something that is not believed to exist, can exist regardless of beliefs to the contrary. A lack of evidence is not evidence. I think your sticking point is in confusing a lack of evidence for evidence in itself. There is arguably a lack of scientific evidence that God exists... this does not however mean that there is evidence that God does not exist. These are two different things. Evidence is always open to interepretation. Another critical point that you do not seem to understand is that "evidence" is always open to interpretation. Always. You can say the Theory of Evolution is evidence against God... while I can just as easily claim that it is evidence for God. You can claim that The Big Bang Theory proves that God didn't create the universe... and I can claim that God is the most logical cause of the Big Bang. You can claim that "cancer in children" is evidence against God, I can claim that "cancer in children" is a a meaningful experience for their immortal souls, and that it teaches the parents and others involved with the children to have compassion and be grateful for their own lives. Ultimately my point is that at this very moment Science has no evidence specifically proving that God does not exist. It proves that some gods probably don't exist by proving, for instance, that Thunder is not the result of a god throwing a tantrum. But that hardly says anything about the concept of God, which is a much bigger concept than the idea of one god being responsible for rain, and another for harvests, and another for war. The idea of God, is one of an Ultimate Reality, a First Cause, a Supreme Being e.t.c. I have read of one phrase which comes closest to describing God as far as I'm concerned... and it says that God is "All-That-Is". Good luck proving that wrong... let alone proving that "All-That-Is" does not exist. All-That-Is "All-That-Is" is arguably a vague and broad conception of God. But you see, anyone who bothers to think it through is perfectly aware that the whole idea of God can not be more than a vague and broad conception. Just like the idea of "life" or "consciousness" or a "soul"... they are words that encompass more than one specific conception, description or idea... ultimately they represent something that is difficult to define, conceive, describe or put into words. There are other words, which come closer to representing something similar in magnitude to the idea of God, words that are also beyond conception, explanation, understanding, and description. Try explaining or describing "infinity" or "reality" or "existence". Better yet... try finding evidence against them? Impossibru! To some of us, God is as self-evident as reality or existence. It is as meaningless to try to disprove Him, as it is to disprove "existence". There is actually more to it than that... but that would be a whole other discussion, and not something I would debate here. Not enough space for that. Anyway... it's been a pleasure Duncan. Cheers. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against More underage clubs because Thank you, Pro, for starting this debate. For some strange reason, I decided to put up a video of 'nigahiga' telling us why he does not like clubs. I don't think it really will help my case, but take it from Ryan Higa! :D I'd like to begin by providing some definitions and standards for which we will debate this topic. Definitions 1. Underage club: Depending on the club, you may be at least 18 or at least 21 to enter [1]. However, if Pro would agree, I'd like to keep this debate to a club for anyone under 21. Now my opponent mentioned that "teenagers can go and hang out..." Therefore, there is a second definition. 2. Teenager: Anyone between the ages of 13 and 19 [2] [3] [4]. Since the legal age to attend a club is 21, we can agree that 20 year olds should also be allowed to enter. (I'm assuming this debate is for the United States) As a result with these definitions, we will be debating that "There should be more clubs for 13 - 20 year olds in the United States." Refutations "I think there should be more underage clubs so teenagers can go and hang out and dance with friends..." There are multiple instances in which teens can hang out rather than at clubs. At school. Most teenagers attend school and can see all their friends during their classes and break times for 7-8 hours a day. Also, some schools have proms or dances and students can get together there. During the weekend. Whether it's at a park, at a restaurant, at a sportsfield, or just at home, kids have the opportunity to relax with their best friends during their two free days. After school. Kids can get togther at the library or at one another's houses to study and work then have fun and relax. During vacation breaks. All schools have a fall/winter/spring/summer break in the United States and provide ample opportunities for teenagers to get together and do what they want. "...plus it's a good way to meet new people." Meeting new people is not always good, especially when the person is bad, i.e., enjoys too much alcohol, too sexual/perverted. Furthermore, you could always meet stalkers and pedofiles. And nobody wants that. Regardless, you can meet new people at school if you go and interact with them. You can meet new people at church, at community services, at the gym, at the movie theater, at a sports practice, in the park, at a dining place, on Facebook, or even right outside your house. Pro has yet to prove why meeting new people is a good thing in the first place. Arguments 1. Underage clubs are not financially secure. Nightclubs get most of their profit from alcohol [5]. But when you're under 21, the legal drinking age, you cannot buy a drink. Therefore, the profit from alcohol is lost, which can either deter a businessman from starting an underage club in the first place or create many failed enterprises. 2. Entering a club costs money. How many teenagers have jobs that are going to provide them with enough money to hit the clubs? Are they just going to steal from their parent's wallets? 3. Kids should be studying, not going out to suck up a ton of time with their friends, especially at night. They need good sleep to perform well in school and they need to study to do so, as well. 4. Nightclubs can be violent. Imagine bumping into your ex, who dumped you for someone else. Imagine coming face-to-face with the school bully. Maybe you'll accidentally spill something on a group of jocks. Clubs are just another place for people to go at one another. For these reasons, we do not need more clubs for younger people. Back to Pro. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://mw2.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.ehow.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with School Year Extension because Thank you for accepting, and ruining my title. All right, I shall start with a regular school year, which is 180 days. This seems normal but most countries around the world have 200 days of school. Now we may think this is not that much of a difference but for the slow students this gives teachers extra time to help them, if I could have twenty extra days to practice math in school with a teachers help who knows how much better I would be. This is not even counting on the Asian system where they have maybe 240 or more days of school. Let's keep this round only talking about 200 days though, we will get into more later, if the challenger can help it. Let's start with European countries such as France. They run from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m and have a half a day on Saturday. Is this truly bad? It may get in the way of early morning sports here in America but we can easily get around it, and some people don't even get up until 12 p.m.(say some because some are early birds). I don't think most people would get up early to see a friend here in America since most boys are playing video games late into the night and girls may have some late night parties, sleepovers or as it is here in my area talking on facebook all night. Now this isn't everyone but may be a good enough majority to stop the Saturday school day. I for one would love to get up on Saturday and go to school. It will help me be productive and I would be able to go directly to a friends house on the bus instead of going home and asking my parent or his parents to give me a ride to his place. I think this would get some people on board with this idea. See in Europe they have it divided into sections of 7 week periods. So 7 weeks of 5 and a half days of school, with one or two weeks vacation in between them. So it is basically Christmas Vacation in every single quarter of our school years. Any one who hates this idea I say would just want to stay home instead of going. I would love this to be in America. It is efficient and gives us a break instead of having one day off here and there. I shall go onto Russia, they are just like us but instead of just quitting school like a small to medium percentage of students from a school may do, they have 10th grade ending mandatory school but have a great alternative. They allow you to study trade skills or even study to get into a university. This is also a great alternative for America. It may not extend our years at school but with the studying trade skills or even to get into a university is great. It helps students who went out of school to prepare for life instead of going back and getting a GED, for those who don't want to go to a university the trade skills help them get a job instead of working at Burger King their entire lives! Now for schools who have the exact same curriculum as us, such as Spain. They have almost the exact rules for school as us, go from kindergarten until your 16 then you can quit, but instead of the kids doing nothing with their 2 months of extra time in the summer they almost have to go to a summer camp whether it be for sports or practicing their English skills, but if this was in America is wouldn't be for speaking English. I have a small school that only offers German and Spanish languages. I would love to go to camp in the summer to learn Japanese, Mandarin, or French. I find if we had longer years we could possibly offer more courses. I shall leave my arguments at this and await for your responce Danielle. I await to see your opinion of this topic. http://www.infoplease.com... http://pocketcultures.com... I shall be using these sources in the later rounds so don't be confused if you see them again. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against # of rounds in debate should be increased because I accept your challege. Thank you for this debate. Hope we have fun. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school because I reckon that students should be made to go to school untill the end of high school because it will give them a better understanding of the subjects that they are doing. Because untill years 11 and 12 there isnt much depth into any of the topics its only untill the last 2 years of high school that you really get into a subject. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abortion because About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homosexuality is a gentic disorder, and should be treated like any other gentic disorder. because Before I begin I would honestly like to say that to anyone who opposes homosexuality, I would like to bring up that unless you have been "homosexual" or "bisexual" that you may never understand how homosexuals feel, when they are told they have a genetic disorder. I would also like to put out there, that in my opinion "souls do not have a gender" The real reasons people oppose homosexuality is because they are just not comfortable with the idea, it offends everything religion stands for, gay sex is unnatural, and that the thought of gay sex is repulsive, and they might recruit. Now something I find totally ridiculous is for someone to say homosexuality is a genetic disorder. I believe that everyone has at least mild homosexual thoughts and its just the nature of any organism and is not a genetic disorder as it can't be inherited and doesn't exist either its all a state of mind. "-If the person was born gay, and the parents weren't gay, then that states a genetic mutation within that persons gene's, that is not found within the parents (since the parents had to be hetro to have a child). This is a genetic disorder that should be treated." Now if homosexuality really was a genetic disorder don't you think it would be proved by now? I think the whole idea is to make homosexuals feel as if something is wrong with them, just because the majority of people are heterosexuals. Considering that for most of history, most societies shunned, tortured, or killed homosexuals, it's hardly likely that it was a choice they made. They could no more stop being homosexuals than other people could stop being heterosexual. "-1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Now my opponent brought up a quote from a study of genetics causing homosexuality, but Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Regarding genetics and homosexuality Hamer concluded: "We knew that genes are only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors.... Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." ( http://www.dunamai.com... ) Now when my opponent brought this up he failed to provide you with the whole quote, when Dean states that "Homosexuality is not purely genetic" this clearly shows that my opponent has contradicted himself. Also a follow up to Dr. Dean Hamers research is this, Dr. Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." ( http://www.dunamai.com... ) IN CONCLUSION, Homosexuality has not been proved to be genetic, nor should it be treated as a disorder. Thanks for the opportunity to debate something so controversial. Good luck <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Balanced Budget Amendment because Thank you, AStevenson, for accepting this debate. I wish you the best of luck in this debate. Resolved : The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions : 1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at http://tinyurl.com... ......; Also important to note, the BBA gives exception in times of war in relationship to defense spending. 2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper 4) Adopt - Put into place Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Opening Statements (ONLY) 3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing Statments Rules 1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow. 4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience. 5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because While it may be true that some people are capable of doing this, a relatively few number would have the willpower to go through with it. Consider the following statement: "I can eat the contents of an entire jar of mayonnaise in a timespan of 30 minutes." While this is true for some people, I know I personally could never do such a thing. Perhaps I _could_ if my life was in danger and that was all I could do to save myself, but the word used is _can_. Under the current circumstances, I _cannot_ eat an entire jar worth of mayo in 30 minutes, simply because I would not have the willpower necessary. In the same way, I doubt that you would be capable of shoving a whole chicken up your butt, in a way that, as you yourself admitted, could cause extreme physical harm. I know _I_ couldn't, and neither I nor the voters have a good enough reason to believe that you can. Thanks for the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Khan needs to be kicked off of this Website because In your argument, you provided 3 reasons why you feel that Khan "needs" to be kicked off of this website and they are as follows: 1) He is an idiot (opinion) 2) He doesn't "contribute to anyone" (irrelevant) 3) He is probably typing "I am an idiot" repeatedly at home (assumption) I can elaborate, however, for the sake of brevity I will instead list some of my opposing arguments for you to respond to since this is only a 2 round debate. Here we go! First, the use of the word "needs" in this topic of debate is pretty extreme. This website does have certain needs, i.e. techies to maintain the database, members to participate and ensure the duration of this site, etc. However kicking one member off is not a "need" -- the site will continue running smoothly whether or not he is indeed kicked off or not. Second - and more importantly - even if it was deemed a "need" for Khan to be kicked off of this website, it would be completely unnecessary as he is no longer a member of this site anyway. I did a profile search for Khan and no member showed up, thus we can assume that his account no longer exists and therefore there is nothing or no one to kick off. Argument done! However if I may I would like to continue with some other points just to keep this debate interesting ;) Okay, since you deemed Khan to be an "idiot" I am assuming that you don't agree with his style of debating, topics of debate, or contribution to this site in terms of the things that he posts. However, if it is a mass opinion that Khan's debating tactics are incoherent, irrelevant or pointless, then everyone still has the option to consistently vote for his opponent. Furthermore, if Khan starts ridiculous debates, people can choose not to argu with him and instead ignore his challenges. If he accepts the challenges of others just to make a mockery of himself, like I said - simply vote for his opponent and ignore his immature and unnecessary remarks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism because Hello! I strongly believe that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism, but am surprised to find that many people believe differently in this regard. I usually don't like to debate things I think are based on factual rather than philosophical evidence, but I think it is important to make a thorough defense of my case, since there aren't many debates on the subject on DDO. While I will not put any skill requirements on the debate, I would prefer that my opponent make an effort in her/his rounds. My opponent does not need to be skillful, but I would prefer that my opponent work hard on her/his rounds. Please to not forfeit rounds. If you wish to concede, please write your resignation in the debate. First round is NOT acceptance: please move into your argument immediately. On the last round Con MUST say instead of a debate "As agreed, this last round is left blank" (or something to that effect). The reason I have set it up this way is that I would like to cater my debate to my opponent rather than vise-versa. Please note also that this debate is NOT about whether the owner/bearer of the Confederate Flag is racist, but about whether is Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism in the contemporary United States of America. I will support the position that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism. Thank you so much for accepting! I'm looking forward to what I suspect will be a fantastic debate. --kbub (Pro) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is Markiplier is better then Pewdiepie because i am a strong bro, and a bro for life. I think that even though you may not like pewdiepie as much anymore, you were still a fan, and whether you found a new all powerful youtube god, and you rarely wath pewds, you still watch him. that means you still support. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States because I want to say that it has been a pleasure to get to argue with Contradiction. I hope you all have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. In my closing remarks I will attempt to draw together all of the relevant threads of the argument I have presented. Any new arguments or court cases that Con may bring up in the last round should be disregarded because I won't have an opportunity to respond to them. Though Con has continued to defend his procreation argument, I don't think he has successfully managed to carry any of his contentions. C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right. For starters, the notion that I am appealing to authority is plainly absurd. An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority in question isn't an expert on the topic of which he or she is speaking. The Attorney General, the former Solicitor General and federal judges are all experts in constitutional law. Related to that previous point, it is still not the case that I'm arguing in a circle. I've defined marriage. I've shown why the state has an interest in marriage pertaining to that conception of marriage. And unlike Con, I've given the testimony of actual experts to explain why marriage's core social meaning has more to do with choice, mutual feelings and commitment. Con later claims that he has presented evidence that gay relationships are not conducive to childrearing. The book that he pointed to, which is titled A Queer Thing Happened to America, is nothing more than anti-gay propaganda. As the Attorney David Boies points out, that type of material is simply junk science.[1] With regard to the State's interest in marriage, I've given the testimony of Deputy Director Linette Scott. Unlike Con's sources, she is an actual expert in questions related to the State's interest in marriage; and she has testified under oath in federal court on behalf of the California Department of Public Health. The state clearly has an interest in promoting stable homes and public order. These things entail, almost by definition, what a state is. A state is an ordered group of people living together in a civilized manner. As I've said before, friends, college roommates and pet owners don't organize into cohesive family units to create stable households. Con then says that William Duncan and John Eastman have detailed cases indicating that procreation is in the state's interest with respect to marriage. Apparently their lists were so "exhaustive" that it didn't occur to Con to mention one case. I'm not going to do Con's homework for him. The legal precedent that matters (i.e., Supreme Court precedent), has maintained since 1888 that procreation isn't a prime component of marriage.[2] C2: Gay people qualify as a suspect class. 1. First, Con claims that his argument is neither contrived nor ad hoc because his view makes sense of the state's interest in marriage. The problem, however, is that his argument is contrived and ad hoc because he has not been able to provide any evidence that the state has an interest in procreation, let alone 'procreative types.' His argument, therefore, is based on a false assumption. Con's (non-existent) evidentiary presentation does not carry his argument. As I've argued, Con's conception of marriage stems from a private interest that carries no accompanying secular purpose. Those private (and often religious[3]) interests have no bearing on public policy. 2. Second, Con then accuses me of attacking a straw man by citing Turner v. Safley. This is simply not the case. My point here, which seems to have escaped Con, is that the Supreme Court has never mentioned procreation or 'procreative types' as being an essential part of marriage. This, of course, is but one of the 14 Supreme Court cases I have mentioned on this point. Moreover, Con has not responded to Harvard Professor Nancy Cott's testimony indicating that marriage is not primarily based on procreation. 3. Third, Con's attempt to argue that the state has an interest in procreation even if its overpopulated is clearly fallacious. If the state is overpopulated like China, which, incidentally, has a one child policy to curb procreation,[4] then the state doesn't have an interest in procreation. Con argues that in such a scenario the state would have an interest in "affirming that conjugal marriage is the proper framework for procreation." This, however, is not an interest in procreation. This is exactly what I mean when I say that Con's position really boils down to a desire to entrench heteronormative views into society. Teaching people the "proper" way to have sex and create children is not a state interest. As such, I haven't attacked a straw man. 4. Fourth, I've never suggested that Con has argued that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. Rather, I've just pointed this out to bolster my case. Even if procreation is one of many interests that the state has in marriage, gay and lesbian couples don't harm this interest. Because of this, it would be improper to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage. And despite what Con says, I've already addressed his argument relating to the state's interest in marriage. Under my argument, the state doesn't have an interest in marriage because marriage is an emotional union. Rather, marriages help to create public order and stable households. Con later claims that social science is irrelevant to this debate; however, he is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled in Plyler v. Doe that if a statue harms a certain group, it can weigh against the statue passing constitutional review.[5] In the Plyler case, the statue in question harmed the children of illegal immigrants by depriving them of an education. So, the fact that same-sex marriage bans stigmatize gay couples and hamper their ability to take care of their children does weigh against those bans under constitutional review. 5. Fifth, despite what Con may believe, I've already addressed his claim that my arguments beg the question. Moreover, I've also addressed Con's argument about judges applying strict scrutiny. As I've said, any judge that dogmatically accepts a certain conception of marriage could rule in any way. That doesn't mean they're correct. Con then goes on to suggest that strict scrutiny is the inappropriate level of constitutional review. But his response here is really a non-argument. Indeed, in light of Attorney General Eric Holder's well reasoned arguments that I have defended, rational basis review hardly seems appropriate, though other courts have ruled differently. Rather than deal with Holder's argument on its own merits, Con tries to fallaciously dismiss Holder's argument by appealing to previous court rulings. C3: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My equal protection claims have still gone unchallenged. C4: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Con has failed to refute my argument based on suspect classification strict scrutiny must necessarily be used to judge this debate. Therefore, even if you agree with the 'responsible procreation' argument, Con's argument still fails because it isn't narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. | Conclusion | In conclusion, I've meticulously outlined Supreme Court cases which affirm that marriage is an aspect of privacy and liberty, not a privilege conferred by the state for the purpose of procreation. These findings have also been confirmed in large part by the experts from top universities that specialize in marriage. By contrast, Con has not presented any credible evidence (or legal precedent) in support of his position. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school because Definitions: Princeton's Wordnet defines "allow" as "grant permission." [1] Therefore, the resolution reads "students should be granted permission to use their cell phones in school." Based on my personal experience, the typical cell phone ban in schools is: "no cell phones may be used during school hours." Most school cell phone bans do not prevent students from carrying cell phones to school. This would answer two of my opponent's objections: 1. Cell phones could be carried to school, and school administrators would be more than open to allowing students to use cell phones in the case of an emergency, although the cell phones might have limited usefulness since having 1500 kids call their parents all at once would overload the cell phone tower. 2. Cell phones can be used both before school and after school for contacting parents and arranging rides. My opponent's third objection, that cell phones have tools that students can use, will be answered by my case. In addition, keep in mind that most math classes require much more sophisticated calculators (like graphing calculators) than are available on the typical phone. My opponent should name which tools are vitally necessary. My case: 1. Cheating If cell phone use is "allowed" during class, then it will be very difficult for teachers to catch people who are texting each other answers during tests and quizzes. 2. Distraction Many teenagers suffer from "permanent partial attention disorder," which is a habit of paying only partial attention to their schoolwork, while devoting half of their attention, typically, to social networking sites or instant messaging. If students can text each other during class, they are much less likely to take good notes and are much less likely to fully learn the lessons. 3. Safety Schools that have metal detectors at their doors and are considered extremely dangerous are the only schools that typically confiscate cell phones. The reason: when students get into fights, they often call for "outside assistance." This could mean a gang member calling older members of his gang or members who attend a different school. School administrators report that cell phones should be considered a weapon in these schools because they allow small-scale fights to spiral out of control. Out-of-control fights put the school administrators who are trying to control the fight in danger. Milwaukee's inner-city school district recently banned cell phones on school grounds for this reason. MSNBC reports, "School brawls have gone high tech, with students using cell phones to call in reinforcements — in one case requiring police and pepper spray to break up a fight that swelled to about 20 family members on school grounds. The fracas earlier this month, in which six students and three adults were arrested, was the latest in a surge of cell phone-related fights and prompted Wisconsin's largest school district to ban cell phones." [2] Since there are legitimate reasons to deny students permission to use cell phones during school, I urge a negation of the resolution. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against brawn is better than brain because All of my arguments are left standing therefore making me the winner of this debate (regardless of whether or not you think I did a good or bad job). YAY, my first finished argument on Version 3!!! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am God because My opponent has incorrectly answered every question, thus showing that he is not God, the creator of the universe. Proofs: 1. You can plainly see by the picture of me on my debate.org profile, that i do not have 110,293 hairs on my head, this was a mere random guess by my opponent who clearly had no idea how many hairs i have on my head. __________________________________________________________________________________ 2. I do have pets, i have 4. They are: 1. http://i16.photobucket.com... This is one of my pet dogs, his name is Pippin, he is a pure bred Jack Russel Terrier. 2&3. http://i16.photobucket.com... These are my pets, my Betta fish and in the lower left corner is my "Golden mystery snail". Their names are Chip (The Betta fish) And Skip (The snail) I took the picture right next to my computer screen that is currently on the "My debates" page, just to prove that they are in fact mine. 4. http://i16.photobucket.com... And last but not least this is a picture of my other dog Lucy, a Pug. _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. http://i16.photobucket.com... This is one of my rose bushes, showing clearly that i do in fact have flowers in my back yard. __________________________________________________________________________ 4. My only grass is a patch that's about 10 feet by 10 feet, which clearly there are not over 9 trillion blades of grass in. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. http://i16.photobucket.com... As you can see i pulled up 5 blades of grass from my yard. ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. I have many more freckles than my opponents suggested 23. ______________________________________________________________ 7. I actually have 31 teeth, due to having one pulled. But the average human has 32 teeth. (Without having any pulled) http://www.cyh.com... _______________________________________________________ Conclusion: My opponent has given no proof that he is in fact God, the creator of the universe. I have asked him simple questions that the Creator of the Universe (And everything in it) would EASILY know, which he has proven nothing more than his ability to guess incorrectly. He did not get one of the questions right, proving that he is not the All powerful, all knowing, creator of the Universe and everything in it. Resolution NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening because Hi, I'll keep this brief. Fast food is indeed very unhealthy but should not be made illegal. If you begin banning individual foodstuffs you are at the thin end of a wedge. You would logically have to move on to things such as cake, fizzy drinks etc. then cigarettes and alcohol would logically also have to be banned as these kill people. This would gradually lead to an erosion of our civil liberties and would be a terrible example of 'the nanny state'. A country that values Freedom cannot justify making fast food illegal, whatever the health risks. Now go get a happy meal! (no disrespect.) Thankyou and good luck to my youthful opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fox News...... unfair and biased because I would like to point out that the only evidence that my opponent has pointed to is one story perpetrated by one commentator on Fox News. Even if Sean Hannity is bias and unfair in his commentary that doesn't necessarily mean that Fox News as a whole is a bias news network. Thank you to both my opponent and the readers. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The philosophy of the existence of God. because My opponent is stating that the probability of God's existence is 100%. However, it is widely accepted that absolute empirical proof does not exist. Hence, the only possible proof is derived from formal logic. If my opponent can demonstrate such a proof, showing that God exists, undoubtedly, then he has upheld the resolution. Otherwise, the resolution falls, because my opponent has adopted the burden of absolute proof. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is in America's best interest,to support Israel because 1.DEMOCRACY- Israel is one of the only Democracies in the Middle East. It is naturally best for America to promote Democracy, and to have Democratic allies. By this, I do mean best in ways both pragmatic and moral. The very idea of President Woodrow Wilson's league of nations, was to " have allies who aren't autocratic, but democratic. The best way for America to promote Democracy, is to support Democratic countries, especially if they are the only ones in a particular region. 2. FIGHTING TERRORISM- Israel is also just as commuted as the United States if not more, in the fight against terrorism. Israel has more experience, as a nation dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. Not to mention that it is better for America's fight against terrorism to support Israel than, say, Hummus, the terrorist organization in control of Palestine. 3. TECHNOLOGY- Israel is a leading nation in technology. Israel invented several things, ranging from chat rooms, to solar panels. -Many break through in Medicine have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in alternative energy have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in water conservation, have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in Military technology have taken place in Israel. We could use innovation in all of these areas. When the U.S. needs help with a weapon, we ask scientists in Israel to fix it. If we stop supporting Israel, our Military wont have the advantage of fixing weapons. We are currently in an energy crisis. We could use more help from Israel, on energy. Many are worrying that water could become as scarce as oil. We could use more Israeli technology for conserving water. And yes it never hurts to improve medicine and save lives. In fact, the Israelis medicine can help our military. If we stop supporting Israel, monetarily and militarily, 1. We'll lose a vital ally in the Middle East. 2. Israel, a country surrounded by many countries that still don't even believe in it's right to exist, might cease to exist. I stand by for the next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should Capital punishment be allowed? because According to which researchers, pray tell? I maintain that crimes are committed partly by the thrill of avoiding the consequences. More severe consequences only makes the thrill more potent. I also maintain that there are five types of crimes: -Crimes of desperation -Crimes of passion -Crimes of thrill -Crimes of insanity -Crimes by criminals Now, most of these crimes are perpetrated by individuals who need rehabilitation, not death. If someone is ill or poor, you help them, not kill them. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I say, "God does not Exist." because I say god exists. When you look at a painting it must have a painter, same thing with people, they must have a creator, that being god. Seeing as my opponent has not really elaborated on his point (wait what was his point?) and pro has the burden of proof I win this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Riots Following the Murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson were/are Morally Justified because I'm quite disappointed that my opponent has chosen to forfeit his last two responses. Voters, extend all of my arguments. They all stand as true in this debate since my opponent did not respond to a single one. NOTE on THEORY & VOTING ISSUES: In debate when you do not respond to an argument, it is "dropped" and becomes true because it was never refuted or challenged. As an ethical debate, the BOP was shared so you must weigh our burdens equally. Because any moral statements can never be "proven" because they are value claims not, empirical claims. It's important to weigh responsiveness otherwise the debate could be corrupted by the preconceived opinion of the voter. I think most understand that you vote for the best arguments, not the position that you already agree with. Therefore, seeing my opponent has dropped all of my arguments, you must vote PRO. -Hierocles <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments because We'll start with the easy stuff first... >> "Cameron existed. This is his picture: http://www.bielek.com... ; I can go to Google and get a dozen pictures for Duncan Cameron. I can easily take a picture of someone else and label it Duncan Cameron. A quote from the site you didn't examine in the last round: "Since Bielek faked the evidence for the existence of Ed Cameron and subsequently there is also no evidence of a Duncan Cameron who lived during the same time period, then it can be safely said that the legend of the Cameron Brothers, Ed and Duncan is a fabrication..." Here is a page showing in great detail that neither Ed nor Duncan Cameron are in any way associated with the Philadelphia Experiments or Bielek: http://www.bielek-debunked.com... >> "You are providing nothing but theories and assumptions based on various coincidences." This statement, regarding the facts concerning the timelines of Bielek's statements, completely ignores the actual evidence itself, calling well-established facts coincidences. For example, Bielek states that he worked with Tesla, when in fact, Tesla was an extraordinarily weak old man, barely able to leave his house. But I suppose that was coincidence too. >> "Who better to verify this than the man who actually witnessed himself being aboard the ship. If Swerdlow said he was on board, he was on board." Yes, self-corroboration is the ultimate standard for proof. Hello? The fact of the matter is that neither Swerdlow nor his alias were on board the Eldridge. Please do some research and actually read the links. >> "Again, this only points to a cover up, especially considering the lack of exposure this project has received." The Philadelphia Experiments never received any attention because the title didn't exist until 1988... 45 years after the alleged events actually took place... when Bielek made up his story about suppressed memories. >> "Although the evidence now suggests that the Eldridge was not the ship, we are told that the experiment itself apparently did occur...This magnetic field was the product of several tons of specialized electronic equipment that had been installed within it." Could this be (GASP) the degaussing equipment installed on the Engstrom that I've been mentioning for three rounds now? The statement by Wilcock explains absolutely nothing concerning the following because it admits that the Eldridge wasn't even involved: 1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1]. 2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1]. 3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1]. 4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1]. 5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1]. 6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2]. >> "Also, these people obviously didn't gain much attention, let alone mainstream media attention, otherwise people would know who they are." False: "According to his own records, Bielek has been on over 50 radio talk shows and a featured speaker at over 40 conferences." ( http://www.bielek-debunked.com... ) >> "Another premise my opponent put forth was that the Philadelphia Experiment contradicts known science, yet, the videos I provided demonstrate otherwise." Your first video is about microwaves, not visible light. They do mention visible light, but it is clear that nobody has bent visible light. And the technology to bend microwaves wasn't available in 1943... The second video mentions teleporting photons and atoms... not destroyers. And not in 1943. And time travel? According to your third video, it requires traveling around the universe, which must be rotating. Somehow I don't think they were doing that too often in 1943. >> "I could flip the statement and say that the captains claim contradicts the testimony of Allende." The statement of the captains of the ship is corroborated by their crews, etc... which were questioned individually. Allende's letters were sent with strange wordings and references, including the (unverified) claim that Allende, whose real name is Carl Allen, was individually tutored by Albert Einstein himself. >> "Einstein and Tesla were behind this; there obviously was some scientific basis." Appeal to authority fallacy. And also... do a Google search. You find anything in any scientific journal or source that backs up this claim? >> "it renders plausible the conclusion that sufficient motivation exists to actually conduct a "Philadelphia Experiment" to examine radar stealth on ships with electric drives." The Navy DID conduct such experiments. And in the 1940's. It's called degaussing ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). *********************************************************** Readers, my opponent has not presented any sort of evidence that Al Bielek or Carl Allen is a valid source. He has also provided no counter-evidence to the fact that Bielek has lied about almost every aspect of his stories regarding the Philadelphia Experiments. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My name is boxxybabee because My opponent has still failed to effectively refute my points. The period changes the meaning because technically your profile name does not have a period, so I have refuted your argument regarding the "boxxybabee" with a period. I heavily urge a Con vote. My arguments stand. I did enjoy that picture, though. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Flying Unicorn will win in a fight with a Bear because I will begin the debate by refuting the points made by my opposition. "They fly and have magic and they have bloody horns from stabbing their opponent to death. Bears on the other hand have no magic." A flying unicorns magic isn't exactly useful in the contest of a fight. It would seem that the unicorn's magical abilities are only healing poisons and making water drinkable with its horn (1). These magical abilities would not help the unicorn to win the fight. The flying unicorn's ability to fly is still relevant, but I will explain in my points later why its ability to fly won't help it. "Every time the unicorn goes down for a strike it stabs the bear in one arm." A unicorn horn is not the easiest weapon to use. It is attached to the head and the neck, and the neck is not nearly as maneuverable as an arm. On top of that, the unicorn horn has no edges; that is to say, the horn needs a direct stab to do any damage. As the neck is not as easy to maneuver accurately as an arm, the horn needs a direct stab to do any damage, and the flying unicorn is a very large creature with high momentum but low maneuverablity, the flying unicorn would be unable to hit the slightly more maneuverable bear (this will be explained later). Now, here is why a bear would win in the fight. 1. A bear has better natural weapons. A unicorn only has its horn as a weapon, and this has already been explained to be an ineffective weapon. A bear, however, has claws, sharp teeth, and, on top of that, its natural strength. 2. Bears are crazy good at Kung Fu I would like to direct my opponent's attention to Kung Fu Panda. Apparently, these bears can fight. They can jump around like crazy (which can counter the flying unicorn's ability to fly and allow it to dodge the unicorn's horn) and they can duke out some serious blows (2). Essentially, a bear could straight up knock the unicorn unconcious, which would, effectively, end the fight. I will conclude this by saying that all of Pro's points have been refuted, and all of my arguments still stand as valid. Please vote Pro. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Kung Fu Panda, 2008 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because I thank my opponent for her response. I'm not a Christian, but I know that the Bible is regarded as THE holy book for Christians. And almost all Christians regard the Bible as God's teachings and/or policies that God would approve of. So how can you say that God would approve of gay marriage whenever it is explicitly stated in the bible that it is an abomination? Unless you are a Christian that takes an extremely loose comprehension on the bible, you contradict yourself. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law because Though all you've asked for is a rip-apart of your case for this term's LDV resolution, I have to establish a negative advocacy to make this work. I will do so when necessary to refute one of your contentions. Also, to make this easier, I've essentially added numbered arguments to your original case and posted below. I've also argued this as if I were critiquing an LDV case, competitively speaking. It won't follow informal norms of debate. Standards: V: Societal Welfare 1) What is this? How is it that I'm supposed to strive for something or achieve it if I don't have a definition and analysis for the most important standard in the round? 2) Human rights will always outweigh, as they are a precursor to all welfare, and societies must uphold them to achieve welfare; 3) The negative advocacy can achieve this value better, as it advocates a true change, rather than a negligible, dangerous bandaid fix. (Note: my negative advocacy is to propose violent revolution as an alternative point of solvency to vigilantism). C: Will to Power 1) Will to power does not guarantee societal welfare because individuals will not always act for social good. See Paulo Fereire (oppressed often become oppressors), and you have no warrants as to how you can guarantee a vigilante will work for only social good. 2) The will to power referred to by Nietzsche is not grounds to affirm. He isn't giving you a link to societal welfare in his analysis; your card doesn't tell me how the will to power will lead to more welfare, just more power struggles. 3) Turn: Will to power will cause more unrest and lead to less overall stability, which in turns leads to less welfare as individuals squabble over who has the power to portion out justice. Factions ensue, as the quotation states. In my negative case, I have specific cards that prove vigilantes and vigilante committees, drawn together by commonalities, will squabble between each other to deliver justice and end up fighting each other more than establishing justice. Furthermore, these vigilantes are often funded by a corrupt gov't so that they kill each other off, rather than making headway against an illegitimate state. Thesis: 1) The will of the people is not upheld through vigilantism~ the will of the vigilante or his committee is upheld, with no check on judicial power and no procedures by which to conduct justice. I have cards that detail human rights violations perpetrated by these vigilantes due to their volatile and unstructured foundations. Procedural justice cannot be maintained because there are no checks to bias (esp. since vigilantes gather in like groups...what a criminal is of a different race or religion than those who seek to punish him?) Observations: I lumped these together. What impact do they have on the round? You are so unclear about why it is that these issues affect ground or interpretation that, as a debater, I'd just skip them. These win you no favor, nor do they help us understand the round any better than we did before. You need terminal analysis that actually finishes up these and turns them into cohesive thoughts. After writing cases for this resolution, I found no resolutional analysis necessary. At all. Contention 1: While the progression may be true, this path leads inevitably to some sort of anarchical state. By #3, we've lost our liberties, and the government has become illegitimate and oppressive. My negative advocacy would be that, at this point, retaining the gov't but reinforcing its laws only serves to reify a bad system of gov't which clearly needs to be overthrown. Hence, revolution will solve for justice and societal welfare infinitely better than vigilantes, who won't be able to succeed in reestablishing liberties in the first place due to their inherent violation of human rights and their inability to maintain stability as a procedural justice system will be able to. That, and the warrants you have here don't establish much of anything, except that the US seems to favor a social contract. This smacks of being US-specific, which is patently abusive. And where'd the Yoo guy come from? Did you give a card for that? Contention 2: 1) Warrants? What historical or empirical evidence can you give me that proves vigilantes will be able to establish or maintain social order? I can give an impressive list of failed attempts at establishing a new order via vigilantism, mostly because of the myriad problems vigilantes encounter when trying to be just on an individual level. Not only that, but saying that a vigilante will be able to establish a new order is contradictory to your position: vigilantes work within an existing system. They make little attempt to change the system. Revolution is clearly not vigilantism, and you are joining them. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Flag burning because I thank my opponent for responding. My opponent says that there are limits to the freedom of speech. This is true considering is example of not being able to yell fire in the movie theater. However, these limits are set if there is something that desturbs the peace. By yelling fire someone is probably going to get get hurt when people stat screaming and running out the theater, on the other hand what is the consequences from burning the national flag? There are none! Burning the flag is a peaceful way to say 'I hate the government' or ' i'm unhappy with it's choices'. Therefore, since it's not hurting anyone then it should be legal. Mr. Rehnquist was wrong when he said this. When something goes wrong or the government is bad or when someone just disagrees with the government. They look at the nation as a whole. Same with other countries when they see the actions of our government they don't blame political parties they see the nation as a whole. What better way to say your unhappy with the way things are going then to burn the symbol of that which is making you unhappy? My point is that even though we can't yell fire in the theater, this is because it has more severe consequences then burning the flag. Since burning the national flag doesn't hurt anybody it should be legal. My opponent says that burnng the flag is not exercising the first amendment rights. This false because it is possible to speak wth one's actions, and if this is denied then the people's freedom of speach is denied. People have a right to protest, and people have a right to voice there distaste for the government. Not everyone loves the government or it's symbol anf they shouldn't be silenced. By outlawing flag burning we are doing just that, we are silencing people in a way. Our founding fathers wouldn't aprove. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate because Do not accept a debate just to disagree with the rules, but I will address your concerns anyways. - There is absolutely no reason to turn this into a god exists debate. This debate is simply if a man named Jesus of Nazareth once preached throughout the Roman Empire. - I do expect sources, because I am going to put a lot of records of his existence on the table, so any counter-arguments need sources proving my records are false. - I meant that any arguments in the comments or elsewhere should not be factored into the vote. One could almost take that as an insult.. Especially seeing from your comments on what your views on "open-mindedness" are. This isn't an attack on the debater. I mean no disrespect. My point is that open-mindedness is a judgement. An opinion. So, let us begin. I think I said that wrong. It's just that a lot of voters seem to side with their religion no matter what, unless the other side was really stupid. Evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed ------------------------------------------------------- Josephus - Josephus was a Jewish scholar, and did not believe Jesus was the son of god. In his book, "The antiquity of the Jews", he gives a summary of Jesus's trial with Pilate, and confirms his existence. Sources: http://www.tektonics.org... http://beginningandend.com... Tacticus - Tacticus was a roman historian, who wrote on the existence of Jesus. He was not christian, so he is a good source. He gives a testimony on christians at the time in "The Annals". He refers to a man named "Christus" (Roman for Messiah), who leads the jews, and gives an account of the execution, overseen by Pontitus Pilate. Sources: http://law2.umkc.edu... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... http://www.4truth.net... http://www.bede.org.uk... http://www.livius.org... Lucian - Lucian is another secular source, who too spoke about Jesus's existence. He was Syrian, and his writings are generally accepted. - Lucian was very critical about Jesus, despite confirming his existence. His passage was wrote after Jesus's death, but he still backs up the fact on his existence in the satire "The death of Peregrinus" Sources: http://lucianofsamosata.info... http://www.probe.org... http://www.neverthirsty.org... Julius Africanus - Julius Africanus was a Christian Historian and Preacher. While he himself was non-secular, he quotes secular Thallus, in "The chronicles" “An eclipse of the sun’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.” Sources: http://community.allhiphop.com... http://www.britannica.com... Pliny the Younger - Perhaps the most famous of the people who confirmed Jesus's existence. His writings are believed to be untampered, and he was also not religious. - He wrote a letter to the emperor confirming Christ's existence, and is another respected writer who provides ample evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth once existed Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.tektonics.org... Suetonis - Suetonis was a historical biographer and antiqual writer. He was a high ranking noble and law scholar. - Suetonis used this quote in one of his writings " As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." - Also this quote "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." - Now the common objection is that he spells christ wrong, but the way he spells it is actually suitable in greek. Jesus was not even commonly called "Christ" until later into the dark ages. Sources: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... http://www.tektonics.org... http://www.discoveringjesuschrist.com... Conclusion: Here I have listed people who have no affiliation with Christianity, and are well respected. Next round I willl reference Christian records to Jesus existences, and disputed writings to his existence, such as the Talmud. Note on sources: Some of you might criticize me for using some christian sources, but to counter this, I also included non biased sources. Any religious sources were checked for considerable logic, so as I am not bashed on for including ramblings. Please do not accuse me of this, as I have explained myself. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.' because Thanks, Phil. 1. ORP MAFIA Suspicion about GW/Phil being the same person arose when he correctly targeted 4/5 people in one mafia on DP1 of RR's game. All 4 of these people were in GW's mafia; Phil was unable to call out anyone from any other mafia (and there were 3). Anyone who has ever played a mafia game knows the extreme unlikelihood of this happening, and can also ration that I would never be so careless as to reveal nearly my entire mafia within the first 10 pages on DP1. Phil has given a gigantic explanation as to how he came to his conclusion though much of it is a straight up lie! For a STEP BY STEP explanation of what happened with DIRECT QUOTES from that day phase, I have provided all of that info here: http://www.debate.org... Now, you'll see that Phil's exact words from R1 were, "Then I ask her why she cared so much about GW and not KRF." In other words, his whole analysis was based on the fact that I did not "care enough" to protect KRF (and that somehow makes the both of us mafia... right. He used terrible logic the whole time). Plus, this is a blatant LIE. On page 5 of that game, a direct quote from me (to Nags) reads, "You've got a point; however, I don't think KRF's comment meant any more than yours did (so I'm defending KRF)... Who would you suggest we lynch and why? Is it still KRF? I'm just asking because I think that's kind of a stretch." In other words, I did indeed defend KRF meaning everything Phil has been saying is complete and utter bullsh!t. Proof: http://www.debate.org... 2. FACEBOOK GW admitted that she lied on DDO about her age, name and profile picture. What incentive did GW have to lie about all of the above while registering? It's more likely that Phil just could not borrow someone's Facebook with those credentials in time when we asked GW to prove via Facebook that she was someone =/= Phil. GW used the Facebook account of Kim Cox of Salt Lake City, UT. She is a 40+ year old paralegal who is Facebook friends (and comments) with a user known as Destiny Gillies: http://i41.tinypic.com... . Destiny Gillies is Facebook friends and RELATED TO none other than Connor Gillies, a.k.a. Philosophical: http://i41.tinypic.com... . Of course Phil claimed to have "no idea" who Kim Cox is lol. We can assume that for a 12 y/o and 40 y/o to be Facebook friends that they're related. Phil admits that he's related to Destiny meaning he's probably related to Kim Cox too. Now, Phil will tell you that this is a "coincidence" but the odds of this obviously suggest otherwise! What are the odds that this mutual friend of his relative's (with a giant age gap) is the person HE IS ACCUSED OF BEING ON DEBATE.ORG? This whole point alone is evidence enough that Phil is lying though I have several more contentions for your own amusement. Moreover, Phil and GW have ANOTHER friend in common: Manola Cox. Obviously he's lying about having no idea who KC is. Also, Kim Cox has mysteriously chosen to delete Vi from her Facebook friends and GW is MIA. 3. BACK TO BACK SIGN-ONS Since it was becoming increasingly obvious to many members that GW and Phil were the same person, I wanted to pay close attention to the times the 2 of them signed on. Not surprisingly, GW is ONLY active on DDO when she is playing in mafia games -- Puck attests to this here: http://www.debate.org... . Additionally, several site members have watched both accounts sign on back to back; Rezz even said he thought "everyone in the community already knew" that GW and Phil were the same person: http://www.debate.org... . Clearly, this suspicion has been widespread for quite some time making it reasonable to assume that people WERE watching the accounts (and noticing patterns). The only thing Phil has to contest this accusation is him saying, "That's not true." However, there are several eye witnesses who can say otherwise. In other words, it's many people's word against 1. Further, I can take a screen shot of my PM to a site member (if necessary) of times where we were acknowledging the back to back switching of Phil and GW. Additionally, I can offer proof of Phil and GW signing on back to back on more than 1 occasion by posting a screen shot of them accepting their mafia roles in Vi's game back to back (Phil @ 7:25 / GW @ 7:28) Proof: http://tinypic.com... / http://tinypic.com... 4. MORE MAFIA CHEATING Alex Hanson mentioned that GW started complaining about the integrity of his game only after the user philosphical found out that he was going to die in the game. Why would a 40+ year old woman feel such contempt at this silly game? And why only after Phil was going to die? Also, in Vi's game Phil was the cop and received information that Ragnar was guilty; however, he was silenced. Because he could not talk during the day phase, he changed his avatar to be the word 'voice' crossed out, and had his alter-ego GW post and call out Ragnar... despite the fact that GhostWriter didn't replace someone until the night before, meaning she wouldn't have known that Phil's intention was to investigate RR anyway. GW frequently posts that she doesn't like reading through entire day phases so what are the odds that she coincidentally knew who Phil was going to investigate? She also seemed to know that Phil was silenced. She pointed out in the DP thread, "Phil's online..." implying that she was going to note the fact that he was online yet probably silenced. In other words, he was going to cheat by revealing his cop investigation and condition using GW. Plus, it was when GW mentioned, "He's online" that I noticed the accounts switching back and forth (one time of many). 5. HIS MISTAKE In noting that Phil and GW were signing on back to back a lot over a few minute period, Vi decided to experiment by asking GhostWriter why she did not vote for herself in her writer's debate with Phil. Obviously debating with Phil was the first debate that GW ever did on this site (and only 1 of 3 in 6 months -- the other debates were jokey debates -- clearly something a grown 40 year old woman would do... right). PHIL responded with, "Because I forfeited." However, PHIL DID NOT FORFEIT - GHOSTWRITER FORFEITED. In other words, he forgot which account he was using and posted as the wrong person. Here's proof (Comments Section) : http://www.debate.org... 6. SPELLING/GRAMMAR Phil uses horrible spelling and grammar; he apparently does not understand the the difference between "your" and "you're." GhostWriter - though she is apparently some brilliant lawyer - seemingly has the same problem. I have screen shots of both Phil and GW making this error though I won't post it due to a lack of character space (I will if requested). Further, both Phil and GW write her name out as two separate words (ghost writer) which I find to be an odd coincidence. Another thing to note is that this grown woman apparently writes using phrases like "kk" and saying "sweet" (as in cool) while talking to Vi; however, the Facebook account we were given depicts the real Kim Cox as having far from such a juvenile vernacular. Even Nags has noted the fact that phil and GW have near identical typing styles as well: http://www.debate.org... 7. IP INFO GhostWriter signed on to DDO Fans using the IP address 69.171.174.67 which is a Cricket Wireless ISP. Cricket works in correspondence with Metropcs and Sprint Nextel. Guess what kind of phone Phil has? Answer: Sprint Nextel. Proof (from the still shot of him making a video with his phone) -- http://img441.imageshack.us... CONCLUSION: I'm out of character space, but I'll say that the number of "coincidences" is far too damning to mount up to "coincidences!" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Funny pictures debate because Here............ <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Did Luke Skywalker Die A Virgin? because I accept your challenge and I am prepared to debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The death Penalty should still stand. because My opponent's source states: "Attorneys for Morales rested their case after an anesthesiologist said errors by prison staffers with no medical background may leave inmates conscious and in excruciating pain masked by drugs. He said inmates could feel as if they are drowning, but obervers would not be able to tell. No human endeavor can be performed to humane perfection every time." I rest my case. It's unrealistic to limit the prison sentence to one year and then perform the execution. It takes years of paperwork, trials, suspensions, and tests to convict someone of capital punishment. It is more painful to have the convicted remain in prison for life. Death shortens punishment time, and takes the convicted out of misery. Vote Pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Kobe is a better basketball player than Lebron because Um...well I actually do think that Kobe was better when in his prime... You should probably reopen another challenge then. Sorry for the confusion :/ <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There is proof that the Christian god exists because "proof" any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn "The Christian God" According to widely held Christian beliefs, God is in fact, a Godhead, consisting of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However, God is undivided, each of these parts constitutes the entirety of God. Ergo, the Son is equivalent to God (the Son being Jesus Christ). Therefore, the person of Jesus Christ IS the Christian God. "exist" to have actuality. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The resolution, therefore, essentially reads: "There is factual, relevant evidence that the person of Jesus Christ has actuality." A historian named Josephus compiled a history of the Jewish race. In it, he notes: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ..." [1] Another historian, Tacitus, mentions the existence of Jesus Christ [2]. Both instances suggest Christ's existence. [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://www.infidels.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against racial discrimination sucks because My definition triumphs over Pro, as 1. That definition is only used in North America 2. That definition is slang. As this is an official debating site, we should use only official definitions, not slang. http://www.merriam-webster.com... slang : to be objectionable or inadequate As you can see, Pro definition is inadequate Asia is unofficial slang. Slang:a type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people. Google Sucks as pro says it is only used by certain people, not by English as a whole. It would be as if I said "Smoking is good" and then argued it was bad because bad can mean good, in slang. So use my official definition instead of Pros. Also, as my definition was presented first, you should use mine. Racial discrimination does not draw into the mouth, thus I win. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Model Debate : Hot Girls because Carla Olsa 5'10 119 Hotness factors : Nice chest, Nice backside, tan, dark hair <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Soda Drinking In Schools because You did a good job as an opponent, crackofdawn. I'll wrap up my end and we can see how the voting goes! < > I disagree. Parents can watch their kids all the time, if they home school their children, in which I think soda drinking is acceptable, but only in this case. <> Yes, but why should any teacher have to go through this trial period with every student? Soda is not necessary for students to make it through the day. The potential for disruption is much too high to ignore, as it is much easier just to ban soda drinking during school hours. <> It did have its effects, but there were no negative ones. Especially not in my professional life. People manage this all the time. It's the same with any other thing, like food for instance. If you eat a healthy diet, you don't experience negative consequences as a result from it. < > That was never in dispute for me. < > I agree. A law against drinking soda during school hours is not necessary, but a school rule definitely seems reasonable. < > Kids will also lie to get what they want. << If you ask me it seems much more likely that kids are doing that to excuse their soda drinking and try to make it okay to continue. I have many friends who drink soda a lot. When we go on long trips (i.e. boy scouts) they suffer no headaches. People can get addicted to it yes, but as far as I'm concerned that is a low percentage of the soda drinking population. Once again I come back to the argument that what a kid eats and drinks is his parents responsibility, not the governments.>> Is a government not responsible for its citizens? Yes, it is. It's why the Surgeon General makes warnings on harmful products. < > You are not a parent, nor have you raised any kids, so you cannot make such a statement. Not all parents are like your parents. < > This is just WRONG. Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper all have caffeine. Lots of caffeine. < > No, it completely supports it. It's habit-forming and you acknowledged it in your own argument. <> See? You admit it is the first domino. One kid falls and the rest follow suit. All falling into bad behavior, one after another. < > That is still a disruption to the education of the disruptive students and to the education of the non-disruptive students. Then the teacher has to re-teach the disruptive students, when s/he could be doing something more productive to help the class in general. < > Yes, and choosing to drink soda during school hours is the wrong decision. I am glad you are able to see things my way in the end. You did a good job and I appreciate your ability to agree with my side of the debate. I look forward to debating you in the future, crackofdawn. Better luck next time! Vote Con, it's the right decision. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Gay Marriage should be legalized. because Well, this is the last time I will speak in this debate. I thank Hunton for his...interesting perspective on this issue. I don't mean to be patronizing or mean, but I have noticed some things in this debate that are rather upsetting, however, this is a debate and I will continue to do exactly that, debate. Rebuttals: "You should..." I should want rights, or I should receive them? I think the answer is both. Why is my lifestyle "just wrong"? Because people like me choose to be with people of their own gender? I believe that it is called love and it really doesn't matter the gender, it's hard for anyone to find. "Child molesters..." I'm not misjudging you. I'm reading exactly what you're writing and acting off of that. I violently disagree but that's not the point. You do watch porn, so you suffer from a perversion as well. So I assume you shouldn't get married either, right? But you're against porn? Wow. So not only do you believe I'm backwards and immoral but you're a plethora of contradiction...interesting. "I know you..." I'm sorry but I'm not interested in men. It is not a "I can't find love" thing it's a, "I'm happy just the way I am" thing. I'm in a deeply committed relationship and would not give that up, especially for a man. It's not something I'm interested in. That is also not the point of this debate... Summation of points: --> Traditionalism is no longer traditional. What my opponent fails to realize is that tradition has already been broken. Not all black couples "jump the broom", not all Jewish ones dance the Hora and smash bottles, and not all people throw rice. The times and practices have changed. What my opponent also fails to realize is that if we were still operating off of tradition, many interracial couples would not be permitted to marry either. --> My opponent is willing to discount an entire group of citizens a human right just because he disagrees with their sexual preference. This essentially is considering a group that makes up about ten percent of the world, subhuman. Due to the fact that you disagree with the way people live their lives they should have rights stripped? That is irrational and dehumanizing and is a reprehensible action. However, I am forced to not be blind to your beliefs. This denies a gay person their God - given rights, limits their liberty and impedes the quality of life which is all unfair. Again, all gay people had to come from somewhere, so if you're looking for someone to blame you should most likely try the straight folk, gays cannot reproduce on their own. --> Religion is still not an argument, no matter how much of the bible my opponent wants to use. The bible contradicts itself ever so frequently that though it may be a good basis for some things does not really prove itself useful in this argument. The bottom line is that presidents/vice presidents/senators and congressmen do not base their political policies off the bible. They base them off the Constitution and that is the document that should be adhered to. In addition, there is no universal religion. To solely operate off of Christianity would also circumvent other religions from playing a part in the legislative process and that too would be unfair. Conclusion: Most of my points have either gone unchallenged or partially challenged but reinforced. I hope the voters will recognize that some of my opponent's points didn't really have anything to do with the actual topic of this debate. There is no logical reason as to why homosexuals should be denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. We are all humans and to be denied a human right is rather degrading. Marriage is not a heterosexual privilege but a human right and it is about time this gets recognized. ** I would like to honestly thank Hunton711 for this debate. Despite the fact that we obviously disagree I thank him for a nice exchange and forfeit - free debate. I believe in my mind that Hunton is a product of two or perhaps or perhaps an entire family of ultra - conservatives. I hope that you become more open - minded with age and experience and understand that there are certain things in life that cannot be helped. I did not choose this life, and I'm sure that there are many people who would actually WANT to live this way. I don't believe a lot of people realize that it is not that easy or great to be gay and often times is an internal identity struggle. However, I've learned a lot about people from debating this topic and thank Hunton for the challenge. I urge a vote for PRO and thank you for reading. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Aliens are Real because Con posted no argument, so I can't post a rebuttal Aliens are Real, and Con can't disprove it, ameen <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all because (Ignore the YouTube video for now) My opponent's contention is that a one-world government would be good because: A) No nation could declare war on another B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language. I shall proceed in order with my responses to these contentions. A) No nation could declare war on another Response: What would stop them? In current society, we say "you can't steal," meaning it's illegal, but in reality, I am fully capable of stealing if I so please. There will only be consequences if I do. In a one-world government, nothing could stop one nation from declaring war on another. The world government could only declare consequences of waging war, such as being attacked, or having trade cut off. In the former case, war would be more destructive than ever for the nation which had declared war initially, and for its citizens, because the entire world would be attacking a single nation. In the latter case, the world government would have to declare that no nation may trade with that nation, which would, first, be an infringement on the rights of free trade, and, secondly, if any nation violated this embargo, what would the consequences be? It could become quite chaotic. B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world How does voting decide what is fair? If the majority of world leaders arrange the distribution plan, and one nation doesn't like their part of the bargain, then you would have problems, possibly even wars of rebellion against the world government, or at least, much bickering and slow-moving government. However, that is rather speculative, so let us assume that it would work out, and such a plan could be put into effect: You are now infringing on the rights of everyone on Earth by declaring where each product shall be shipped and who shall get it. I contend that it is unjust to try and dictate to a nation of people how much they are permitted to have (because that is what you would be doing, because it would be necessary to take away a portion of what is produced in that nation and ship it to other nations). A good example is scare resources. The more scarce a resource is, the less each individual person can have - such as gold. By extension, the more widely distributed that gold is from one source, the less each individual can have, also. So, in a one-world government, any resource would be overall spread more thinly to everyone, because every source of any resource (it just gets more noticeable if it is a scare resource) is being forced to distribute to a much wider range of people than it previously did. By contrast, on a smaller scale, such as with individual nations working for their own good, that nation's water supply is only servicing that nation, so everyone there benefits more. If a nation which has very little water wishes to obtain water from another nation, then they can trade with them, in which case the water-rich nation receives direct compensation for the water they are giving up. It is their choice what they choose to receive as compensation, as opposed to being forced to give up a larger percentage of their water (because they're helping to service the whole world as opposed to just a single nation they actively chose to trade with) and being compensated, not by what they choose for themselves as adequate compensation, but by some resources chosen by the world government in which that particular nation has only one vote. C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language I disagree. Cross-cultural differences would continue to dominate, just as they always have. Observe, for example, "White flight," where White people regularly leave the cities and relocate to the country: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Also observe how different cultures treat life: (see YouTube video at upper right) And how we differ drastically on important issues: http://www.squidoo.com... To the Chinese, eating dogs is perfectly normal, but to most Americans, it is an act worthy of a shotgun blast to the head for the perpetrator (to which I agree; my one emotional "outburst" for the debate). Hence why we are two separate cultures and countries and why we will never live together and be the same. Also, if a person truly appreciates the variations in cultures of the world, how can they support multiculturalism? By mixing all the cultures together, you will only produce conflict, and, if you succeed in mixing all the cultures completely, you will end up with one world culture, or close to it, in which case you've lost "diversity." My contentions: C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species C2) Separate nations facilitate competition - Therefore, separate nations are a healthy practice C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species This is basic science. Without competition, a species will die out. For example: http://www.huppi.com... Competition is used to ensure that the best and most intelligent survive to reproduce, thus strengthening the species. Humans have divided themselves into nations based on similarity of race, appearance, religion, culture etc., because, being such a diverse species, we find that cooperation with every human would fly quite in the face of Nature. For an example from the animal kingdom, take the various species capable of interbreeding that do not do so. A tiger and a lion *can* interbreed to produce a "liger," but they do not. Why? Because they are different. Observe: http://animals.about.com... And: http://answers.yahoo.com... To summarize, all animals, including humans, gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and combine forces with them to successfully compete in Nature. Since Natural law is the supreme law, attempts at a one-world government would fail because it contradicts Nature's demands for separation of distinct groups. The only reason America exists as a nation is because of forced (1) multiculturalism, and we see that racial tensions are still high even here in America (2). I thank my opponent for his opening arguments, and await his rebuttals. (1) http://t3.gstatic.com... - Soldiers forcing high school pupils to attend a racially integrated school in Little Rock, Arkansas (2) http://www.blackpressusa.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women. because Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the round, I will simply reiterate some of my points. 1. Offering parking spots will not be illegal 2. Denying them spots will force them to exercise (businesses should not be allowed to) 3. Just because pregnant women represent a small percentage of the population makes them no less significant 4. Pregnancy can interfere with mobility 5. If a pregnant women falls, she can injure the baby 6. We can regulate it For these 6 reasons, and my opponent's rack of refutation, please vote Pro <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Marijuana should be legalized. because It's too bad Red24pat12 didn't want to actually debate. Because of this, here isn't much I need to say, so I won't waste your time with a lot of rhetoric or crystallization. Let me quickly summarize the reasons why you should vote Con. 1. Marijuana has a number of harmful societal effects. 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. 3. Teenagers will use marijuana to a greater extent if it is legalized. 4. The marijuana ban is justified paternalistically. 5. Red24pat12 never clarified the topic. 6. Red24pat12 forfeited not only one, but two rounds. From all of that, it is pretty clear that I have won this debate. In addition, let me encourage a seven point vote in my favor for the following reasons: 1. Red24pat12 forfeited two rounds, while I forfeited none. --> I have had better conduct. 2. Admittedly, Red24pat12 had few grammar mistakes* (See my note below), and no spelling ones, but - then again - neither have I. I have said a great deal more with fewer mistakes than my opponent. --> I have had better spelling and grammar. 3. Red24pat12 had only two constructive arguments (as I explained right in round one, his second argument was defensive, not persuasive). He never warranted or justified any of them. I provided a total of six persuasive arguments which I thoroughly warranted and which my opponent never refuted. --> I have made more convincing arguments. 4. In terms of source usage, he never used any. He had the burden of proof, so until he provided empirical evidence for his case, I had no need to. He failed to provide any evidence for his side, so there was no reason for me to waste effort in pursuit of reliable sources. That said, I still used the most reliable sources available to any debater: logical analysis and simple reason. Red24pat12 didn't even use those. --> I used the most reliable sources. I'll gladly debate this with someone else in the future if someone wants to redeem Red24pat12. Thank you, vote Con. Zabcheckmate * In his first argument, Red24pat12 uses the phrase "common legal drugs". Properly rendered, this phrase would read either 'commonly legal drugs' or 'common, legal drugs'. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status because I too have imagined the day in which I might actually be defeated based not upon debate.org vote bombs, sore losers, sensitive teenagers whose feelings I've hurt, a flawed scoring system or awarded points, but rather on the actual performance and merit of my opponent's claims. Fortunately today will not be that day. You see, Brian attempts to show why it is unfair that some charities are considered legitimate or recognized by the government whereas others are not. To illustrate this point, he describes an organ donating situation, which - whether it's based on true events or not - deals with one or two individuals and their particular beliefs/situation. It has nothing to do with charities as an entity but rather the charity of one person to another regarding their own body parts and moral values. The problem with this example (and his later examples regarding friends of his starting a "charity" to let him travel or drink at the pub for free) is that those groups do not fit the established guidelines of what the government deems necessary in order to consider an organization a legitimate charity. Legitimate, in this case, means that the government will provide tax (and other) benefits from the State. According to the Man, a legitimate charity must: � Be for PUBLIC benefit, NOT private gain � Be a not-for-profit organization � Can only trade if it is *directly connected to its charitable purpose* i.e. mission statement � Not over-chare � Make its work and benefits widely available. * Note: Some organizations are not charitable, as the work only benefits their members; for example, self-help groups and cooperatives. * � Campaign only if relevant to its objects and NOT in a political way [1] Moreover, to be eligible for the Combined Federal Campaign, charities must meet at least 10 accountability standards found here --> [2]. So you see, the GMFA must have achieved these guidelines (which PROs proposed organizations never would) and others in order to be considered. Hamas, as my opponent pointed out, does not fit the bill because of how some donated money is in fact spent on weapons. That does not comply with the ideology that a legit charity must campaign only for relevant ideas to their mission statement and NOT in a political way. Moreover, his assertion about the donations to the BNP is based on an over-statement and manipulation of facts/ideas. That's like saying the American Cancer Society is bad because they don't donate money to cancer research or patients in Canada. It's not discriminatory if helping Americans is part of the actual mission. PRO concludes with, "So, while people should be free to give to heterophobic organisations such as GMFA, the Government should not legitimise their discriminatory policies by registering them as a charity." In other words, he feels that charitable work should be all-inclusive if it is to be considered legit or moral. That flawed ideology would mean that any original mission statement would have absolutely no value. For instance, he would consider a charity aimed at helping battered women specifically to be biased in the sense that it would not necessarily help battered men. Well, in that case I could say that a charity aimed at helping those with prostate cancer is biased in that it wouldn't be open to helping women or those without prostates. Sounds like a bonkers opposition, right? The point is, there are dozens of AIDS charities and organizations that are ready and willing to help heterosexuals. Additionally, even if there weren't, PRO or anyone else could start their own charity with their individual mission statement in mind (for example, even one exclusive to heterosexuals). Then, if it meets the standards associated with government recognized charities - and only then - the new organization could be established and considered legit. However to propose that charities with exclusive goals ignore their primary reason for inception on the basis that they have pre-requisite conditions to receive help is ludicrous. That's like saying I should be able to get money from charities who help the impoverished because I am a poor college student who probably has less money than those receiving aid. It simply doesn't add up as there are certain factors to consider. And by the way, when government starts recognizing the discrepancies of say legal/marriage laws between hetero and homosexuals, maybe THEN they can worry about the discrepancies of the private donation sector. Until then, it is wrong to ignore the legitimacy of upstanding charities aimed at helping people of a specific situation if it complys with the present standards of government-recognized legitimacy. The standards in place ensure that overt or unwarranted discrimination is intolerable. Thus, this is a non-issue. [1] http://www.voluntaryworks.org.uk... [2] http://www.charitablechoices.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Social Security money going to the government? because I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for proposing this interesting debate. I'm going to be honest with you, dear voters, there is a fault in my character that I am deeply ashamed of - I'm selfish. Yes, I admit it, I don't give two tosses of monkey's tail about anybody else apart from myself. Now then, almost half of my annual salary goes to the Government and they spend it on my behalf, which I'm not entirely happy about. Frankly, I'd rather keep that money for myself and spend it on a Lamborghini, a helicopter and a cottage in the south of France. I might possibly also donate a few quid to charity to reconcile myself with my conscience, but I'm not absolutely sure about that. The thing is, most people are like me. Very few lotto winners donate most of their fortunes to good causes and the majority high-earners do all they can to avoid paying tax. That's why people are not allowed to invest their money as they see fit. For example, I might object to paying money to educate other people's children when I have no children of my own and decide that my taxes would be better spent on police marksmen to be take out those selfish motorists who hog the overtaking lanes on motorways (interstates). But then I would be forgetting that I was born into a desperately poor family and was educated at the taxpayer's expense and that one day I will be old and may need to rely on the state for my pension and health care needs and that an educated workforce will be required to pay for those requirements. The fact is, people in general are not in a position to decide what is best for them in the long term and that is why we elect politicians to make those decisions on our behalf. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Are cheat codes bad? because I accept. Rebuttals: -Cheat Codes are lame: Cheat Codes aren't entirely lame. In fact, Grand Theft Auto has a huge fan based just because of their cheat codes, which include the following: - Cause Roits - Change the Weather - Blow up all the Cars around you. - Get a tank - Make Pedestrians go nuts. Many of the game's fan base only play the game for these not-lame Cheat Codes, which makes the game more fun and interesting. Kids parents spend so much money on a game... The cost of the Game is irrelevant though. If the cost is too high, knowing your child will use Cheat Codes, than it's on you to not buy it. Now do you think that your parents want you to sit around and play video games all day... I'm not sure what your point is? It sounds like you believe cheat codes are bad because they keep you from playing video games all day. Most parents would rather you play video games for only 2 hours than for you to play them 6-10 hours. Con's Argument: 1) Natural Design: The Cheat Codes aren't an invasion of the games purpose, but an addition by the company. They added Cheat Codes into the game with the hopes that you would use them some day. No Game Designer gave you the ability to use Cheat Codes because they thought the Cheat Code was bad. What makes something in a game bad is if the Game Designers didn't intend on it being there, much like the following: - Unintended, game-breaking camping spots - Bugs - Hacks - Spamming (unless it's Mortal Kombat) 2) Benefits: Most people will beat the game first. If you beat the game in 2 hours because you used Cheat Codes, than that's your faut, not the codes. You used Cheat Codes =/= The Cheat Code's fault (It's bad) You used Cheat Codes = Your fault (you're bad) When used appropiately, Cheat Codes have many benefits, such as adding to the game's overall excitement, appeal, and insanity (much like GTA 3 and GTA 4.) Cheat Codes make games more fun, funnier, crazy, exciting, and all around more awesome. Misuse will deter the Cheat Codes benefits, but it's your fault, not the codes. ============================================================================ <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion because This debate is completely useless until we can agree on some definitions. :: vi_spex said: "if you believe that i didnt just look at my dog, what is your position on my claim" I believe that you did just look at your dog because gods are common and it is very possible that you do have dog. However, I also concede that I do not know. :: vi_spex said: "you can believe in a different religion and therby can not believe, that is not disbelief, that is just religion negating religion, the key is the arguments you hear" What if the religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive? Can you not possess them both? Or reject them both? "disbelief=belief to the contrary, the negative position on an imaginary claim, the no position" I reject this definition unless you can provide some sources to back it up. You cannot simply make up new definitions as you see fit. And why can't there be a neutral position on a claim that doesn't hinge on knowledge? Rejection doesn't mean accepting the opposite. If you say, "this cake tastes great!", and I say I don't accept that, does that mean that I think it tastes horrible? Please address this example: There are three primary colors (blue, red, and yellow). You claim that yellow is the best color. So, if I disbelief that claim, what does the mean in this situation? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This house believes in Utilitarianism over its rivals. because Go to the link but vote here, thanks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Is ADHD a real disease? because First, I believe I misinterpreted the topic. Is this about the use of medication as treatment, or the existence of ADHD? I believe it is the former, and I will proceed with that for this round. Second, once again, the fact that there are numerous adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD removes arguments about classroom settings, and excessive energy. "Who has set the maximum limit for a childs level of energy, brain activity and the need to let it out? Public Schools set the bar for this way too low for a start." Public schools do not set that limit. When it comes to diagnoses, that limit is set by child psychologists. ================================================================= "Why exactly is this a problem? If you can say you are smarter than other people in your class then why do you need to be good at everything? Have you considered that you as an individual are just meant to walk down a certain path of life that includes this activity. In order for you to have realise how smart you are there must be something you are good at and maybe that is your purprise in life. Do you need to be diagnosed with ADHD to fulfull that role for the rest of time?" This is non-responsive. What my point was addressing was the fact that inattentiveness occurs even in situations where a child is not bored. ===================================================================== "As for your big list of symptoms for what you are saying is not a disease. It is just list of rules for children to "learn" they are not born with them programmed in and they will not learn them for many many years." It is a set of societal norms which children are expected, and indeed, everyone is expected to know and follow if they expect to interact with society at large. Saying that we should not expect children to obey these if they do not wish to essentially frees a parent from any responsibility in their parenting, as well as creating societal anarchy, by saying we do not have to accept the rules of society. Please not I am not arguing for rigid conformity. I am simply saying there needs to be some limits to which people have to constrain themselves, if they wish to interact with society. ================================================================== "Some of the smartest people in the world know nothing about some of the main stream subjects taught in every school." Who? Are you saying some of the smartest people in the world are illiterate? Or know nothing of addition? Or perhaps we have just set a new standard for intelligence. ===================================================================== "6 Months out of a childs life is a bit quick to drug them don't you think. Diagnoses them with something they will grow up believing they have and the cure is drugs instead of mental will power." Not when considering most diagnoses also take into account the child's history. And remember, most parents probably do not want their child to be diagnosed. ===================================================================== "Nice that my opponent is being open but while you are how about possible telling us your feelings as a child regarding moving homes? Moving states, disruption, change of schools, change of friends. My experiance in familys that move to entire new states is they move a lot or have little support from other family. Have you considered that with all this going it may just have caused your young little mind to get all tangled up and because you are so young you have no idea how to deal with it?" I was pretty messed up for about a year after that, but consider two things. One, the diagnosis took into account my past, and second, the messed up mostly manifested itself as anger, not as excessive energy, or inability to pay attention. ============================================================== What my opponent seems to be arguing is that we should not set limits on childrens behavior, and that we do not have to enforce the barest minimum of societal standards for behavior, because that is just how children are. This ignores several issues. First, children will eventually grow up to be adults. And look at what occurs with children who lacked parental attention and guidance. There tends to be higher rates of crime, lower income levels, etcetera. Second, children interact with other children. Couple that with the fact that young children tend to be rather vicious, and then remove parental limitations. Ultimately, some sort of standards for interaction with society need to exist, and everyone needs to follow these standards. At the point where medication is necessary, be it for ADHD, or schizophrenia, it should be used. If it becomes unnecessary, then it should not. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate because I believe that the Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to show Southern pride and heritage in the student. Con will vote that the flag should not be seen on school property. First round is for accepting. Thanks :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Peta because Unfortunate, I urge a vote in my favor. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself in this debate. because I affirm the resolution, "I will not contradict myself in this debate." contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of http://dictionary.reference.com... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant for this debate, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A question may not result in an inherently self-contradictory answer. If this is the case, Pro wins. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against prayer should be in schools because I thank my opponent for his response and will now respond. "I would like to state that my apponet whole rebudle was about pray dosnt lead students down the wrong path. That should be irrelevant because it not a provent fact." In debate, there is a term entitled "burden of proof". The one who makes the positive statement must prove it before he uses it as evidence. My opponent was the one basing his argument solely on the concept that prayer and discipline are exclusively linked. I countered by offering examples as to how discipline may not necessarily rely completely on prayer. My opponent has failed to counter my points. My opponent has failed to make a case for himself. Thus, his argument falls because his only premise is rendered completely useless. "Also schools in texas, cannot have prayer. So him saying that is also irrelevant. At no given time could a student recite a prayer out load." My opponent is half right and half wrong. First of all, students are allowed to engage in silent, nondisruptive prayer at any moment of the day http://law.findlaw.com... What exactly is the purpose of disruptive prayer? A prayer is communication between you and God, no one else. Spoken prayer does not give more discipline than silent prayer, my opponent is simply making up random arguments and hurling them out in the hopes that one will make sense. "Because people have freedom of religion and should be able to pray if the desire." First, I repeat that students have the right to silently pray. And as for the rest of this argument, the concept of the slippery slope applies. If one can pray out loud by freedom of religion, why can one not SHOUT his prayer? Or perhaps, use a megaphone to amplify the prayer? If one can pray to the Christian God, why not shout Muslim prayers? Or Hindu prayers? Or prayers to the Chinese folk Gods? Or the Greek Gods? That would be fine, but very noisy. Thus, the best option is to respect everyone's religious beliefs and keep prayer private. Since my opponent has failed to make a case, I urge a Con vote. Thank you to my opponent, and to the audience. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. because Guess not. Extend my arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against should children have to wear school uniforms? because My opponent has conceded the debate to me. Vote Con. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits