text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am against The United States Should Return to the Gold Standard because I accept and look forward to an interesting debate. I am on a bit of a time issue so if my opponent could wait until posting later today or tomorrow morning it would be appreciated. Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap BAtttlllleee because Your nicknames Diesel, you got it while you were alone./ Went hunting for you on Myspace , found a pic of Vaseline and hotdogs with a tag line that said, "Another Friday night at home."/Those rhymes you laid were dumber than strangling yourself with a cordless phone./ How does this muppet think he's gonna take the Kings throne?/I took this battle just to throw a nerd a bone./ You're just another hopeless teen that shoulda been aborted... on your own./ Yeah son, your rhymes got flow. They come once a month./ Dr. Suess said he never had kids, now I think I gotta hunch/He didn't wanna claim the retarded daughter from the Brady Bunch./ So now I gotta serve you AND take your lunch./ Must kill you that I don't even do this an you're still getting crushed./ Like when you popped out the womb and the doctor didn't spank your butt/ he gave you a gut punch/Rick James'd your mom and kicked your dad in the nuts./ The name's Dawg Face chump, I'm nothing but live./ I'll come to your nice burbs and get more respect than YOU in the 305./ Dang, now I think that was the line./ I'm gonna be responsible for your internet broadcast suicide./ "LOCAL BOY BULLIED TO DEATH", I can already see the headlines./ News stations will drop it when they find out it's you and nobodies tuning in at Nine./ <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Metaphysical Solipsism is Most Likely True because Pro conceded, he had real, existing, non mental things to attend to. Thanks anyway. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best Yo Mamma Joke because Yo mama is so stupid that she put a quarter in a parking meter and waited for a gumball to come out. Yo mama is so ugly that when she looks in the mirror, the reflection looks back and shakes its head. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because I accept my opponent's parameters and he has accepted the following of mine: 1. We are talking about a normal, wild, adult grizzly bear, wanting to kill me, with no additional characteristics besides what we would normally assume in a grizzly bear. Ie. Grizzly bear has any unmentioned disadvantages. 2. The Kleptin in the story (aside from having the stated advantages listed in parameters 2,3,4) also has the attributes and traits of Kleptin in real life (me) and logical derivations from those parameters are subject to debate. Ie. "Because he can bench press 180, Kleptin thus has a buff frame" is not accepted because in reality, I can neither bench 180 nor do I have a buff frame, but for the purposes of this debate, we shall assume the parameters you set forth. 3. The definition of vanquish shall be "to subdue completely", the definition of subdue shall be "to conquer and bring into subjection". 4. The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources. I will now allow my opponent to make his first argument :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus because 1) My opponent provides no source for the "fact" that there was pasta at the last supper. I don't see any pasta in Da Vinci's painting... do you? He also maintains that the Church has hidden this pasta... Where is your source for this? The premiere sources we have for the last supper are the Bible and the painting. Neither mention pasta. 2) My opponent states, "[Jesus] would not be able to consume as much alcohol as he desired." Exactly. Any son of the FSM would be able to do so. 3) Jesus would be able to give himself an erection without lustful thoughts? That sounds bizarre... I highly doubt that whatever thoughts he would use to do so would be pure... 4) And as stated numerous times, there is absolutely no evidence that he did so. You are putting forth the claim that he did - the burden is on you to provide some sort of proof. 5/6) There is no such thing as "marriage" in the Gospel of the FSM; thus, no child can be born out of wedlock and all children are legitimate. 7) Again, How the writers of the Bible would have "forgotten" to include the noodly attributes of Jesus' appendage when they remember exactly what he said when he put mud in a blind man's eye is beyond me. Such an important part of the character of the son of the FSM as his NOODLY APPENDAGE would have NEVER been left out of the bible. NEGATED. Ramen. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Xbox 360 is better than PS3 because Thank you again for responding to my argument. Here, since you wanted me to present to you a source, I have found one: http://shoryuken.com... And earlier in Round 3, don't you admit that this has nothing to do with our debate? You wrote: (by the way, if you are also interested in making money on the web, you should also check this web page describing Google Ambush, the next generation of money making on the web). •The Ten Best Applications for the Apple MacIntosh •How to get TV content for the iPod Video •Creating your own iPod screen design •Microsoft Zune: the Good and Bad of the MP3 Player •How to become a computer programmer •GooglePack And I have stated my arguments correctly, since it's on topic, arguing why Xbox 360 is better than PS3 by it's performance. Secondly, you've also stated : 'Later in your argument, you state facts in the exact same way as I do, and my arguments are irrelevant as opposed to yours ?' This statement is invalid, since all my arguments were either promoting the performance of Xbox 360, or stating reasons why PS3 is bad. Finally, I've only heard counter-rebuttal from you, but NONE of your arguments in Round 3. Did you run out of ideas or arguments? Therefore, voters, I STRONGLY suggest you to vote for the Pro side. The con side have failed to support his arguments, and also stated irrelevant arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel because Faora-Ul. I am typing it here so I won't forget. It's your argument but I'd recommend looking into the girl's complete feats. I'm not using the girls to their fullest. To show why I'm not using the girls at their absolute bests, imagine the following debate: Silver-Age Superman VS. Man of Steel Superman. Man of Steel Superman seems to have limits, albeit high ones. Silver Age Superman had none . Even if Man of Steel Superman could lift planets, Silver-Age Superman would pick up five and play basketball with them, in five different games, at the same time, against 50 opponents. If we were to use the PPG at their best (I shall refer to them as Powerpuff Prime) VS Man of Steel Superman, it would be this: Strength Buttercup lifted a mountain with one hand like it was nothing. This surpasses anything this Superman could do. Speed The girls once broke the speed of light while playing tag. Superman has come nowhere near this Speed. Durability The girls have had a building fall on them and didn't flinch. This is would tax Superman a lot Heat Vision Th girls once melted concrete to ash ! Duplication The girls had once duplicated themselves into 500 other girls, who were as strong as the originals. That wouldn't be that fun to debate, would it? That's why I'm using the girls at their mediums. At their lows, John Burnes' Superman would beat them. At their highest, Silver-age Superman would have to step in. In the middle, Man of Steel Superman is comparable to them. Just an explanation as to why I didn't use the mountain-lifting feat. On to the debate! Away! I'd actually like to argue that Superman's strongest feat was snapping Zod's neck. I don't think that was a STRENGTH feat. That probably was a mixture of force and skill; punches transfer more energy than a neck-twist. The way neck-twists are done, though, allow you to break the neck. Think of it this way: Punches transfer more force than a knife. The way knives are, though, allow you to peirce the skin. In real life, you can snap a neck. You don't exactly have to be a weightlifter to do that. It is skill. Superman doesn't have to be that strong to do that (though he would have to be way stronger than any human). I still say his best feat was the Oil-rig thing. Do you dispute this? he'd have to have been going at least 333,952.291 m/s Ok. I forgot about that. better example would be his fight with Faora where he easily blocks several of her blows He blocked a lot, but he got hit a lot, too. Faora was seemingly faster, but he was stronger. He seemed to have moderate difficulty fighting her, although that might be because she was a skilled combatant. heat vision itself is shown to be able to hurt a kryptonian, I wonder how hot that is. If it is as hot as the sun, it is about 9000 degrees ferenhiet. This is significant, indeed. However, the Girls' own heat Vision is shown to hur eachother, and the girls swam through a valcanoe, which is at least 5000 degrees. If x-ray vision was kept, why wouldn't they keep the other powers? True. Still, we don't know the level of his breath. Could he blow an airplane out of the sky? We don't know. We do know that Blossom can freeze an entire schoolyard or lake almost instantaneously. I'd say they rely more on brute force than an actual martial arts. Agreed, I just meant that the girls would probably be better fighters than other 6-year-olds. I actually don't remember this power, yet I will trust you. This power was lesser used, but it wasn't a throw-away power. It was used in longer fights, "Uh Oh, Dynamo,". It was shown briefly in "Los Dos Mojos," and other places where the girls were having a hard time. Supes is stronger. Agreed, but just how much stronger? I think the question is, can the girls hurt with their punches? I say yes. I'd say this (speed) is a tie. I would lean towards the girls here, but, since we don't have concrete numbers, a tie seems good. This one (durability) is definitely for Superman. I think we've reached our first major debating point here. I say the Girls are at least tied. In a lot of episodes, there is a monster, who, a lot of the time, throw them through walls. Also, in one of two episodes they've faced guns, pistols were completely useless. In the second one, Professor was hypnotised. A SWAT team, busted into the store he was stealing from. They pointed Heavy-Fire Machine-Guns (and possibly Gattling-Guns) at him, and the girls stepped in front of him to protect him. They weren't worried at all about being hurt by the possible gunfire, which implies it would hurt them. The girls have also swam through lava, as seen in the Movie, which may be as hot as Heat Vision (we don't know exactly). Also in the movie, they played tag for the first time. Buttercup charged Bubble and tagged her, (it was a blurr). We see that the blow (a simple tag) had thrown Bubbles several feet and destroyed half the school. Bubbles's reaction "Tag, you're it!". The girls are very durable. If you can give me a PPG villain who was similarly-trained, I will agree to a tie but otherwise this one goes to Superman. I thought the 3 super-girls might be enough to equal Superman in pure fighting skill. Maybe? I don't know. We can give it to Superman. Anyways: heres how it comes out for me. Strength: Superman. I'm willing to concede that he is stronger. Speed : Tie. Heat Vision : (leaning) Powerpuff Girls Their heat vision hurts eachother, is hotter than lava (which they've swam in) and may be able to hurt Superman) Durability : At least tied. There are no significant differences. Reflexes : Tie. Sensory Powers : Tie. Raw Combat Skills : Superman Without powers, a muscular adult VS. 3 children is no contest. Now, based on these stats, it seems as if Superman will win. Superman seems to be a bit more powerful than 1 girl. The problem is: there are 3 girls The way I see it, Superman is 1.5x a Powerpuff Girl. However, with there being 3 girls, Superman would lose. I say that there are just to many for Superman to win. One girl and Superman have an (about) even powerlevel. Superman would be facing three smaller Supermen! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This house believes that environmental cases should be tried in International Criminal Court because I will post my arguments in the 2nd round. Round one- Acceptance. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against .999... is exactly equal to 1 because as I stated before, mathematics are full of error. it always has to do with tricking the system. by using the equation, 10x-x, my opponent has tricked the system. it is an illusion saying that it is exactly equal to 1, but all you need is common sense to figure out that it isn't. my opponent tried to confuse you by changing the eqation on you when he mentioned .888 is not equal to 1, but if you use the equation exactly as my opponent did.... x = .999 10x = 9.999 (10x)-(x) = 9 9 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. x = .888 10x = 8.888 (10x)-(x) = 8 8 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. x = .777 10x = 7.777 (10x)-(x) = 7 7 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. voters, my opponent is trying to trick you. he found the mathematic error, and he's trying to turn it on you guys. use your common sense is all I have to say. logically, the correct side to this is that .999... is NOT exactly equal to 1. if you were to try to use any other equation to make .999 reach 1, it is impossible. please vote in negation, this has been a fun topic. THANKS! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Civil Unions should be legal in the United States because Insults aside, my opponent begins with this: "You think that what is going on with the gay people in status-quo America is a problem, and isnt already solved by basic human ethics. We shouldnt even be having this debate, what we should be doing is molding our mindsets to accepting gays everywhere, to do anything, including be married." What he fails to understand is that, in the status quo, homosexuals ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY. You claim that we need to accept homosexuals everywhere. But by not giving them civil unions, we keep them separated from society by not allowing them to have unions AT ALL. How can we possible mold our minds to accept homosexuals if our laws set a paradigm of ‘rewarding' heterosexual couples. "The only time gays will ever be equal is when we fully accept them, and that is NOT going to happen by a civil union." Again, my opponent fails to realize that civil unions and marriage is the EXACT SAME THING. The only difference is the name and the church's recognition. Unless my opponent wants to institute a totalitarian regime in America, it is IMPOSSIBLE to force a church to recognize a union. "You believe there are two separate groups out there and you are trying to appease both. The two groups will hate each other horribly. We cant try and fix the current system in which the two groups hate each other, we have to mold everyones minds to believe that gays are equal." The church and government hate each other? Appeasing both is wrong? In my opponent's flawed mind, he believes that we can completely destroy religion to ensure equality only as deep as the name. He does not seem to believe that giving two groups two equal benefits is equal. Example: I give a boy 2 apples and a girl 2 apples. I let the boy calls his apples ‘bob' and the girl call her apples ‘rob'. Both the boy and the girl and treated the same. My opponent also believes that homosexuals should be able to do what ever they want. That's fine, but in the current America, they CAN NOT. IF my opponent is such an advocate of gay rights, he would support civil unions, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME AS MARRIAGE. A brief summary of the round: I advocate civil unions that give homosexuals equal rights and equal benefits. Everyone can have a civil union, not just homosexuals. I advocate that the government does not interfere with religious institutions and force them to recognize all civil unions. I am able to ensure that everyone has the same rights, same benefits, and is treated equally under the law. My opponent advocates molding people's minds to accept homosexuals without providing a method. He either assumes (as he has in the debate) 1.that the current law provides equality. 2.that we should destroy religious freedom and force church's to follow a law they may find sinful Both of these are wrong. If you vote con, you are supporting an America that does not provide benefits to homosexuals or an America that does not support religious freedom. If you vote pro, you are supporting an equal America that respects religion and gives equal treatment to homosexuals. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My oppenent doesn't care as much for me as I care for him because i luv u soo much! :) im so sorry bout earlier :( <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is the best team in NFL History the San Francisco 49ers? because 1. Why the 49ers are not the best NFL team. I think the Pittsburgh Steelers and the best NFL football team to take the field 2. The Stats of the Steelers players No. 11: Dan Rooney- Team President, Chairman of the Board, Owner...Although it was his father that founded the Steelers and was beloved by the city, it was under Dan Rooney that the Steelers transformed not only into the dynasty team, but to the elite franchise in the NFL. Dan Rooney has accomplished many things including... Won the most regular-season games (396) and postseason games (33) Won the most Division Championships (20) Won the most Conference Championships (8)"tied with Dallas Have the most winning seasons (31) Fielded the most All-Pros (67) Have the most Hall of Famers: 14 10 - Ben Roethlisberger - Okay, so that ended the mystery in a hurry. Yes, Big Ben managed to squeak onto the list, despite the fact that it is still relatively early in his career. Still, few quarterbacks in NFL history have the size, strength, versatility and the ability to make the clutch plays at crucial times that Ben Roethlisberger has. He already has one Super Bowl ring from 2005 when he became the youngest starting QB to ever win a Super Bowl. In just 5 seasons of work he already ranks 1st or 2nd in many all time Steelers categories, and is the only quarterback in NFL history to have 2 perfect passing games in the same season. Look for this guy to move up the list in a hurry if he can enjoy a long, healthy career. 9 - Rod Woodson - Though this guy only played about half of his career in Pittsburgh that shouldn't disqualify him from recognition as one of the greatest Pittsburgh Steelers players ever. In my opinion this guy is the greatest cornerback of all time, and though his greatest accomplishments may have come after his days as a Steeler, his achievements in Pittsburgh were spectacular enough to earn him a worthy spot on this list. 8 - Mel Blount - Another cornerback makes this list of the top 10 Pittsburgh Steelers of all time, and though I have already stated that I thought Rod Woodson was better throughout his career, I give Mel Blount the nod on this list because he played his entire career with the Steelers. Blount was there in the glory days of the Steel Curtain, and was a member of all 4 Super Bowl winning teams from that era. He was named to 5 Pro Bowls during his career, and in 1975 was named the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year. 7 - Jack Ham - This 8 time Pro Bowler is considered by most who follow the sport to be one of the greatest outside linebackers in NFL history. He was one of only 9 players to have more than 20 sacks (25) and 20 interceptions (32). He too was a member of all 4 Super Bowl championship teams from the Steel Curtain era, and was a key cog in the defense that great team was known for. 6 - Lynn Swann - Wow, talk about a who's who of incredible NFL players. Looking back it is hard to believe any franchise had this many great players on their team at the same time. Though the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s were much heralded for their defense, their offense wasn't too shabby either, and Lynn Swann was hall of fame quarterback Terry Bradshaw's favorite target. Swann also has 4 Super Bowl rings on his fingers, and became the first wide receiver ever to be named Super Bowl MVP when he was given the nod in Super Bowl X. 5 - Jerome Bettis - Well, I had to break up the Steel Curtain streak at some point, and there is no better player to do so than the man known as "The Bus". Though he spent his first few seasons with the Rams this powerfully built running back spent the bulk of his incredible career with the Steelers, right up to the moment he announced his retirement on the podium immediately after winning Super Bowl XL. Bettis finished the game of football as one of the most prolific running backs in its history with 13,662 yards rushing, and 94 touchdowns. Though only a few years removed from the game this Steeler is already a legend and merits the high spot I've accorded him on this list of the top 10 greatest Steelers of all time. 4 - Franco Harris - Well, after that little break we are back to the glory days of the 70s. Like Bettis, Franco Harris was another great Steelers running back. He was yet another member of the team to win 4 Super Bowls, and following Super Bowl IX he became the first African-American ever named Super Bowl MVP. He finished his Football Hall of Fame career with over 12,000 yards rushing and exactly 100 touchdowns, and his number 32, though not officially retired, will almost certainly never be worn by any other Pittsburgh Steeler player. 3 - Jack Lambert - One of the most devastating hitters in the history of the game makes the number 3 spot on this list of the top 10 Pittsburgh Steelers of all time. Along with Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert terrorized opposing offenses during the 1970s as he snarled toothlessly at them across the line of scrimmage. He enjoyed 9 Pro Bowl selections to go along with his 4 Super Bowl rings, and succeeded teammate Mel Blount when he won the Defensive Player of the Year award in 1976. 2 - Terry Bradshaw - Wow, this was a tough one. Many people would have this guy in top spot on the list of the greatest Pittsburgh Steelers ever, but in my humble opinion he didn't quite make the cut. Still, number two isn't bad. Not only is he the greatest quarterback to ever don a Pittsburgh Steelers uniform, he is arguably one of the greatest players to ever play the position of QB period. Pretty high praise considering how many legendary quarterbacks have suited up in the history of the NFL. Though Bradshaw's arm was often erratic (he threw only 2 more TDs than INTs in his career) it always seemed to get steadier when the big game was on the line. Bradshaw is one of the greatest clutch quarterbacks in history, and in the Steelers 4 Super Bowl wins he was twice named Super Bowl MVP. 1 - Mean Joe Greene - It is astonishing that so many Hall of Fame NFL players all played on the same team at the same time. It is almost as astonishing to imagine that this team actually lost from time to time. Despite how many great defenders they had, however, make no mistake "Mean" Joe Greene was the linchpin and the undisputed leader of that great Steel Curtain defense. He would not tolerate losing and had a fearsome temper that made even his teammates tiptoe quietly around him. He was twice named the defensive player of the year, and appeared in 10 Pro Bowls, and, like nearly everyone else on this list, he has 4 Super Bowl rings to his credit from those dominant years. As good as offensive players like Bradshaw and Swann were during that era it was unquestionably the Steelers' incredible defense that won them all those Super Bowls, and Mean Joe Greene was the best of the best. In my book there can be no other choice for the number 1 spot on the list of the top 10 Pittsburgh Steelers of all time. Even though the Pittsburgh Steelers do not have a perfect record in the playoff's they still have more wins then the 49ers. In reality no one cares if you have one 5/5 superbowls, all they care about is how many rings you got. Steelers=6 49ers=5 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued because I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will begin my clarifying some things, then I will begin my arguments. Critique What I had in mind for this resolution was that, when debate topics were posted, then the community should comment on whether or not the resolution could be worded better, had serious errors, ect. There would not be any censoring of topics or committee to pass, just constructive criticism. If my opponent does not want to debate based on this idea, then this debate should be a tie. My Observation My opponent is allowed to challenge my observation, but I would like to clarify that observation. I would like to clarify that the communication is between a debater and the judges (in this case, the community of voters), and their opponent. The reason that I say that communication is the most important part of debate is that effective communication is the only way that ideas and arguments can be conveyed effectively. Several things fall under the category of communication. How convincing arguments are and how well the grammar/spelling are two parts of communication. Arguments cannot be convincing without effective communication. Proper grammar and spelling help improve communication. I hope that this helps clarify my observation. My first argument is that, if debate topics are critiqued, then the quality of debate topics will improve. This will happen because people will learn how to word topics more effectively and clearly. This has several impacts which can effect many different purposes of debate. Education- if the quality of debate topics is increased through critiquing, then there will be more effective debate, thus, more education. Therefore, critiquing would improve debate with regards to this purpose. Also, critiques would educate debaters on how to write topics, further fulfilling this purpose. Fun- if the quality of debate topics is increased, then it follows that it would be more fun because, logically, higher quality topics lead to better debate and ,therefore, more fun. Challenge- better quality topics would be more balanced, thus, there would be more fair and challenging Recognition- better quality topics would enhance the legitimacy of debates, thus increasing recognition Winning- better quality topics would make more fair and balanced topics and would make winning more credible. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against David Icke's view that the world is ruled by a secret group called "Illuminati" is false because First, I'd like to thank TheSkeptic for challenging me to this debate. Second, I'd like to point a few things out. - This is not solely David Icke's view. Many other alternative researchers in the conspiracy movement also hold this view. - The "New Age Conspiracism" description is a made up label by Wikipedia, not from his website. He does not identify with the New Age movement, but rather condemns it actually. Though he does agree that his views are similar. Now, on to the evidence of the global conspiracy run by the Illuminati. ==== First, let's establish the existence of the Illuminati. ==== "The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always concealed by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the lower degrees of Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it." - Adam Weishaupt (founder of Bavarian Illuminati) "There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult. This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Its membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally." - Victor Marchetti (CIA Director's Assistant) "The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semi-occult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I." British military historian Major General J.F.C. Fuller "The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson "Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite." Senator William Jenner "The case for government by elites is irrefutable." Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee "It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States." - George Washington If you are in doubt that they exist, here are the names of several Illuminati whistleblowers (ex-members warning us): - Leo Lyon Zagami (Illuminati Grand Master born into the Italian aristocratic bloodline) - Svali (not her real name, an Illuminati mind control programmer born into the ) - Benjamin Fulford (33rd Degree Freemason who has contact with Illuminati and actually interviewed D. Rockefeller) - John Coleman (former British MI6 Agent) ==== Next we will establish the fact that the elites of the world are the Illuminati (or at least controlled by). ==== The 3 primary globalist groups are the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commision. "The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick "NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." Henry Kissinger (a Global Elite, CFR member) Now, here you will see that these elite groups include just about everyone in power, including corporations. According to Leo Zagami, these groups are Illuminati fronts. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ==== Now we will establish their intent and if their agenda has been in effect for centuries. ==== "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." - Congressman Larry P. McDonald "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight." John F. Kennedy "...the emerging New World Order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long." - President George H. W. Bush "NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." - Henry Kissinger "The New World Order is a world that has a supernational authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and Communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order." Former West German Chancellor "In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason....Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information....Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable." - Zbigniew Brzezinski (a Global Elite, co-founder of Trilateral Commision, CFR member, adviser to 5 Presidents, founder of Al Qaida) "This will encourage tendencies through the next several decades toward a Technotronic Era, a dictatorship, leaving even less room for political procedures as we know them. Finally, looking ahead to the end of the century, the possibility of biochemical mind control and genetic tinkering with man, including beings which will function like men and reason like them as well, could give rise to some difficult questions." - Zbigniew Brzezinski "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - George H. W. Bush Now, if you still want to believe that this world government will be benevolent, read this. This is a list of the 21 Goals of the Illuminati http://www.apfn.org... ==== The Illuminati Power Structure ==== http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... Here is a very detailed description of the power structure by ex-Illuminati member Svali. http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Voting should be compulsory. because The amount of donkey votes in non-mandatory (or compulsory) situations are very low compared to a system that requires you to vote by law. I just did twenty minutes of research trying to find anything that says the amount of donkey votes or informal votes in America and Canada, and nothing showed up. In fact, more negativity showed up regarding donkey/informal votes in Australia when I typed in "informal (and then donkey) votes in America." About 6% of votes were informal in Australia [1] last year, and with nothing coming up regarding informal or donkey votes in America, it's safe to assume that the amount of informal or donkey votes is relatively low there. [1] http://electionwatch.edu.au... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should Students Be Allowed to Pick their own Classes?(Basic Classes Still Mandatory) because Counterplan text: the 50 States of the United States of America should substantially increase the freedom of choice students get within the generic courses of Math, English, Science, History, The Arts, as well as any other courses. The Net Benefit is ensured education. Giving students total choice over their education gives them the possibility of forfeiting the classes they hate-- say Math-- when really it is key for them to be good and productive citizens. Mandating any math class, but enabling students to pick a math class, solves because it gives the students to pursue a specific portion of math, while ensuring the education they need to succeed. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Saitama is stronger than Goku. because What does being alien have anything to do with it? You can't say that a cat can't defeat a dog because it's a dog. The fact is that they were created for different purposes to begin with. Saitama is a gag character and his whole point is that he can defeat anything and anyone in 1 punch. There are no power levels with involved with him. But if one were to put numbers on it then his level would always be high enough to walk all over the opponent no matter the strength or speed, otherwise the whole meaning behind his character loses its meaning. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Women are treated the same as men because My gynecologist wants to know what on Earth you are talking about. The pro teams are not going to let any fifteen-year-old play anyway. Olympics does it depend on the sport? Skating pairs will be a whole lot different. There will be mixed and unmixed or else just unmixed and nobody wants that. Next they will want skating triplets etc. Gymnastics will let everyone compete on everything. Men on the balance beam and uneven bars and women on the rings, horse and parallel bars. Not just if they want to. They have to. All the records will be held by men except horse hockey. The men's synchronized swimming and ribbon dancing will be especially entertaining. But women's wrestling and weight lifting will still be the most popular. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mobile Phone Confirmation? because My opponent brings up four concerns that I will address. 1. You do not have to do anything, you may leave the site, or continue debating on the site but not vote. A text is required only for certain features for the website. 2. These would simply be options, there would most likely be an opt in process. Given the unlikely chance there was not an opt in process, there would be an opt out process. It is highly unlikely that these would be submitted unsolicited as the founders of debate.org could get into some trouble for this. 3. See #1 4. See R1 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America because I accept, and await Pro's arguments. I will contend that euthanasia should not be legal, as it leads to ethical issues and denying this does not breach any rights. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against who wants to have a rap battle? because You're so pathetic, you had to delete an account and come back Non-repentent, defeat in a second - you're dumb wack I was giving you a chance to start and prove your worth but like fresh earth I step over you on my quest to verse Dirt church, aint no words that can save your soul I came thru grim-reaper with a beeper saying your toll your number has come up and I'm here to take you back down I read your roast and heard better jokes from autistic clowns You shouldn't quit your day-job cuz you suck as a comic I can picture you telling allah jokes to a crowd that's islamic They'll roast you right back, I'll laugh and join in on the toast Even Richard Pryors ghost said you suck more than most Chris Farley called and said to throw yourself through a table hopefully the glass will slice your throat and you choke on a cable Eddie Murphy is still alive and already turning-in-his-grave after hearing that you were next to step up on the stage See, I can go for hours on end and rag on you till you quit but I'd rather throw a tomato - and ragu on your skit And MMA? Please, you'd get knocked out by a butterfly You do nothing but melt under pressure - Fighter name: The Butter Guy <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan because My opponent seems to be making a hodgepodge of judgments and assessments based on pure emotion, and not fact. He begins his argument with a contradiction: He is for the total annihilation of countries that harbor terrorists, yet he is against anything Obama does to bring terrorists to justice because "he will kill more civilians than terrorists". If you totally annihilate Afghanistan, will you not end up killing more civilians than terrorists? In this, my opponent admits his opposition to Obama's policies are simply rhetorical, and based on his anger towards Democrats for their judgment of Bush. My opponent has conceded several key issues here: #1- He concedes that his argument is not about Obama's actions or policies, rather "My argument is about Bush being demonized and being compared to every single monster in the last 100 years. Now It is Obama's turn". #2- He never rebutted my first round argument in which I pointed out inconsistencies with his argument and the truth. It would appear he has conceded that he was simply making up the connection between that story and Obama's being a "murderer". #3- He concedes that his argument on the legality of Obama's policies are irrelevant, at best, and untrue at worst. #4- He concedes that this is Bush's war. He supported Bush's war, and now that the Commander in Chief is from a different political party he "claims" to be against the war all the while admitting he is only against it as reciprocity for opposition to the war when Bush was in office. He is ignoring the fact that opposition was to the war in Iraq due to the misinformation that got us there in the first place, but the war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice- a war neglected by the Bush administration. The surge in Afghanistan has been a request of commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, the Pentagon, and Republicans for a little over a year now. Obama is listening- regardless of what the anti-war left asks of him. This, at least, is a demonstration that he is willing to challenge his political capital in order to do what military personnel say is the right thing to do- something Bush rarely did (the surge in Iraq came 5 years after nearly every military mind in America said the amount of troops being sent in wouldn't be enough). http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.iht.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... (from January 2007!) This does not make Obama a murderer or a terrorist, rather a thoughtful Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces- one that listens to the advice of the military minds he employs. "My opponent clearly gives the double standard on all fronts" -There is no double standard. Bush brought this country into two large scale wars with two countries. Both were severely mismanaged, and one was almost completely neglected. I am not accusing Bush of being a murderer, I am saying that as President it is Obama's duty to effectively carry out, and at some point bring to an end if possible under his term(s), the wars started by his predecessor. Your argument is that if Bush was a murderer, then so is Obama. I have never said Bush was a murderer. He has been many things, but I do not believe he was a murderer, nor that he intentionally ordered the murder or terrorizing of civilians. If this is your argument, you are to prove that Bush was a murderer. "By doing so he makes it his war and his liability" -By being President it is his war and his liability, but he can't possibly be to blame for us being there in the first place. We are there for a reason, and he recognizes this. He is simply complying with the wishes of the commanders on the ground. "His efforts should be undermined at every front as they were for Bush" -Bush enjoyed unchecked support for almost his entire 8 years as President. "I am going to give Obama no slack" -I think it is clear this is the sole purpose of my opponent's argument. He does not intend to logically argue that Obama is a murderer and a terrorist. To do so he would have to effectively accuse and provide evidence that Bush is a murderer and terrorist as well, and then somehow prove there is a correlation between this and Obama's policies. He has not done this, he has simply provided empty rhetoric. As a Republican I can find much more effective ways to criticize Obama, his policies, etc., but I won't call him a murderer simply because some liberal calls Bush a murderer. My opponent assumes he will be called childish for this. I suspect it is because he believes it to be. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Linux is better than Windows because >> I will make my argument that Linux is different from Windows, not necessarily better. Please do so, then! >> allow their respective sales figures determine which is "better" Remember that Linux is (usually) free. So dollar amount sales figures reflect nothing. Your next argument is use. >> I will also allow their respective popularity and the daily use of each system also speak as to which is "better". Microsoft is a monopoly, which does not necessarily make their product better. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Social Effects of Sin in America because I hate forfeited debates. Vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Megan Fox is Ugly because As everyone can see, my opponent has forfeited in a faster manner. I have nothing left to say, except to extend my arguments to this round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections. because Pro wasn't supposed to post his questions till next round but thats alright, that just gives us an extra round of debate in between CX and the Final Focus. Sorry for all the structure, anyways back to the debate! The following answers are in response to my opponent's questions from round 2 (his questions first then my responses): 1) Were the Founding Fathers always right? No 2) Could the Founding Fathers have predicted the distortion in our democracy today? Yes, because they purposefully caused the distortion to protect the interests of states with small populations. 3) You said "Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the gradual destruction of a republican government...". So please explain why our citizens vote at all if democratic voting is inherently detrimental. Citizens vote because according to my definition of Republic, citizens elect their representative to make decisions for them. 4) Please cite an instance in the U.S. that democracy has turned "into a government rule of the few that denies individual liberties"? There are no instances in the U.S. since the U.S. is not a democracy. However according to the John Birch Society's documentary, Overview of America, "the founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt because they knew the democracy of the early Greek city-states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy and finally tyranny under an oligarchy." 5) Was the Bill of Rights not meant to protect individual liberties? Yes, the Bill of Rights was meant to protect individual liberties. 6) Can we not have democracy and liberties? No, we cannot have democracy and liberties. 7) Why do smaller states have to be represented disporportionately? They aren't, they are represented proportionally by being given a voice in elections. Otherwise, they would be drowned out by larger states. See my source from Bruce Walker in response to question 12. 8) Wouldn't small states shall have their voice, their vote, during elections? I dont fully understand this question due to the wording, anyways the people would still have their vote, but their cumulation of votes for the state they are in wouldn't be able to compete with the cumulation of votes for the larger states. (also refer to my example in response to questin #15) 9) Shouldn't the most citizens be represented? a.k.a the larger states? No, the most citizens should not be represented if that representation results in democratization or the loss of rights for small states. 10) In an era of media, it is necessary for all citizens to get up close and personal to each and every single candidate? No? There is a difference between campaigning in a state and meeting every person in that state. For example, television commercials. 11) Is the Electoral College not, in essence, a direct popular vote by state? Yes, it is a direct popular vote of the electors that represent that state. 12) Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth 4 times as much as a vote in California? So that the state of Wyoming has a voice in presidential elections and isn't drowned out by California. Bruce Walker, author of American Thinker affirms this by saying, "The National Popular Vote Compact is supposed to solve two problems. Voters in small states have votes that count more than voters in large states. This is not a "problem," however, but rather an important safeguard granted by the Constitution to protect smaller states." 13) What is the ideal vote value? 1, however, what is ideal and what is required are often different things. 14) As you well know I'm sure, in the Bush/Gore election, the crucial votes in Florida came down to a few electors. Would we even want to chance the outcome of an entire presidential election by giving all the power to just a few people? The electors were influenced by the votes of the people and submitted their electoral votes according to what the citizens of their state wanted. There were no "faithless electors". 15) Should voting power be porpotional to population? No, they should be porpotional to area/state. Let me provide an example. In this hypothetical scenario the Electoral College no longer exists and is replaced by direct popular vote. Lets say one of the two major candidates makes a campaign promise that helps California. And the other candidate makes a campaign promise that helps Wyoming. But since there is no Electoral College, the votes of the people of Wyoming are drowned out by those of California and the candidate with the promise that helps California wins. And now to move on to my questions, my opponent must answer each question: 1) Can you please explain the piece of evidence that you keep repeating that says, "A vote in Wyoming is worth approximately 4 times as much as a vote in California?" or provide a link to the evidence so I can further understand what it is saying. 2) According to the only proposed definitions, is America a Democracy or a Republic? 2a) If America is a Republic, then how can your first contention still stand if it is based on a democratic America? 3) Do you agree that direct popular vote represents the popular majority? 3a) If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents states regardless of population? 3b) If there are reasons to maintain state representation in the Senate as it exists today, shouldn't those same reasons apply to the choice of president? 3c) Then why apply a sentimental attachment to the popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College? 4) According to the resolutions wording, "direct popular vote should replace the electoral college," is the burden of proof placed upon Pro? Which means that Pro must not only prove the problems of the electoral college, but also explain HOW DIRECT POPULAR VOTE FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS. 4a) If one of your attacks against the electoral college cannot be solved by direct popular vote, is the contention containing the attack and contentions relating to the attack void? 4b) In defense of your third contention, you said "my opponent fails to realize that the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Does this quote suggest that direct popular vote doesn't solve the problem of candidates focusing on a few closely contested states discussed in your third contention? 5) If the Constitution isn't applicable today then is the Supreme Court's ruling on the Constitutionality of laws applicable? I urge a negative ballot. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic because My opponent has taken affirmative defense in terms of a counter-proposal. His argument is based around a manipulation of the word "is" by referring to actual reality rather than the art of persuasion among people within reality. Unfortunately, my opponent still ignores the value of psychology in committing towards investigation. He ignores how personal goals are subject to what people believe in, and how social goals require organization inspired by the morale of what people believe in. Whether in civilian or military life, this even applies to my opponent's argument over constructing a battleship in a war. A battleship requires planning. People don't plan unless they're committed. A rhetorical argument will commit people to investigate how a battleship is planned. A dialectic argument, while possibly technically correct, does not commit people to investigate planning in the first place. My opponent also carries this on to victory in the war itself. One, winning the war itself is a secondary issue. Two, even fighting a war depends on organization and morale themselves which are rhetorical, not dialectical, issues. That is people have to be committed towards fighting the fight in order to win. Lastly, my opponent assumes that survival is intrinsically valuable, but this isn't necessarily the case. A side that wins the war by oppressing its own people has transformed survival into slavery. Yes, it might exist, but that existence no longer has importance. Without rhetoric, the people will not identify with the society they live within. They will feel like they're robots, simply carrying out orders. Thank you for reading. Please vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community because Extend. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against To poop or not to poop, that is the question.. because Caution! Frequent use of the words "poop" "pooping". Viewers discretion is advised. Ok. Smoking Kills Ok, you have said that you can smoke when you poop. Smoking kills because it introduces tar and other harmful substances into your lung system and then causes those substances to deposit in your airways which in effect, restricts airflow - which can cause breathing problems and sometimes death. In some cases, it can cause a cell mutation in your lungs- possibly then creating lung cancer. Lung cancer can Kill. Pooping in that sense is therefore bad because it is providing more possiblities for you to contribute to a possible death. Why people don't nag you when you are pooping: Have you ever wondered why no one will talk to you while you are pooping. Because it would be awkward for that person. Many people view pooping as a matter which is regarded in a sense of privacy. Many people also dont find pooping to be the most pleasant of experiences. People wont generally talk to another person when pooping because it's just considered basic manners and common within both people This is all for now. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Men should be allowed into lesbian bars. because Thanks for the challenge, Brian :P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :: POINT 1 :: Was sexual discrimination a factor? A) Sexual Discrimination -- discrimination (usually in employment) that excludes one sex (usually women) to the benefit of the other sex ; Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits (Google). Under the provided definition of sexual discrimination, the bar's refusal to grant admittance to men does not warrant such a claim. First, this 'discrimination' has nothing to do with employment opportunities. Second, not allowing men into a lesbian bar does not benefit women, but rather protects them. The act also does not promote hatred against men based on their sex, so first, Pro must prove that sexual discrimination actually even took place. B) Here in the states, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (namely Title VII) discusses what is and isn't permissible in terms of discrimination. An employer, for instance, cannot discriminate based on one's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. They can, however, discriminate based on one's political affiliation, sexuality, and handicaps, for example. Thus even legally - in addition to morally - one has the right to deny entrance into their own private institution. :: POINT 2 :: It's a LESBIAN bar. Pro attempted to enter a lesbian bar. A lesbian is defined as a female homosexual. Assuming that Pro did not attempt to pass as a female (and prove that he was one), or indicate that he was even a homosexual, we can reasonably conclude that Pro was trying to trespass into an institution that is not open to men. So keep this in mind: A) Brian and his friend(s) could presumably meet and befriend lesbians in many other locations - not just this one lesbian bar. B) Like I said, a lesbian bar is a place specifically for lesbians... or at the very least, females. While this may seem unethical, we must also consider other places in society which discriminate admittance or service based on gender. For instance, a female might be refused service at a barber shop because the barber wishes to cut only men's hair. Instead, the woman might be directed to a beauty salon. This is not an example of sexual discrimination, but rather different institutions catering to different wants and needs of the public. C) Women/lesbians might seek refuge at a lesbian bar to avoid the coming-ons of men... meaning this safe haven serves one population of the public - not all. To eliminate such a place would actually be discriminatory against lesbians or females in general -- after all, if places still exist that are for men only (i.e. professional sporting leagues), then to not allow such places for women would be biased and unfair. :: POINT 3 :: The rights of owners/customers. A) As I've mentioned, females may seek refuge at a lesbian bar for a variety of reasons. Who is to say that a woman should not be able to enjoy something without the imposition of male presence? Again the precedent for this lies in other institutions in society. For instance, a female may have no shot at pledging a fraternity, because of the strictly enforced all-male policy. Fraternities are not legal institutions - they are private. Thus businesses are also private - or should be - and owners and patrons alike should have the right to exclude whom they want. B) To elaborate on that point, I'd like to point out why business owners should be allowed to deny admittance of men into a lesbian club. First, they are not making money off it; in fact, they may be losing money (entrance fees, drinks, etc.). Thus the management's sole concern are their patrons. Second, like I said - women might be uncomfortable being in the presence of men. If so, they might not return to the bar/club, meaning management would actually lose money in the future. Unless Brian and his friends would be willing to compensate for the loss of profit, admitting men into this institution would be unprofitable and immoral against business owners. C) In response to my opponent's claim, "Women are allowed to go into gay bars so men should be allowed into lesbian bars," I would like to reiterate that it should be up to the bar's particular management whom they would like to admit. Remember that bars who refuse patronage are taking the risk of assuming the consequences, whatever those might be (i.e. loss of profit, negative portrayal in the media/society, etc.). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'll leave it at this for now... Again, thanks for the challenge! I look forward to your response. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay. because Punk'd is a tv show and therefore is a proper noun and must be spelled that way. If you were to use it as a verb in that spelling, it would be incorrect. Proof'd is not a word nor is it a proper noun, you cannot use it and because you did, you lose. Thank you for a quick debate, vote con. [Argument Part] This was fun. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Faith Can Help To Heal Sickness because I accept this debate. As con, I shall debate that faith cannot cure diseases. If my opponent agrees, I would like to state that he must show that faith cures better then the placebo affect. Otherwise, shared Burden of Proof. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations and have the Queen as head of state? because It's time for the United States to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilizational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilizational co-operation. THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This is the one and only alternative to the creation of the North American Union, or at the very least, it would serve as a backup method of globalization using natural organic bonds once the Masonic trading blocks of the NAU and EU fail. They will most certainly fail you see, in the most violent ways, once Islam is firmly rooted in Europe and American nationalism becomes mainstream. ELIGIBILITY: The Commonwealth is an important world organisation. It covers peoples of every religion, every colour, many languages, and every level of wealth. The common link is that all but one of these countries were at some point part of the British Empire. The United States of America therefore qualifies for membership. COMMONWEALTH POSITIVES: Within the family of nations that is the Commonwealth are Republics such as India and the Republic of South Africa, Monarchies like Fiji, Dominions like Canada and Australia, and emerging third world powers like Nigeria, and commercial centres like Singapore. Her Majesty is not Head of State of all of these countries, but she is Head of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is part of the Commonwealth, even though the British flag never flew there. It came in as a side deal when South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth after South Africa became a full democracy. ADVANTAGES OF THE COMMONWEALTH: If a Commonwealth country has an issue on another continent, there are friends on that continent to whom it can turn for friendly advice and sometimes discreet friendly lobbying. As Zimbabwe is finding, and Pakistan and Nigeria before that, the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments. When a country is criticised by a predominantly non-white Commonwealth it is hard to claim racism or colonialism convincingly. WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN? The USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. Even world powers need friends. And frankly sometimes it has to be your best friend who tells you home truths in a private setting. What goes on the fringes of Commonwealth meetings is hugely significant. Side deals to open markets, grant scholarships, and organise placements and training in advanced countries outside any normal rules all help. ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES? The USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture. In every family every sibling gets a look in, and the bigger siblings cannot just push everyone around. Britain and India and Nigeria and South Africa earn respect not only for what they contribute but also for how they behave. Americans will be able to learn these new forms of diplomacy. Threatening, destabilising, and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things. Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work. The Americans can learn to behave this way, and might even learn to transfer these techniques and approaches to their diplomacy generally. Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to. ROYALIST PARTY OF AMERICA: https://www.facebook.com... http://www.rpofa.weebly.com... I. THE MONARCH: I. The foremost aim of the Royalist Party of America [RPOFA] is to petition the Commonwealth of Nations to accept the United States as a member state and to restore the succession of the British Monarchy to the United States through Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). II. A restructured Executive Branch will incorporate Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as the official Head of State. III. The Monarch's powers and duties include: a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power; b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress; c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress; d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch's discretion. II. GOVERNOR-GENERAL: I. The Governor-General will act as a plenipotentiary and viceroy appointed by the Monarch and invested with all of the Monarch's powers and duties as the Monarch sees fit to assign. II. Her Majesty would be represented by a Governor-General who is an American-born citizen. The Governor-General would be appointed at Her Majesty's discretion and the Governor-General's term would last until: a) their death; b) their resignation; or c) they are removed at Her Majesty's discretion. III. SOCIAL POLICY: I. In recognizing the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations, the Royalist Party of America acknowledges that cultural, linguistic, political, philosophical, religious, and historical ties to the former British Empire constitute an unbreakable bond that we are obliged and well-advised to cultivate. IV. ECONOMIC POLICY: I. Royalist Party of America recognizes the need for a strong national industry and will take a stance that is decisively in favour of encouraging national productivity and rapidly scaling back on dependence on foreign resources and manufacturers. Also, every state will have its own parliament, but no state can deny entry to any American citizen. II. We will take into consideration the state of human and workers" rights in our economic policy. Egregious human rights violators will be met with American trade sanctions (including embargo). III. We recognize the agrarian community as the basis of every civilized economy. We also recognize the overwhelming national and local advantages of a reliable, self-sufficient, fresh, and healthy supply of meat, dairy, and produce. As such, we hope to: a) return American agriculture to a place where local crops and livestock feed as many Americans as possible without straining of our farmers or placing the American economy at risk; b) encourage local farmers" markets for the mutual benefit of our farmers and consumers; c) incentive "organization" - tax incentives, tertiary education, and scaled-back imports - in order to make farming and husbandry a viable and desirable livelihood for Americans with no previous experience in agriculture. IV. Local manufacturing is the key to revitalizing the American economy and ensuring that we can sustain ourselves as a nation in times of crisis. Therefore, the Royalist Party of America resolves to: a) incentive local manufacturing to encourage competition with foreign markets and large corporations operating in the United States; b) effectively combat monopoly - in terms of both market domination and hegemony over smaller corporations - to encourage local industry and entrepreneurship, as well as protect the rights of the worker; c) allow every labourer to own what they produce and sell their product at a rate that is reasonable to them; d) encourage a guild system, wherein employers and employees can work toward mutual benefit rather than dividing society along class lines, as is the case with modern labour unions; V. We would see a gradual phasing out of mass private banking in favour of credit unions and stricter laws against usury. Banks which are necessary to state and public good (such as the Federal Reserve) will be nationalized and committed to public scrutiny once yearly. V. FOREIGN POLICY: I. In recognizing the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations, the Royalist Party of America acknowledges that cultural, linguistic, political, philosophical, religious, and historical ties to the former British Empire constitute an unbreakable bond that we are obliged and well-advised to cultivate. II. We insist that preferential trade, security, and diplomatic considerations should be given to Commonwealth nations. III. We abhor any notion of "Wars of Democracy" and would not impose a certain form of government on any other people through military or economic measures. IV. We recognize the right for the United States to act in its best economic interests but believe that we must honourably execute all contracts made with foreign powers at least to the point of their termination. Constitutional Monarchy: Anybody that bothers studying history will discover monarchism is humanity's most successful and enduring system of governance. They'll also realize that republics, invented in ancient Greece, are a fatally flawed system that ultimately destroys every nation stupid enough to become a republic. Look no further than the way the United States and modern Greece are both falling apart politically, economically and societally like train wrecks in slow motion for proof of that. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Quote Battle because give me a slighty bigger explanation and lets go <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush because I agree with you that we will only really know who is better after the total term of Obama. At this point I would like to open showing the situation and its change when Bush first took office. 1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans. 1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged. 2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget. 2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade. 2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt. 2002: Dick Cheney declares, "Deficits don't matter." (I copied this info and I am not introducing nor supporting the suggestion presented about the participation of the political parties). When Obama takes office he inherits the following: 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility. 2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives -- including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act -- which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction. September 2010: In Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. In his first year: #Continued to draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq #Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan #Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights #Restored America 's image around the globe #Banned torture of American prisoners #Stopped the free fall of the American economy #Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community #Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming #Stood up for educational reform #Won a Nobel peace prize #Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances #Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin #Responded to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and patience #Stopped the free fall of job losses #Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty". I am opening my con side by presenting positive sides of President Obama. I do not like to present opinions by putting down the other side. Sometimes it becomes necessary but hopefully positive facts prevail. What I am suggesting here is that although there are questionable advances the stats indicated that the downfall is being arrested. The U.S. systems have been severely damaged since Clinton left office. There are many complaints that Obama has not corrected or improved things. It always takes longer to repair than to dismantle. It takes longer to repair than to damage. It takes longer to rebuild than to tear down. What hinders the "fixing" is what is called "The Messiah Complex", (written by Margaret Rioch) . Briefly explaining it: When an answer is introduced, it is in the form of a person, an idea, a statement, a plan, et al, that is the Messiah. Of course everyone does not agree that it is the Messiah and will not allow it to be tried out. Their resistance and opposition by many different methods "kills the Messiah". Therefore the Messiah never is allowed to exist or be successful. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against DDO is similar to a social network because The opponent's response is short and not entirely cogent. I'll attempt to respond, then sum up the round with some voters. "Cats also have some similarities [to other cats], such as most of them drink milk and their bodies are similar to other cats." My point had nothing to do with cats -- I was just using animals colors as an example as to why you can't average qualitative characterstics. This was harkening to the point about "DDO being atypical" in terms of social networks. Notably, you can approach a level of specificity such that the term "similar" can be applied. For example, a Persian Cat is similar to a Bengal cat. This is an appropriate usage of the term "similar", since you are comparing two different objects. It does not a correct usage to say "cats are similar to cats", since both objects are the same. That is the case in the resolution in question. Since DDO is a social network, it does not make sense to say "DDO is similar to a social network". "Some people use facebooks [sic] for propoganda, others for jokes, for educational purposes etc. There is a common interest as such in these sites." The opponent candidly admits that there is a common interest in Facebook, which was my entire point. Facebook is a social network by definition. DDO is a social network by definition. Conclusion I have demonstrated that DDO is a social network, meaning that it cannot be similar to a social network, since two identical objects can never be similar, by the definition of similar. In order for the opponent's position to be true, DDO would need to be "a little different" than a social network. I have shown that DDO perfectly fits the definition of a social network, meaning it is not "a little different" than a social network. Had the opponent claimed "DDO is similar to Facebook", then he would be exactly correct. But because he used the general term "social network", he fails to maintain his position. Thanks for reading and please vote Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ninjas are better than prates because <"All you're doing is explaining how poor of a debater i am."> This is incorrect -- I'm explaining that my opponent is the one whose in possession of the burden of proof, which means that it's his job to provide some sort of proof; there's no burden on me to prove anything. <"If you could argue that pirates are better than ninjas, please do so, that's what this argument is about (not trying to bring the other person down with negative comments)."> My opponent seems to be addressing me directly and falsely claiming that I've made negative comments towards him, rather than presenting an actual argument, which seems fallacious in nature. My opponent hasn't realized that it isn't my job to prove that pirates are better; all I have to do is negate what he says, which I have. He's the claimant; therefore, it's fully my opponent's job to back himself up. Considering that he has failed to show that ninjas are in any way superior to pirates, and that I've, indeed, negated what he has said, I strongly urge everyone to vote con. Thank you to pro for this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Three Philosophical Topics - 1C because I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Since his response was small, and frankly an absurd misunderstanding of free will, my round here won't be too long. "I am going to assume that because my opponent believes free will doesn't exist, then all humans have one choice. There is always the choice of death." ----> Why would the denial of free will entail that we can only have one choice? If you are referring to determinism and you mean there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, then I agree - but obviously these mean different things. Even though we don't have free will we still have freedom of action, though the driving force behind it is not "free". If you doubt this then lift up your hand, walk around the room, and get a burger; this would confirm what I mean. "Pro must prove that an external source can be linked to death in every single case ever recorded. So Con wins." ----> What do you mean an external source? Perhaps by external you mean something that is outside the human body causing death, and if that is so I have no clue how free will even leads to such an irrelevant conclusion. Frankly, I'm not sure why you even brought this up. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Chrysippus is not a noob. because However, the only word that I used to define "noob" was "newbie." I simply gave the source to show where I got "newbie" from. Clearly, my opponent is arguing semantics. I specifically gave the word "newbie" as the definition because that is the only one I wanted to use in the debate. My source just shows where I got the definition from. If I wanted to use more defining terms, I would have listed them, but since I did not, my opponent's arguments do not hold water. I did define "noob" as a "newbie." That is the only thing I gave to define. My opponent is arguing semantics and has not stuck to the original definition in the debate. In round I, my opponent extended the definition to simply being an inexperienced user of computers. However, the fact that we are on a debating website and the word "noob" is used frequently, it is only logical that "noob" would apply to being a "newbie" at debating on this site. My opponent argued fallacious semantics and did not stay on topic. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Was World War One a pointless war? because First round is acceptance. i believe this was a pointless war. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Intelligent Design should be taught in school because Well, I am sorry this could not have developed further. Please vote affirmative. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abortion because All our choices have consequences, yes they do. Hey that's have every women who is raped and can have the baby, forced to go through pain just like being raped and have her give birth to an innocent baby, who is the son/girl of her reaper. A fetus is the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion. In addition, a human being is someone in some way can contribute positively to the planet no matter what their station or condition is. Guess what that most likely will cause stress, which hey means she needed to have an induced abortion. Remember our first round? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pink Floyd, The wall vs Dark Side of the Moon. because DDO is being sick and erased a good portion of my response. Additionally, this response falls on Con's 21st birthday and Con feels there are better ways to spend him time on this night than rebutting Pro. Con also feels contentions 2-5 can largely be considered dropped by Pro. In C5 Pro claims that The Wall contains "more good songs" but I'm simply going to call this one an unsupported assertion. C1: I think that Con's claim that The Wall is more creative has been thoroughly rebutted. He weakly reiterates previously points such as the album's length, song number, and music time, which I rebutted to extending those "edges" to their logical conclusions. The issue Con has here if my use of the term "pure cultural commentary." When I use that term, I'm talking about general themes for the album. Con misconstrues this and interprets it as the claim that every song must have direct social commentary even though some songs - like many in The Wall - are purely instrumental. Saying DSOTM is pure cultural commentary is another way saying that the theme pervades the album - the point is purely semantic. Regardless, Pro grossly misinterprets several songs. Con strangely uses the idea that DSOTM includes a mild theme of mental illness as a point against the position. I fully acknowledge this and treat it as a deepening of the album. Con perhaps brought up "On the Run" as a way to prove a point that I fully embrace, all the more themes in DSOTM! The diversity of themes could easily be brought in as a strong point for DSOTM. Truthfully, I'm surprised that Pro asserts that Great Gig "is just a bunch of screaming, except for the beginning." I happen to believe the songs is beautifully sung by talented vocalist Clare Torry, with an intro which expounds on another theme in the album: death. "And I am not frightened of dying, any time will do, I don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've gotta go sometime." "I never said I was frightened of dying." "If you hear this you're dying." [1] The song is beautiful in the contrast between the stunning vocals of Torry and the solemn but real theme in the introduction of the song. Dying can be beautiful. "Us and Them" again is insightful cultural commentary. It comments on the socio-cultural divisions that we find ourselves randomly born into ("It's not what we would choose to do.") [2] The song itself describes a grandiose battle scenes and is one of my personal favorites in the album. [1] http://www.sing365.com... [2] http://www.lyricsfreak.com... floyd/us them_20108709.html <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against RAP BATTLE(begginners) because I'll write this with four minutes to spare before posting It's lyrical war so just prepare yourself for the roasting I'm not shy about boasting - my skills are fly, worth the toasting So keep that in mind throughout this battle you're hosting Yo, why'd you limit these rounds to just 1,000 letters? I guess you know the less ammo I have, then the better And why'd you even start this, just to walk away from it? Silly rap n00b, you must be on some crazy sh1t No I can't relate to it, In fact I'm gonna hate on it Instigate a challenge and then forfeit like a lazy kid You talk a big game but don't deliver like that Pedro biz So I'm gonna make you my daddy like them Yankees did Laying down Law like Jude; no not the one from the Beatles My rhymes are holier than people's praying under steeples So know I'll have you on your knees, begging for mercy like the sinners Note: you're the only novice in this rap here "for beginners" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne because Background: Thett and I just got married, and we are having the ultimate debate baby. So, we decided to have a debate about the baby's name. First round is acceptance only. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against More underage clubs because Thanks for the response. My opponent mentions her own personal experience, a club called the Vibe. This is not very credible, reliable information, firstly, but I will still refute it. "Some of my older friends go there they say that even though there is no selling of alcohol they do still make good profit." Your "friends" is hardly a reliable source. Nonetheless, how exactly would your friends know if a business was doing well or not? Just because a lot of people may go does not necessarily mean the business if financially stable. Also, please mention more than one club that could possibly be financially secure. "This place has a lot of supervision so there is no alcohol or drugs." This is one factor that will turn away many potential young customers, contributing to even more financial issues. Who supervises? How many supervise? What happens if alcohol/drugs is/are found? Not enough information is given. "At 1:30 am all teens that are 16-17 all have to leave at 2:00 every person in that club is allowed to light one cigarette." How are you going to find which person looks like a 16 year old or 17 year old? Not everyone will have a drivers' license, so you can't check their age. And 1:30 AM? That's ridiculously late! Teens should be in bed sleeping at that time so they'll be all ready for school. And considering smoking... That is a major issue, and we are talking about that. If every underage club did that, imagine the increase in lung cancer. Even those who don't want to smoke but still want to party have to put up with the smokers. Secondhand smoke is dangerous as well! These clubs will just offer another way for teens to be exposed to cigarettes and eventually addicted. This is not a good effect. My opponent has not refuted any of the Opposition's arguments. Therefore, they still stand. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Obese customers should pay more for flights. because :: REBUTTAL :: 1. Cost of Insurance This contention is highly flawed. While obese customers may cost more to insure (as they pose a higher risk of becoming ill during flights), so do the elderly, those with allergies, those with asthma, those with mental illness, pregnant women, children in general, those who use/abuse drugs, those taking medication, etc. Because airlines do not require a background check before booking a flight, it would be extremely unjust to require specifically obese people to pay extra under the premise of an insurance issue, and not charge other potential 'threats' for the same substantial risk. Additionally, my opponent indicates that in only 1% of cases involving obesity is the condition genetic. I ask that statistics like this only be taken into account if they are cited/sourced, as it would be very easy for either side to draw up random stats that may or may not be true. Furthermore, I disagree with that figure on the basis of psychology alone -- I'm sure that even if 99% of obese individuals "choose" that lifestyle, there are some deep-rooted depression and self-esteem issues, which cause obesity to lean towards a medical (mental) condition rather than just a choice. Now even if you buy into the fact that overweight people choose that condition, you cannot deny my previous point that there are all kinds of conditions or circumstances which would increase the cost of insurance for certain flyers. To make this call for higher prices legit, you would have to agree upon charging a superior price for ALL flyers with medical conditions/situations that would cause insurnace to increase. Otherwise, a great deal of discrimination lawsuits would be on your hands, in which cases the airlines would be forced to charge migh higher prices for tickets than they already do in order to sustain legal fees. Plus, consider the fact that in order to regulate this kind of additional fee, new jobs would have to be created that deal specifically with insurance and charging passengers the right amount of money as designated for their flight. This would cause airline disruption, inevitably draw upon negative publicity, and most importantly cause the airline to shell out more money to pay the salaries of these new jobs and deal with other legal issues. In essence, the money that you are trying to 'save' is actually not profitable at all (it may even be an added expense), as new jobs would have to be compensated. And finally on this matter, you must take into account how many times one's obesity actually causes a MEDICAL EMERGENCY on a flight, to the point where insurance is actually even necessary. If the figures are low (and Pro hasn't given us any proof to indicate otherwise), you must find this contention to be entirely unnecessary and completely in my favor. 2. Comfort In order for this point to be validated, you must extend this argument to all forms of public transportation - not just airplanes. Therefore my opponent has the burden of affirming this resolution in terms of trains, subways, public buses, etc... in which case it would be easy to oppose for economic reasons. Further, a counter-attack may conclude that the airline be responsible for administering more comfortable seating for larger passengers; that is to say that bigger seats can/should be implented for comfort. You may charge passengers more money for this type of seating; you may even force a larger passenger to purchase a ticket for this kind of seating. However, you may NOT charge them extra for sitting in the same size seat as everyone else. Thirty percent of Americans are obese [1]. Statistics show that the highest demographic of obesity occurs amongst those of a lower class; in other words, the fattest people tend to also be the poorest [2]. Thus the likelihood of an obese person being able to afford a plane ticket is much lower -- say 10% (and that may be a generous figure). Now knowing that there is a 10% chance that an obese individual may cause you discomfort on a plane, a consumer has the option to buy THEMSELF an extra plane ticket, which would ensure them extra room for comfort even if an overweight person sat beside them. Sometimes, life is unfair and you make purchases hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. If you book a vacation in Aruba and it rains the whole time (causing you to have a disappoting experience), you won't find your hotel or airline refunding you any money for your misfortune. Similarly, airlines don't give you lower rates for the possibility of sitting next to a particularly foul-smelling passenger, or for being subjected to crying children. Better luck next time, mate. 3. Weight & Money --> The Real Issue There have been a lot of changes since the 1990s that have made things more expensive, specifically THE COST OF GASOLINE IN GENERAL. Many people blame George W. Bush for the rise in prices -- does that mean we get to charge all Republicans an added fee for contributing to our economic situation by voting for GWB? Certainly not. The truth be told, America has been looking for ways to promote healthy life choices by making it more expensive to lead an unhealthy lifestyle. For instance, we place high taxes on cigarettes partly because of their health cost. Similarly, ideas about making fast food drive-thrus more expensive have been discussed; Dr. Schmidt (an economist at the college of William & Mary) said people would expend more calories if they had to get out of their cars to pick up their food. The bottom line is, you cannot realistically blame overweight people for society's troubles, such as high gasoline prices. "'This is like, let's find another reason to scapegoat fat people,' Dr. Oliver (a political scientist at the University of Chicago) says." -- "Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also wryly cautions against being quick to link cause and effect. 'Yes, obesity is to blame for all the evils of modern life, except somehow, weirdly, it is not killing people enough,' she said. 'In fact that's why there are all these fat people around. They just won't die'" [3]. :: CONCLUSION :: Based on my arguments, it is clear why obese customers should NOT pay more money for plane tickets at the present time. It is neither cost effective nor fair, and the incentive for people to lose weight in order to save money just doesn't work. Countless studies prove that instead of helping, the stigmatization of being obese just leads to more over-eating and a higher rate/weight for those who are over-weight. This in turn leads to more fat people, meaning more sociological and economic issues in the United States and beyond. :: SOURCES :: [1] http://www.breitbart.com... [2] http://www.philly.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent will try to win this debate because That's a real shame. I'm just looking for an intelligent meaningful conversation. I have not had much success so far. Must be over 21 and a "better" debater than me. I would rather ask for adult behavior though but I guess that is just a dream. I urge you to vote for my opponent if winning is what is so important. The Senate has just rightly rejected the Demint amendment "To prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts for auto manufacturers." This would certainly not be fair to the banks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There is no such law as the "Law of Silence" in the Bible. Silence is just that, Silence. because "Law of Silence" Proof Texts Moses and the Priesthood The passage that is dragged out most frequently by the "Law of Silence" proof-texters is found in the epistle to the Hebrews. It is a verse pertaining to something Moses didn't say, and from which an unwarranted conclusion is drawn. Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. The proponents of the so-called "Law of Silence" declare this is "proof positive" that "silence excludes and prohibits." Moses was silent about priests coming from any other tribe than Levi, therefore all other tribes are excluded by silence. Is this a logical, rational, reasonable conclusion to draw from this passage? Let's use the brains God gave us and think this through. Was God silent with respect to which of the tribes would be the "priestly tribe"? No. God SPOKE. God SPECIFIED. The tribe was to be Levi .... and only Levi. "The Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to serve Him and to bless in His name until this day. Therefore, Levi does not have a portion or inheritance with his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance" (Deut. 10:8-9). See also: Numbers 3:5-10; 8:5-26; 18:1-7. "Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the sons of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine" (Numbers 8:14). "They are wholly given to Me from among the sons of Israel" (Numbers 8:16). "I am giving you the priesthood as a bestowed service, but the outsider who comes near shall be put to death" (Numbers 18:7). God had made it very, very clear that no one from any tribe other than Levi would ever be allowed to serve in the priesthood. God had SPOKEN. God had SPECIFIED. He was NOT silent. Thus, the tribe of Judah was excluded from serving in the priesthood NOT because God was silent about Judah serving as priests, but rather because He had specified that only those from Levi could serve as priests. This brings us to the Hebrews 7:14 passage. Judah was a tribe "with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests." Why was Moses "silent" about Judah with reference to priests? Because God had SPECIFIED the tribe of Levi. There was no need for Moses to say anything about Judah for the simple reason GOD HAD SPOKEN. God had specified. Judah is excluded from the priesthood NOT because Moses was "silent" about them serving in that capacity, but rather because God had specified that priests would come solely from Levi. Thus, it is NOT silence that excludes or prohibits, it is specificity. This passage has nothing whatsoever to do with "silence," much less any so-called "Law of silence." When God has SPOKEN, there is no silence. The proof-texters have only succeeded in proving their own ignorance and inability when it comes to sound biblical exegesis. Their wresting and manipulation of this text in a failed attempt to prove an untenable theory is a prime example of the "dogmatic model" of biblical interpretation. It is deplorable, and it is rejected by reputable, responsible scholars of the Word. Noah and the Ark Another example of a complete failure to properly perceive the significance of a biblical account by these "Law of Silence" dogmatists is the narrative of Noah and the ark (Genesis 6-9). God commanded, "Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood" (Gen. 6:14). "Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did" (Gen. 6:22). "By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household" (Hebrews 11:7). You might wonder, after reading the above passages, how someone could find validation for their so-called "Law of Silence" from this account. They are indeed creative, however. They maintain that since God was silent about any type of wood other than gopher wood, that His silence therefore prohibits and excludes all other types of wood. Thus, if Noah had chosen mahogany instead of gopher wood, he would have been in violation of the "Law of Silence." But, is that true? Is it God's silence Noah would have transgressed, or is it God's specificity? It is obviously the latter. It is not God's silence that excludes mahogany as a suitable wood for the construction of the ark, it is God's specificity that excludes mahogany. God was NOT silent in this example. He had spoken. He had specified. This narrative has nothing whatsoever to do with "silence." Now, if Noah wanted to use PINE to make a scaffolding to aid him in the building of the ark, that would have been acceptable. After all, God said nothing about scaffolding. If Noah had wanted to use mahogany to build a table for the ark, thatwould have been acceptable. After all, God said nothing about scaffolding. If Noah had wanted to use mahogany to build a table for the ark, that would have been a matter of indifference to God. He was silent about tables that might accompany the ark as it floated upon the flood waters. Things that might be used as aids or accompaniments to this venture were left unspecified; God was silent about them. Thus, they were left entirely to the responsible judgment of Noah himself. They were neither proscribed nor prescribed; genuine silence does neither. The "Law of Silence" dogmatists point to this narrative as "proof positive" that instruments of music in the public worship of the church are a soul-damning abomination. How? God said SING .... God said GOPHER .... thus, His "silence" about anything else excludes it. What these proof-texters fail to perceive, however, is that specificity excludes and prohibits only that which would negate, replace or invalidate that which is specified. It does not prohibit or exclude anything which would merely aid or accompany one's compliance with that which is specified. This is pure common sense, as well as a valid principle of interpretive logic. Men use a great many things biblically UNspecified to aid them in their singing of songs, hymns and spiritual songs. Song books with musical notation are held in the hands and before the eyes of those singing. Thus, they are singing and reading at the same time. Is reading excluded because God was silent about it? Some say so. After all, they argue, God never said "sing and read." As bizarre as it may seem, there are actually a few who insist our singing must be from memory (from the heart and mind), and that reading from song books while singing to God is "unauthorized" by the "Law of Silence." A few make the same argument with respect to song leaders, four part harmony, PA systems to amplify the voice, pitch pipes, Power Point projection of songs onto a screen, tapping of the feet during singing (which constitutes a percussion instrument, in their thinking), moving the head in time to the rhythm (which they say constitutes dancing), or instrumental accompaniment of any kind to aid those singing. In all of these cases, however, singing still occurs. The command is NOT negated or replaced or diminished or invalidated in any way. The ark was built of gopher wood, and whether or not Noah used a PINE scaffold or placed a MAHOGANY table in the family quarters in no way altered his complete compliance with what God specified. The same with the specification to sing. Aids or accompaniments in no way change the fact of the full compliance of those who sing. The argument of these so-called "Law of Silence" dogmatists is completely invalid. Is it any wonder the world mocks when they behold the degree of competence (or incompetence, more correctly) of some professing to be "sound scholars" of the Word?! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Morality is an Idea because I would like to thank KRFournier for hosting this debate. I believe that this issue is an important one to clarify and that it clearly deserves the full treatment that a 3 round debate can grant it. I am for the resolution that morality is an idea. One can scour the entire universe, smash apart all its atoms and model the movement of all the celestial bodies within the bowels of a quantum computer the size of the sun and one will not find one ounce of morality. Morality does not exist any more than beauty or love or wonder exist. They exist within the depths of the human mind alongside angels, demons, and leprechauns. Morality is a human phenomenon, not a physical one. The life-giving sun has no more of a concept of morality than a rockslide. I contend that by default, nothing should be assumed to exist until proof is given. Because of this, I will spend the remainder of my round refuting my opponent's points, since it is up to him to prove that morality does exist as more than an idea. The crux of the first argument of my opponent's argument is the following statement: >When discussing the nature of morality, it's important that it be taken seriously. Every other statement within the first two paragraphs of the body of his argument depends on this statement. The fact that morality must be taken seriously does not grant it existence, making his point irrelevant to this debate. If morality is something other than a mere idea or concept, then morality has existence, whether physical or metaphysical. Mere necessity, however, is insufficient proof of something's existence. Humans need food, and because they need food, food is important that they have it. One would have to be insane, however, to say that the world's starving billions have food simply because it is important that they have it. Yes, it is important that morality be taken seriously, but it does not by any means imply that morality has existence outside of the human mind. >Moral distinction is the act of assessing the moral value of an action. Moral obligation is the act of holding another person or group of people to a specific moral standard. How is your definition of moral obligation anything other than a physical act, one that is exercised in accordance with an idea? >As soon as one person or group obligates another person or group to adhere to their moral distinctions, they are taking an absolute, objective moral position. No, they are merely attempting to pressure another person or group into conforming with their demands. In many ways, this is no different than, for example, exacting a monetary tribute, and indeed, many of our laws are enforced by doing just that. What do you mean by "subjective" morality? Do you mean a relativistic morality that is selectively applicable? Ideas can very easily function as "objective" moralities, and the ideas do not have to be good ones. A whimsical insistence that everyone must wear purple hats on April 13 of every year ending in 0 is every bit as objective and universal as Kant's categorical imperative if one is to take a lack of relativism to be the definition of objectivity. >The only way to be true to the notion that morality is an idea is to remain wholly within the realm of moral distinction and avoid moral obligation altogether. Are you saying that morality can't be an idea because people force others to act in accordance with it? This would imply that people can't act on ideas. This is preposterous, and I would suggest that you reconsider such statements. >If you truly believe morality to be subjective, then you must also believe by rational necessity that might makes right. If morality is an idea conceived and held subjectively, then it is defined by an individual's thoughts and feelings and not by might. Individual thoughts and feelings are not wholly subordinate to physical might. It is, in fact, very difficult to deliberately mold people's thoughts and feelings solely through the use of might. >This view of morality extends from my worldview and my belief in a transcendent, unchanging God. How do you escape the idea that might makes right if your "universal" morality is guaranteed by the mightiest being in the universe? This may, in fact, push you much further into the trap. The preceding paragraphs are more or less irrelevant, however. My opponent succeeded merely in proving that to treat morality lightly is disastrous, not that morality is more than a name for a class of ideas. I look forward to whatever arguments he wishes to bring to this debate in the future. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Video Games Cause Bad Behavior because All right now we may be debating about video games but we must be able to show how other sources of entertainment may factor in on how people may do some crazy things. I shall bring up Ozzy Osbourne. His music that teens listened to made them kill themselves. The parents tried to sue him, but get this a court defended him and not just any court THE SUPREME COURT. The highest court authority is defending a man whose music made children kill themselves but was it truly the music that made them kill themselves? No it was their stupid minds that made things up as they were listening to the song. No way would just listening to a song make you kill yourself even if the song itself kept saying kill yourself in it. This proves that music causes more bad behavior in teens than games. Games may make you do some stupid things, which is impossible since a game is just a disc you put into a game system or computer that is made for, I don't know ENTERTAINMENT for people who are bored. Games are important tools for creativity for teens like myself. I watched games for 4 years before I even started playing them just to learn more about them. It takes a very weak mind to not being able to stop yourself from taking a gun and high-jacking a car and going on a rampage. Games themselves may, how would I say this, "influence" the actions some kids may take but who is it actually doing these actions? Is the game somehow possessing the games like how demons or ghosts may possess a person? Are these games taking control of their moral being? No, these are just some stupid kids who think they are being cool but are really about to ruin games for every kid under 18 who plays M rated games. If parents think they are the ones protecting their children well they are wrong. A kid walks up to their parents and says may I have MW3? I will be nice to everyone and won't go on a killing spree! Will the parents say, well now that you put it that way... No that is poor judgement from the parents! You can't blame a child for something that their parental guardians bought for them because if it is games causing the bad behavior and if those news reports are right HOW CAN YOU BLAME THE CHILD!? Oh, it is the child playing this game they are the ones to blame. They aren't the ones who got 60 dollars to pay for it. They aren't the ones who went and bought this M rated game. It was their parents are guardian figures like an older brother or uncle or aunt. You cannot blame a child for a parents mistake. If you don't want you child who is probably a perfect little angel like you portray them to be don't give them M rated games that you might say will "corrupt their little minds!" You cannot blame a child for some mistake another person made! If you blame a child for smoking you must ask yourself who gave them it. Was it the parent? You don't blame the child, you take that child away from that parent and maybe that parent will be facing a fine. I hope you will realize that children aren't the ones to blame, the parents shouldn't get them these games if you believe it will "make" them do it. No, the human mind is more complex than any game could be, it just takes a little COMMON sense to realize it. If a game makes you jump off a 100 foot building and you survive all the time would you jump off this 100 foot building? NO BECAUSE IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SMARTEST CREATURES ON EARTH BE SMARTER. If you continue to say that we are debating games and nothing else that is also wrong. As I am to prove that games aren't causing this behavior it is actually the HUMAN MIND. Games are made for entertainment, the HUMAN MIND is created for us to use and if we neglect it's power we shouldn't even watch TV or have one because we won't be able to tell if we are doing something right or wrong. I hope you will all see that it is the user not the product. Such as a gun can't kill without the help of an outside force such as a human finger or an automated trigger finger that a human would have to make to pull the trigger without picking up the gun. To say that the commercials make us do things we would rather not is also stupid. Such as a potato chip commercial "it is so good you can't just stop at one." What is someone down right hates those chips. They can have one and stop. Seeing that commercial won't make them want to have more. So saying that if I were to kill 1 billion people on MW is saying I am going to kill 1 person, just one is ridiculous. I would like to meet these so called psychiatric specialists and tell them how I feel on this subject. Not but punching them but sitting down and telling them the truth. I play all the violent games out there and if you were to know me you would say completely otherwise. People must learn how to be good instead of destroying a strong basis of what people do to get rid of stress and anger. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women on US submarines because Con begins by citing 5 links that he claims depict proof of degradation of real unit performance. None of his sources say or prove that; he simply cited articles that agree with his position. Obviously citing a source that simply upholds your opinion doesn't mean you've actually proven anything. I asked if Con had proof that women significantly degrade co-ed units, and even more specifically if there was proof that this would happen on a sub. The links merely argue that women shouldn't be allowed on subs, that they won't be able to keep up, etc. To quote his USA Today article, the gender specifications are there for practical reasons - not bias. However, I've already negated those "practical issues" and I will once again in this final round. Con continues by saying that ships are easier to serve on than subs, yet co-ed ships were shut down due to rampant sexual misconduct. As such, women shouldn't even be allowed to try and serve on subs. I negate. First, Con admits that subs are far different than ships meaning there is no way to guarantee that the same behavior will carry over. Second, this can be at least hindered by harsh penalties for violations. Third, because women being allowed onboard has garnered so much preparation and media attention, people may behave differently. Fourth, not all people are the same; some are more professional. I could go on and on. A basic analogy is considering the legalization of alcohol. There have been TONS of alcohol mishaps: drunk driving accidents, bar fights, etc. Yet alcohol isn't BANNED on the basis of being alcohol alone. Instead it's permitted - as people have the RIGHT to consume it - and instead any negative individual situation is dealt with and punished accordingly. Con mentions health risks regarding pregnancy; I've already said that pregnancy should be forbidden (and there ARE ways to protect yourself) -- any woman who gets pregnant does so at her own risk. Con saying IF a woman gets pregnant that their MIGHT be health problems is just a way to increase the possible negative "what if" scenarios in a desperate attempt to build his case. Well WHAT IF a man got a rampant STD on board and the sub doctor was "not qualified" to deal with the problems? When it comes to health, there is no way to protect or prepare yourself against any and everything. Con is grasping at straws. Once again Con implies that I am being manipulative. He says I claimed that he finds the CRA immoral, that he thinks rape in stressful situations is permissible, etc. Here he strawmans my arguments as I have never said these things. Instead, I asked him to explain why he believes the CRA is not relevant, and I pointed out that he would rather uphold seniorority in terms of sleeping quarters rather than extend the offer for women to sleep privately so as to avoid rape (a blatant problem in the military). Pro HAS said that the seniorority system in terms of sleeping quarters is more important than giving someone preferential treatment for something on the basis of their gender alone in R4 -- so clearly you can see that I'm not altering what he says. However, in the last round Con said that "of course" women should get their own sleeping quarters. I maintain that whether they do or not is irrelevant (I think they SHOULD GET the space, but if they don't, c'est la vie). As I will continue to state, women know what they're getting themselves into when they sign up for this kind of thing. Con mentions masturbating men on the bunk beneath you... haha yes I have actually experienced that to answer your question... but regardless, my point remains that while life on the sub will be difficult (and perhaps gross), that many women can handle it - and Con agrees - so these minor issues about the things Con finds "icky" are kind of irrelevant considering many women do not get rattled by these things. And again, there's no guarantee that men will behave in these exact same ways. In his next point, Con points out that requiring women to have female escorts will be more work for the crew. Once again, I have been advocating EQUAL TREATMENT (at the very least) - not necessarily the Navy's proposed plan. I agree the plans are good (i.e. escorts for 1-man situations) but I never argued for it. Instead the only thing I have been arguing is discriminating on the basis of gender ALONE. Con continues, "Why should this [better behavior] not occur BEFORE women are integrated rather than hoping they will be a catalyst?" I agree. If more preparation needs to occur, than so be it. That doesn't mean that women need to forever be banned though on the basis of their sex. According to the navy, this has been "in the works" for awhile and they think they're prepared. If they're not, the women will soon find out. In P4, Con says that I believe marriage is immoral which is a BLATANT STRAW MAN as I have never said such thing. Instead all I said was that Con only intends to care about the marriage and families of married men, whereas the women who join may be married too (we have a married military woman on this site) or have a partner of some kind. It's unfair to assume that because one is female or not legally married that they do not want or deserve the same opportunities to serve in places that is less strenuous on their own personal life or relationships. Con concludes his 5 points by noting that sex on subs will be a huge issue, and one could have sex while they are supposed to me monitoring a reactor causing a safety hazard. Couldn't the same be said about masturbating? Again, Con seems focused on blaming the women here for the men's misconduct or at least ONLY the women as if misconduct isn't rampant even without women. Con admits all throughout this debate that it is, so basically he's operating only under the assumption that having women on board will make it worse. And who knows - maybe that's the case (in terms of conduct). However, this is STILL not a justifiable reason to disallow women on the basis of gender alone. WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE **MEN** MAY USE POOR JUDGMENT AND CONDUCT AROUND THEM - and already do. As I said, this is akin to blaming a woman for her own rape. Her existence may have excited the man causing him to do unsafe things - things that would have never happened had she not been there - but we can't oppress women (and it IS oppression by the standard that there is no way out of it) because of possible negative consequences. In his conclusion, Con says that war is an unfair place and the military must also exist unfairly as a way to sustain it. His sources note the inability to handle combat/stress; I've already combatted this by saying only able and competent women should be allowed to serve. He mentioned pregnancy and health risks; again that's a negative "what if" scenario. I've responded in regard to the sleeping arrangements. In the end, what does Con's ENTIRE argument come down to? Sexual misconduct, and preferential treatment on behalf of enlisted married men. It's funny how he thinks preferential treatrment based on gender is wrong, but based on a personal relationship commitment (which some women - most in the military are lesbians - cannot even LEGALLY MAKE i.e. more oppression) is acceptable. This is hypocrisy. Con's whole case is based on possible negative "what ifs" and oppressing women for men's mistakes. He prides his case on practicality, but the most practical thing to do is assume that mishaps will happen no matter what - and you should prepare for them and handle them - but overall the MOST QUALIFIED should serve, or the ones likely to be the best for the job OVERALL should serve, with the key factor here being REGARDLESS of their sex. There are going to be issues no matter what (as Con explained) and there's been no proof that allowing women would be more trouble - just speculation. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Chrisitians should not celebrate halloween because Gees lighten up man, Halloween is a time of fun and candy! yea the origins aren't good, but they aren't anymore, look at NASCAR, it started wit a boy trying to out run the cops because he took over his dad's moonshinin' business (Moonshine is a common term for home-distilled alcohol, especially in places where this production is illegal) does this mean Christians shouldn't be a NASCAR fan? The Bible does say not to get drunk, and NASCAR's origin does have alcohol in it don't yea know. Now don't forget boxing, the Bible says to turn the other cheek. If you go to a preschool, or elementary school and ask "why did you do Halloween?" and truth be told, I bet not one of those kids would say "because by mommy worships the devil, and she was practising witch craft" no, they all would say something like "I like to dress up and get candy." I'm sure many Christians have had bad history, possibly they were prostitutes, or Gothic, but does that mean we shouldn't celebrate them on birthdays or anniversaries?? yea harvest festivals are good, and Jesus' word is spread, but have you ever thought about giving out candy with Bible tracts on them? Or just give out tracts, or if you really want to get their attention hand out vinegar samples with Bible verses on them. Really all Halloween is is a big party where we can scare each other and give, eat candy. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. because In response to my example about helping someone commit a crime, Pro brings up three points. First, he says that the assailant is not in need. This is not true because what determines need was never clarified in the resolution or opening round. Someone in need is merely one who requires assistance. Being in need does not necessarily refer to a life or death situation as Pro implies. This point has therefore been negated. Second, Pro claims that helping another commit a crime is not really assisting - but assisting is assisting. The CI says that reason separate from all empirical experience determines the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. Pure practical reason in the process of determining it dictates what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. However it would be impossible to reason without considering empirical factors. Noticing a negative outcome (i.e., suffering) is an empirical observation. Therefore, in suggesting we have a moral obligation to alleviate suffering, one must conclude that the concept of suffering being negative was obtained via reasoning utilizing empirical data. Pro claims in his third point that not assisting one in need necessarily provides morally reprehensible consequences, because the opposite is true - helping is good. Once again, my objectivist retaliation addresses and negates this premise. My proposition is that helping is not necessarily good, nor is it necessarily bad. It is morally good if it coincides with my expressed rational self-interest (if it's what I want to do, for whatever reason - even at a potential cost to myself). It is morally bad if the action is forced either upon myself by another, or on another by myself - as not infringing on another's rights is the sole factor in determining moral good from bad. As I explained, this is because the only objective moral criterion can be a respect for other people's values. Morality is not subjective though values are. It is moral to allow everyone to live according to their values, so long as they in doing so do not infringe on another person's right to do the same. Pro continues to assert Kant's point - that the reason we are obligated to assist those in need is because we have a duty to assist them, and our duty obligates us to assist. However this is utilizing completely circular reasoning. Pro says I cannot say that because we are egotistical beings, then the basis for our morality must be selfish... yet he says we have a duty to assist, and the reason is because assisting is our duty. Obviously this is insufficient. Pro explains that the is/ought problem is about deriving an ought from an is. He writes, "...Ourselves being rational doesn't conclude that helping someone is morally right we must use rationality to determine if it is morally right." Of course we can only use rationality if we are indeed rational, so Pro has negated his own point. Nevertheless, I maintain that any moral system discussing what IS must surely be based in some way on the way things ARE. Kant recognized this problem, and attempted to avoid grounding morality in some empirical fact about humans, but nonetheless chose to ground it in our capacity for practical reasoning. More specifically, in our capacity to express genuine autonomy by acting on universalizable maxims. As such, Kant does indeed account to the is/ought gap contrary to Pro's assertion. Pro states, "We must help because it is our obligation to. Not because our rationality tells us too." This is either contradictory or non-sensical. If the conclusion is that we must help, then we ought to believe that this conclusion was reached through using rational reasoning. In fact, Kant uses rationality SPECIFICALLY to uphold his CI. He says we must choose what is moral based on what is rational. That is what determines our obligations. Pro says, "Choosing what you wanted to do (starve) is not equal to surviving. Thsis is a violation of Egotistic ethics." I'm sure the audience can see the clear mistake Pro mistakes here. Starving is in fact equal to starving, whether it was chosen or not. If Gandhi starved to death and a homeless man starved to death, then both of them will have starved. This is not against egoist ethics and in fact supports it. As I explained, if one chooses to starve so that their child can eat (and survive), this decision was based on their ego - what they WANTED to do (have their child survive, even at a cost to themselves). This action can be considered morally right because it allows an individual to act upon their desire without infringing on another's rights or happiness. Not once throughout this entire debate has Pro ever criticized this ideal, specifically. My moral standard must therefore be upheld. utal and ci I pointed out that Pro has agreed with my proposal of doing what is in our self-interest if he suggests that selflessness is in fact in our self-interest. He says that the only difference is that I am arguing that helping those in need is therefore our moral obligation because of the fact that it is in our self-interest. However this completely ignores the fact that one can equally morally choose NOT to help those in need. Why? The resolution is about a mandate to help others because it is beneficial to THEM. If I deem in any situation for it NOT to be in my self-interest DESPITE their need, then the resolution is negated. Pro does not account for this. Pro says I am arguing egoism over objectivism, yet clearly the two are compatible. He also says objectivism mandates helping people. I challenge Pro to show me where Ayn Rand EVER required this. At best, she said helping others is useful because it increases the likelihood of them helping you. However that doesn't mean that helping is ALWAYS the moral standard. Kant would say the CI is applicable Pro says for self-interest to be the supreme value of one's life ignores other important aspects of human existence, such as love and friendship. On the contrary, romantic and other relationships ARE egoist in nature. We love and befriend those who bring us security and/or happiness. Pro concludes by saying that objectivism (rational egoism) was a direct cause of the fall of the Roman Empire and what we see in America today: the rich maintaining control in society. The audience should disregard this assertion, as Pro does not prove it but merely states it, much like his other arguments throughout this debate. I could easily list a plethora of other reasons explaining the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, and/or America's current economic situation. Further, anyone who understands laissez faire capitalism (what Ayn Rand proposes coincides with her ethical belief system) knows that what we see in America is certainly NOT compatible with Rand's propositions. Out of character space - thanks for the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Black Rednecks and White Liberals because Here's my issue. "Sowell believes that despite their best intentions, white liberals have shackled the black man to a plantation mentality." Damn. Why are WHITE LIBERALS the problem? Why aren't these so-called black rednecks the problem? I feel that Sowell, despite HIS best intentions, is being terribly hypocritical: Here he is blaming white people (surprise surprise) though this time it's the Liberals he's attacking instead of the Conservatives -- the ones who usually get the brunt of the blame for society's inherent racism. Does he think he's being clever? He's only repeating things that Conservatives or others who have opposed things like Affirmative Action have been saying all along! Yet because he is black this is supposed to be... ground-breaking? Give me a break. If Sowell were any different than the finger-pointers out there, he would stop looking to blame ANYONE but those who are "shackled" into poverty. "White liberals in many roles -- as intellectuals, politicians, celebrities, judges, teachers -- have aided and abetted the perpetuation of a counterproductive and self-destructive lifestyle among black rednecks." Maybe so. But so have BLACK liberals. Why are white people always somehow to blame? My opponent concluded his argument by stating that he strongly opposes the extreme pandering and mollycoddling of Black America in hopes that it will allow them to overcome racism. I agree. However I took on this debate because I disagree with Sowell/Pro that white liberals are in turn responsible for current injustice -- the last time I checked, black Americans were capable of reading and writing; I'm sure they have figured out by now that we are all EQUAL human beings (afterall they've been chanting it for decades) with EQUAL opportunity - in terms of race - of overcoming hardship. Poverty is not a white circumstance or a black circumstance. "The irony is that what these white liberals are doing IS racism, and I for one, along with Sowell, am deeply offended by it." I'm deeply offended by it too. My opponent and I agree here. But let's put the blame where the blame is due: if Sowell was capable of figuring this all out, then OTHER black individuals are capable of figuring this out. So instead of looking for hand-outs (not that all black people do - just the ones we're discussing), maybe they should try focusing on hard work and education to learn how to overcome the present injustice, instead of continuing to blame white people for their circumstance. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to go on welfare or accept 'our' hand-outs. It is the "black rednecks" themselves giving white people so much power. Consider my opponent's argument regarding "unfair" testing. Who is doing the whining about the test's "white" structure? White liberals and black rednecks? Well then it's simple - you have the black community step up and say, "No, black people didn't do poorly because the test was biased towards black people." This is the alternative to calling Al Shaprton for rambling on their behalf and working the white people up in a frenzy to come to their defense. The fact of the matter is that some black individuals LIKE playing the race card, because it puts the blame on others instead of themselves and can apparently serve as an excuse in just about every situation. Don't blame the PC white folk who are brainwashed/threatened to consider their perspective. Blame the people who perpetuate "white liberalism" entirely - the "black rednecks" themselves. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The Embargo with Cuba needs to be lifted. because First of all, thank you for accepting! I thought I would never get to debate this! However, I am going to be out of town on Friday and Saturday. I may be able to get this stuff done on my iPhone, we'll have to see. It would be preferable to get this debate done by tomorrow. On to the arguments… Sorry for just saying Castro in my proponent speech. I am aware that Fidel has given up his reign to his brother Raul, however they are both technically Castro. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused. 1st Nobody is set to succeed Raul, and Raul is currently 79 years old. You say he is set to rule for 20-30 more years. It is possible, but unlikely. He has already trumped the average life expectancy, and most likely will not live until he is 99 as the negative suggests. Please disregard the negative's argument. 2nd The negative suggests that we refuse to trade with Cuba because of their communist government. How do you explain our trade with China, Venezuela, and even North Korea? Cuba, although communist, is not nearly as communist or hostile as some of the other countries we deal with. I would like to repeat the quote from my proponent speech from Mois�s Na�m, which said, "The embargo is the perfect example used by anti-Americans everywhere to expose the hypocrisy of a superpower that punishes a small island while cozying to dictators elsewhere." 3rd The negative argument does not even begin to be competitive to my third point. My point was that the embargo is both domestically and internationally unpopular, but my opponent just pointed out that Cuba is communist, and that's why there is an embargo. I pointed out the actual reason for the embargo in my first speech. Communism is what the embargo has evolved into, not what started it. Please look to my 2nd point above as to why communism is not a good reason for an embargo on Cuba. 4th Our economy was not necessarily sent into a spiral, but Cuba's was. Also, the negative points out that the economic impact on our country is significant. Why not solve for this? There are obviously no reasons not to. I urge you to vote in affirmation. Thanks for reading, I look forward to the next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Famous Poems: Poetry Competition because Greetings! This is a poetry debate. You can post your own poems, though you're free to post any famous/infamous work so long as you give a citation. Though that is not all you also need to provide an explanation of the poem, a critical examination if you will in favor of your poem. You are not allowed to adress the poem of the opponent, simply write an exposition of the poem that you have chosen. The poem should not be too long, and must be completely typed out over here. If your poem is too long you restrict your space for the critical exposition which is nearly as important. The order of the debate has 3 rounds to post substantiated material, with 24 hr/round, with a maximum of 8, 000 words. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should hunting remain legal? because In a last attempt to win this debate, Pro has resulted to a 'Straw man' argument. A Straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponents arguments. Which is a logical fallacy. Pro then states that I am not allowed to refute any of his arguments, or make any new arguments. If you look in Round 4, this is exactly what Pro does. Now, I will start with resupporting my arguments. "I know that I didn't use those words in my original argument. I don't know what I'll use in future arguments" In Round3 Pro admits that his argument does not apply, and withdraws his argument. Those were his only arguments. He was not successful in disproving my arguments, therefore I conclude that I have won this debate. "Every argument I made holds weight here.It cannot be ignored because it didn't refer to a specific definition or you said it's no good.The bottom line is that every argument is relevant in the issue of hunting remaining legal." Yes, it is relevant. We are debating whether hunting should be legal. You are trying to say that any killing of animals is hunting. This wasn't a semantics argument. I wasn't dismissing your argument due to wordplay. The debate is "should hunting remain legal?" (Your own definition)Hunting: to pursue for food or in sport The only argument you brought up is that it is okay to kill animals for population control.(This is not hunting) This is also illegal to kill animals simply because you claim it's "population control". Therefore it doesn't apply. "States are enlisting sharpshooters to shoot, or cull, a certain number of deer." None of these arguments actually pertain to this debate. Please remember, I did actually argue the point that hunting is effective population control. I argued it assuming that Pro would change it to hunting is effective population control.(He didn't) I still disproved it, and Pro never addressed it, nor did Pro refute it. Therefore, Pro accepts that hunting is not population control. "No difference between killing a dog and a deer?!Really?!Just stop and think, for a minute, of what it would be like to kill an animal that has been a loyal companion and loved you unconditionally for its entire life.Now think about what it would be like to kill an animal you have only seen once.There is a clear difference." No argument, accept 'appeal to emotion'. Which is a logical fallacy. Thus proving, killing a dog and a deer is no different. "Sport is defined as 'to amuse'.That does sound fairly dark at first.Here's why it's not.I have talked with many hunters in everyday settings, and in the field.They always say that they don't enjoy killing.The fun part is being with friends and family out in the field tying to beat an animal at its own game.The kill is a necessary part of the event.It is necessary through the definition.The sport of the hunt is not in the kill, it is the chase. If you have never hunted, you can't possibly hope to imagine how hunters feel in this matter." This is not an argument. What you are basically saying is, "You're wrong because a hunter told me so". The animal's own game is trying to survive. The fun part is trying to kill it. That is what this statement says. This is a great example of 'Argument from authority', again, a logical fallacy. It also uses 'Appeal to emotion', another fallacy. (STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS START HERE) "This argument can be used much more effectively for hunting rather than against it.The problem in this argument is that the quality of life for a factory farmed animal is terrible.They spend their lives in a cage being stuffed with hormones.Once they are fat enough, they are slaughtered.An animal taken while hunting has a significantly higher quality of life.They spend their entire life in a seemingly endless amount of land.If they should get shot hunting, then that's just the hand that life dealt them." This was not actually my argument. I said that hunting is no longer reasonable as "killing animals for food". I never said you should buy factory farm animal meat. I simply said that people do not hunt as a source of food. This is getting redundant. This is a straw man fallacy, and appeal to emotion fallacy. ("our 'hunting' can simply be to go to the store and buy whichever animal meat you like" "This directly conflicts with the definitions that you accepted when you accepted this debate.Hunting is 'to pursue for food or in sport' and pursue is to 'to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat'.You cannot overtake a packaged animal as it cannot flee.You cannot capture it because it was never free to be captured.You cannot kill it as it is already dead.You cannot defeat it as it cannot put up a fight.Therefore, you cannot hunt by going to the store.") Again, a straw man fallacy. Notice I used quotations for hunting, it was meant to be a pun, or kind of ironic. I'm not actually arguing that's what hunting is. "my opponent will debate that deer meat is not something you can typically find in a grocery store.While this may be true, you can still find stores that specifically sell these types of wild game meat(manufactured in a slaughterhouse type of environment). I know that venison can be found rarely.The problem still comes down to the quality of life of the animal.A deer sold in the store was raised in a pen of some sort." Again, straw man fallacy. That wasn't my argument. I meant if this topic came up(which it did) it wouldn't be valid. Below is where it does come up. {"hunting may be a staple source of food for tribes in third world countries, and I reserve their right to it, but we are in fact, talking about the United States." "Hunting is a staple source of food for me.My mentality and moral standings strongly discourage me from eating factory farmed animal products.Organic, free-range animal product is a hard thing to come by.It's expensive when you do.Now, here's a question for you.Wasn't it the founding fathers of our country that stated all men are created equal?Why, then, should I not have the same right to provide the food for myself off of what God has provided as someone in a third world country"} Killing an animal for food, is not better than eating an animal that was killed for food. It is exactly the same. Again, straw man. Pro misrepresents that I argue people should either eat factory farm meat, or hunt for food. This argument also uses circular reasoning and appeal to authority. {"Hunting purely for the entertainment of killing animals is disgusting. The first flaw with this statement is addressed above.The second flaw is that this statement is based on your personal, subjective, moral standings and thus holds no strength in a debate"} Straw man fallacy, again. This wasn't an argument. I didn't expect anyone to agree with me because I provided my opinion. I was stating my personal opinion. Note that this is necessary in a debate. Which is why each side is arguing from a different position. i.e. "hunting should remain legal" is a personal opinion. "That is not possible by the nature of factory farming.An act that you have shown support for.Learning gun safety and how to properly handle a gun would discourage violence.Hunting would discourage murder.I believe that you have never been hunting.You can't imagine what it is like to know that you killed something.I do know what it's like.I still can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to kill a human." I never said it was the nature of factory farming. This is again, a straw man argument. I stated that I support the manufacturing of animal products, manufactured humanely. However, you still fail to reason as why learning to use a gun to kill animals would discourage murder. Hunting seasons are made so the population does not decrease due to hunting. I have clearly won this debate. I have disproved every argument Pro presented. Pro has not disproved any of my arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children to believe that one particular religion is superior. because REBUTTAL: 1. What I do have a problem with is indoctrinating the young to believe that their religion is superior, and all others are in fact wrong. --> The main problem with Pro's case is that he is arguing from the standpoint that all religions are created equal. However, a believer of any religion would tell you that their religion is in fact the 'right' one. If they didn't feel that way, what would be the purpose of following a religion at all? Religion is not a fad; it's not an outfit you can try on, get tired of, and change when you feel like it. Instead to those with strong religious beliefs, practicing their religion and keeping it an important part of their life means valuing it and its teachings above all other teachings. Indeed followers of Christianity, for example, will tell you that Christ's law is more important than any human law. This doesn't mean that religious people don't have to follow man-made laws; however, it simply indicates that there is ONE TRUE LAW above all other laws. This is a belief they hold onto and uphold with all of their hearts. Now, if one maintained such strong beliefs and truly regarded religious teachings with 100% certainty, why WOULDN'T they teach their children the same thing? To offer an opportunity for your child to stray from your beliefs - what you believe the 'right' thing is - would be bad parenting on your part. For instance, if a parent believed that cheating on a test is wrong, the parent would be morally responsible for passing that ideology onto their child. Likewise, if a parent had a strong Christian faith, that parent would also be responsible for instilling a sense of religious purpose and education to their child. 2. In my opinion children should be exposed to not only the faith of their parents, but also those of other cultures. Now obviously parents are not going to adopt this, so I suggest that all students be required to take a comparative religions class in school. --> I agree with the first part of this -- exposure to other cultures is always an important aspect of education. However, with a society (government) so inclined to keep a distinct separation between Church and State, REQUIRING a religion class seems a bit extreme. Also, keep in mind that children do also learn a little bit about each religion in classes regarding World History, for example. 3. There is virtually no evidence for any miraculous claims in any religion, and therefore it is very irresponsible to teach it to children as if it were fact. Children are raised to believe that it is respectable to hold a belief or opinion without any evidence, and against all logic. --> Pro is missing the point. Religion isn't about facts, evidence or logic. Religion is based on spirituality and FAITH. The whole concept behind religion is that you believe in something even if you cannot fully explain it. It is not irresponsible for parents to pass on their religious beliefs; in fact, it's a moral feat. Who is Pro to say that it is not respectable to hold a belief without any evidence?! Perhaps that is the beauty of the teaching, and one every parent has a right to instill in their child. 4. The children are not the only ones harmed by this indoctrination though. --> But this debate is about a parent/child relationship, so let's try to stay on topic, please. 5. What about when the beliefs of ones parents are imposed on a child and actually do cause harm? (i.e. circumsision) --> Circumcision is a medical procedure that is often performed for non-religious purposes. If Pro is attempting to argue that circumcision should not occur because of the potential dangers, this argument must extend outside of religious parameters and upon all of society... meaning circumcision should be outlawed on the grounds of child abuse. Pro must make a point for this in order for this argument to stand. 6. There are emotional effects of many religions too. The fear of hell is one belief that can inflict serious, and long lasting mental trauma on young individuals. --> There are many things that can inflict serious and long lasting mental trauma on young individuals. For instance, negative images in the media can trigger deep-set negative feelings regarding self-esteem. Does that mean that TV, newspapers and magazines should be banned? The thought of going to prison is also another traumatizing thought. Should incarceration be illegal or never discussed? Apply the same concept to war, divorce or even striking out in a little league game. My point here is that society can only do so much to protect young citizens. Further, the counter-argument to a concept like Hell is Heaven and/or eternal bliss/salvation/enlightenment/etc. That thought can be COMFORTING. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MY CASE: 1. Parental Rights A) Moral Teachings B) Religious Benefits 2. Cultural Impact 3. Changing Minds Every parent has the right to raise their children the way they see fit (so long as it does not infringe upon a child's legal rights). This includes passing on any aspects of one's culture, including religious beliefs and practices. For some parents/people, religion is a link to morality. While I do not feel that one needs to be religious in order to comprehend morality, I do recognize the benefits of a parallel religious education. While Pro chooses only to outline the negative teachings of certain religions, he ignores fundamental concepts like justice, forgiveness, charity and other moral teachings upheld by various faiths. Religion has also been known to improve other aspects of one's life. For instance, religion has been known to improve a person's mental well-being. It also promotes a sense of community which helps to form lasting relationships with others. Religion has helped people cope with death and other life obstacles; there have also been many documented cases where a person's beliefs have been the reason for their ability to fight a disease or overcome other health battles. My point here is that while religion is not perfect, it does have its benefits. Parents have a right to pass on their beliefs and their culture. As one learns, grows and matures, they have the moral responsibility to adapt to society and all of its diversity. If they are smart - or appreciate a thorough education, understanding and appreciation of spirituality/culture - they have the right and the opportunity to educate themselves on other beliefs via schooling, the internet, the library, open forums of worship, etc. Nobody is forcing an adult or even a child to believe in anything. To affirm the resolution is to breach a mutual understanding between Church and State, and is a direct violation of human and parental rights. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Affirmative Action because Seeing as you have made a series of baseless statements to begin your argument, it is unnecessary for me to rebut what you have said, although I'm sure you will provide evidence in the coming rounds. On the contrary, I believe affirmative action is an effective method to counteract elements of de facto segregation and racial discrimination that are naturally prevalent in society in terms of employment and education. This is especially important in the United States of America (which I assume will be the primary example of the debate), where minorities, such as African-Americans, have been hindered in their economic and social growth as a group for centuries due to societal negligence and more importantly, slavery. Although affirmative action is undoubtedly a preferential system, it is only preferential to a member of the minority group when both candidates (for a job or enrollment in a university, etc.) are equally qualified or deserving of the job ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). While you might say that if affirmative action was not in place, majority or non-preferred groups (such as whites) would be given more jobs, this is obviously not due to some kind of inherent qualification or intellectual excellence within members of the white population. Due decades of financial and social inequality, minorities have been offered less opportunities, and have naturally been retarded in their development as a group in society. For example, the black population of American has higher unemployment and less education than the white population. This is not because they are 'lazier' or more 'inefficient' than whites, but because they've been deprived of economic and educational rights in society to such an extent that their community has been held back socially, despite the fact they are legal equals of whites. Affirmative action is an method to reverse this social inequality and balance the economic and educational gap between racial and/or other social groups. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... ... 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. 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 herself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted hierself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Alcoholics Anonymous is NOT a cult because Thank you for your response, and an interesting yet repetative debate. "So clearly, concern does necessarily mean that there is danger." This is a sad effort on my opponents part. When you read the previous paragraph, the article states the following: "Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused." These are all, for the most part, and in most cases, a bad thing. Clearly the word "Concern" in this context must be applied as something that is dangerous. "I just believe that they are irrelevant to the debate" My opponent has made no efforts as to explain WHY it is irrelevant, and when my opponent has used the secular AA groups as a clear cut method of trying to argue that Atheists can be included into AA she clearly is arguing about Atheists and whether atheists can get sober. My opponent had no problem arguing about AA and atheists, yet when the question arises, she refuses to answer on the grounds that "we shouldnt argue about AA and atheists because it is irrelevant", which is a clear contradiction. "Alcohol is the foe here, not the Higher Power." Not once have i claimed the higher power to be the foe. However, read the rest of the 12 steps. "...were powerless over alcohol..." "...ready to have God remove all these defects...." "...asked Him to remove our shortcomings." These people believe that the only way they can overcome their alcohol problem is to submit to a higher power to remove their defect. Therefore, they are helpless against this Higher power and want to ask him to intervene to help them. Otherwise, they could not possibly overcome this problem. "AA is based on the 12 Steps. If a group were to reject the 12 Steps and adopt a different approach, it would not be AA." Bingo. The secular system has removed itself from the 12 step program and has essentially separated itself from the core of AA. Therefore, the secular AA system is not a part of the original AA system and can be seen as a different recovery program, such as the Mcleod Center and Black Mountain treatment Center. "therefore, as a whole, they are not a cult." Based on the definition you gave, to which i agreed, they are. Must i bring the dictionaries definition up again? Rebuttal 2. Oh, how convenient. You claim that Raelism is a cult, but then dont bother going into that despite it being a very important point. Oh, and by the way, many sects of Christianity fit quite a lot of the check marks on that list. "displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader" Check(The pope, priests, etc) "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged" Check(Excommunication) "Mind-altering practices" Check(Prayer, chanting, faith healing) "dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel" Definitely a Check "polarized us-versus-them mentality" Check for a few sects of Christianity "not accountable to any authorities" Catholic church, check (Pedophile priest scandal, where the church shuffled the priests around to resist arrest and/or hinder investigation by police) "induces feelings of shame and/or guilt" Definitely Check "I respect and realize that the phrase Higher Power could mean many different things;" I never claimed that the phrase "Higher Power" could not mean anything but God. However, i find it funny that my opponent first said: "Do you have evidence that most people equivalent wording?" to "I do not jump to any conclusions and attempt to represent a larger group." So, even if i were to present evidence, you would have rejected it? Thats nice to know. "I ask you, what evidence do you have to back up this claim?" The evidence you presented for what a higher power could mean, is dependant on the persons beliefs. A christian would not consider a higher power to mean "The government", and would instantly point to a God. Since the majority of the USA identify themselves as christian(1), it is safe to assume that the majority do infact think of God when the word "Higher power" is mentioned. My opponent has said it herself, that when the word "Higher power" is mentioned, she instantly turns to the word "God" because of her christian background. "They are not endorsing a particular religion." But they are endorsing a particular form of worship and devotion. Websters dictionary has the following to say on Cults(2): "5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion" "I went above and beyond to demonstrate that there is a wide variety of "Higher Power"" And AA member 10's higher power is this cup. Sure, you can equate higher power to anything. However, how many do you think will equate a higher power to a cup? And how many to God? Thank you very much. "Aside from fellowship and sociability, the prime object was to provide a time and place where new people might bring their problems" And what do you think Confessions are in church? "AA has been around for 74 years and will continue to help alcoholics to achieve sobriety for probably many years to come." No one has argued that AA was ineffective. This point is moot, and this only serves to promote AA instead of actually argue anything about whether or not AA can be considered as a Cult. "However, I do not feel that Midtown is practicing the traditional AA program. They have hijacked the AA name and are using it to their advantage." So, there is an instance where AA became a cult. And clearly this means that there is also a possibility that other locations of AA groups could also become cults. I believe this completely disregards your original contention of how "AA is NOT a cult". I thank my opponent for this debate. However, there are problems which i shall address in a final note. The checklist my opponent provided, may be useful to determine if a particular religious sect is a cult. However, this fact utterly fails when religions like Christianity fit more than one, and definitely many, of the points. Under the normal day-to-day usage of the word "Cult", i would not call Christianity as such. However, i would also, under the same usage of the word, not consider Raelism as a cult either. My opponent has claimed that she would call Raelism a Cult, which is great, because Christianity also fits many of the points on the checklist, especially the southern baptist religious extremists. But i wouldn't call any of them Cults either. When you consider these facts, all belief systems that are sought after have the ability to become cults and can be viewed as cults by certain people, the contention of "Alcoholics anonymous is NOT a cult" is utterly false. This doesn't mean that they are definitely a cult. This means that no one could not and should not claim that AA could not possibly be a cult. Source: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Bowser vs the Sonic the Hedgehog. Hopefully... because (All sources posted in this round have already been posted before.) Countering Sonic Sonic’s quills let him sense danger; thus, he will realize Bowser is a powerful opponent [1]. This will make him more serious than usual and will allow him to use his more powerful attacks. Sonic can also use “Sonic Boost,” which implies he travels at blistering speeds in a dash, meaning he can do this instantaneously [2]. This means Sonic can still attack Bowser at speeds higher than the speed of sound, and this will replace his backup speed; thus, he will still be capable of ripping through Bowser. Also, how Bowser will be able to react in time to Sonic’s speed? Even without any backup speed, Sonic can still move surprisingly fast, so it is unlikely Bowser will be able to block Sonic’s attacks. Alternatively, Sonic could just slow down time and kill Bowser. Pro then says that Sonic will be dazed if Bowser brings his arms up to block Sonic, because Sonic will lack a foothold; however, lacking a foot hold will not stop him, since he can use the Sonic Boost in midair [1]. This will let him tear straight through Bowser. If all of the above rebuttals don’t work and Bowser somehow manages to grab Sonic, Sonic can activate the yellow gem in his shoes and use the thunder shield to shock Bowser, allowing Sonic to get away. Remember, Sonic doesn’t actually have to spin or move for this to work; he can simply do it whenever he wants [3]. Pro says Sonic will be unwilling to use the power, but since Bowser is about to cut Sonic’s head off and burn him to ashes, I would say that Sonic would be panicked enough to use his yellow gem. After he gets away, he will become much more serious with Bowser and use his full power against him, such as slowing down time. Once he does that, Bowser has essentially lost. 1) Straightforward Attack It doesn’t really matter if Bowser is as fast and agile as Mario, since Sonic can still move at blistering speeds far above Mario and Bowser combined. Pro says Bowser can teleport through Sonic and that it will take time for Sonic to turn. However, Sonic can easily turn in very tight circles without trouble, so it is unlikely that this will slow him down much [1]. Also, he can keep his eyes on the shadow of where Bowser is moving, and while he is watching, he can charge up his attack. By the time Bowser appears, Sonic will have fully charged his attack, and he will run straight at Bowser. Bowser will have absolutely no way of dodging this, since I already have shown how teleportation drains him of his speed and he can only use it every 10 seconds. After that, it’s all over for Bowser, since I already have shown how Sonic can rip through battleships without even traveling at the speed of sound. Furthermore, Pro says if Sonic kicks Bowser’s shell, his shoes and gems will break; however, since Sonic can run at the speed of light with his shoes pounding on the floor, and also since he has been seen kicking enemies with his shoes multiple times without his gems and/or shoes breaking, it is unlikely that the gems within Sonic’s shoes will break. 2)-5) Bowser’s tactics will not work for reasons stated above. 6) Sonic Drift Again, Sonic can turn in very tight circles extremely quickly, so the Sonic Drift will not slow him down very much. Bowser’s teleportation abilities will not work for reasons stated above. Also, if Bowser aims his lightning near himself, it is possible that the rocks that go flying will hit Bowser instead of Sonic. Sonic’s intense and ridiculously amazing reflexes will allow him to dodge any incoming projectiles and still hit Bowser. Bowser, on the other hand, is much too slow and clumsy to dodge much of anything, so it is likely that the rocks will hit him. 7) Pure Speed and Intense Reflexes Pro says that if Bowser hits the ground with lightning, rocks will fly into the air. Sonic is moving at light speed. Unless you can somehow prove that flying rocks are capable of moving faster than light, then Sonic can easily dodge them without trouble and hit Bowser. At best, these projectiles will slow Sonic by 100-200 mph. He will still be moving faster than the naked eye can see, so Bowser will be too slow to use his teleportation. Pro’s Additional Arguments- 1) + 2) Pro agrees that Bowser’s abilities will not work because of the rules of this debate. My Case- 1) You were hitting me this whole time? Oh, I didn’t notice! I have already shown why Bowser grabbing Sonic will not work, and even if he does how the thunder shield will protect him and harm Bowser. I'd also like to address his argument about Sonic's resistance to fire, even though I don't have to since Sonic's thunder shield would protect him. Sonic has survived free falls from space. Things falling from space burn because of earth's atmosphere, but since Sonic was able to get up after the fall from space as if nothing had happened, it is clear that the fire did not affect him. Also, if Sonic vibrates his molecules to heal himself, he will not amp the fire, since Pro agreed that Sonic is resistant to catching on fire from friction. It will simply heal him. 2) Pfft, I’ve faced people way more powerful than you! Pro says he will show how Bowser is more powerful than Emerl, but he fails to do so. The purpose of this argument was not to show that Sonic will be guaranteed a win, but rather that it is likely he will win. Since he can beat someone more powerful than Bowser, it is extremely likely he will win against Bowser himself. This argument also shows that Sonic is most likely more experienced than Bowser and is unlikely to give up in the fight. 3) Time to attack! It is unlikely Bowser will be fast enough to react to something moving at the speed of sound, so he probably will not teleport in time. Even if he does, Sonic can continue to release the shockwaves until Bowser reappears and continue to hit him until Bowser is able to teleport again. I have already shown how Sonic kicking Bowser’s shell will not damage the shoes or the gems. He drops Sonic’s ability to summon an “Insta-shield," and Sonic’s ability to summon blue blades of energy. 4) Strategy time! Pro completely concedes to this point. 5) Sonic’s Shoes Again, Sonic’s gems and/or shoes will not break for reasons stated above. Also, how would Bowser know about Sonic’s shoes? The only way he could know is if Sonic utilized his shoes, and by that time Bowser would already be dead, since Sonic is capable of summoning a thunder shield and slowing down time. Even if Bowser somehow survived Sonic’s powers, how would he know that the source of the power is the shoes themselves? And even if he somehow did figure out where the thunder shield and slowing down time abilities came from, he still would not be able to take Sonic’s shoes off. As he reaches down to pull Sonic’s shoes off, Sonic could easily utilize his thunder shield before he does so, causing Bowser to be shocked and allowing him to run away. Conclusion- Pro has dropped two of his own arguments, one of my own arguments, and two of Sonic’s abilities (Insta-shield and Sonic Wind). He has also pretty much dropped Bowser’s physical capabilities and is relying heavily upon his lightning and teleportation, but I have already shown how both of these abilities are virtually useless. The only argument that does not include Bowser’s magical abilities is when he says Bowser can grab Sonic. However, remember that if Bowser does this, then Sonic will utilize his yellow gem and call upon his thunder shield. After that, Sonic will become much more serious in the fight and use his full abilities after having such a close call with death, which will ensure him a win, since he can simply bend time to his will. Well, I’d like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate. I had a lot of fun and hope he did as well. [1] http://sonic.wikia.com... [2] http://sonic.wikia.com... [3] http://concept-mobius.technoguild.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Napoleon Bonaparte would win in a War Against George Washington. because No problem. If you ever want to finish the last two rounds of this, feel free to message me on this. And thank you everyone who has read: feel free to vote on convincing case dependent on the last two rounds. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god. because I accept this challenge. If The Fool ™ can refute my argument, he wins. Otherwise, I win. I'll lay out my argument very simply and defend it in the next round. Introduction I am defending the Christian God of the Holy Bible, whose attributes can be best summarized as [1]: There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. Argument This is a logical argument. Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument. In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal. Abstract entities are products of thought. Products of thought necessitate a mind. In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entitites, it must also be invariant and universal. In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial. If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind. If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. If there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument. Therefore, to objectively refute this argument, God must exist. Conclusion The Fool™ can only refute my argument if it is non-refutable. Ergo, will not be able to refute it. Each premise in my argument follows from the one before. Thus, The Fool™ does not need to refute every premise since refuting one premise implicitely defeats the ones the follow. However, if I can defend all contended premises then The Fool™ has lost this debate. Sources http://www.reformed.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The theory of Evolution is incorrect because CON does not offer a single citation for his claims, and cannot be verified. He simply argues the fossil record is incorrect. Even if it was, evolution would still have genetic evidence. Our genome is only 1.2% different to that of a chimpanzee and the bonobo. We differ from apes about 1.6%--importantly, all of those monkey's differ 1.6% from the ape, indicating a common ancestor. http://bit.ly... To refute my opponent's contention: although the fossil record may have been inadequate 100 years ago, there is little doubt that the modern fossil record " provides a true and meaningful picture of the history of life". http://bit.ly... on does not cite an example of finding the missing link, and then claiming it was a recently deceased monkey. However, when we look at human ancestory we see a long line of animals similar to humans, but are neither fully human nor ape. Further, with other species, we HAVE identified the transitional fossils http://bit.ly... http://bit.ly... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Guns should be banned in the united states. because Well, seeing how my opponent has forfeited, I have won the debate, and urge a negative ballot. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The NFL should kick racist teams out of American football because Thank you, Pro, for creating this Debate. Linguistics is a funny thing. For a variety of reasons, the phonetics and semantics of words change over time. The collective opinions and judgements of society, too, change. Given that the offensiveness of a word is subjective, not objective, the combined transient nature of linguistics and popular opinion almost guarantees that the "racially offensive" nature of word is guaranteed to change over time. In Pro's link, there is reference to the linguistic concept of "pejoration" [1], wherein a "neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation." As is to be expected, there is a reverse to this process called "amelioration." [2] Some words that have undergone amelioration include: Yankee [3] Sooner [4] Queer Geek Queer and Geek are interesting. It is undoubted that the Queer and Geek groups have reclaimed the terms ("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Geek Squad", etc.) which were previously derogatory. Furthermore, in the case of Queer, its use as a synonym for strange predates its use as a derogatory term. It has gone from neutral, to derogatory, back to neutral, if not positive. It seems clear that the offensive nature of a word can change and is and subject to the collective whims of society. Why should we deny this process to Redskins? If Pro is to be consistent in his assertion, then he should add the New York Yankees to the list, and petition University of Oklahoma to reject "Sooners" as a nickname for their team. Do I suggest, then, that all of his suggestions are equally allowable? Certainly not. Most of them still retain their derogatory status as the primary and popular meaning of the word. However, some, such as San Francisco 4x2s or Coolies, I couldn't tell you what they are derogatory terms for. If you asked a random person what Redskins were, they would most likely refer to the football team, illustrating the fact that Redskins as a neutral tame for a sports team has supplanted its use as a derogatory term for a Native American which, itself, supplanted its use as a neutral term for a specific tribe of Native Americans. The fact of the matter is, insisting that words can only ever be used in accordance with a previous meaning, etymologically, would have you completely severed from society, as no one would understand you. For example, Pro has just suggested that the NFL offer the Washington Redskins buttocks [5]. A more serious accusation is that of racism. It think it is important to distinguish between the use of a term which, at some point in its centuries old existence was used in a derogatory manner, and the actual application of discrimination based upon race. Racism, in short is: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior" [6]. In making such an accusation, Pro assumes a heavy burden of proof which has yet to be shown. In short, yes, the term has been used pejoratively. It has also been used neutrally, even before it assumed pejorative status. Given these conflicting states, how should we treat the term? The answer is we should treat the term as we do with any word: in accordance with its current, popular usage. As it is now, the use of the term to refer to a football team is, by far, the most popular use of the term. Association of Redskin with native Americans is, at best, archaic. Even the referenced use by Pro notes the term is "dated." (1) http://oxforddictionaries.com... (2) http://pejorative.askdefine.com... (3) http://www.etymonline.com... (4) http://www.etymonline.com... (5) http://www.etymonline.com... (6) http://oxforddictionaries.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ninjas are better than prates because Simply put, my opponent's post doesn't in any way show that ninjas are superior to pirates. Since my opponent is the claimant, the burden to provide some sort of support that ninjas are better than pirates lies with him. ...anyway, I'll have to wait until my opponent shows some sort of reasoning to throw out a rebuttal. I look forward to seeing just what these reasons are. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today. because I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I intend to make this fun. You- In traditional debate, "you" usually refers to the contender. ============================== My contentions: 1. Not anything is real. 2. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, he would be crushed under over four million pounds of force and die. 3. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, his entire reindeer team would burst into flames within 4.26 trillionths of a second. ========================= First Contention: Solipsism 1. Either the universe exists or the universe does not exist. 2. There is no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of the universe. 3. Occam's Razor: The universe does not exist. Sources: 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2. http://math.ucr.edu... ========================= Second Contention: Santa was crushed during one of his annual attempts. Assuming a Christian child delivery population of ~378,000,000 with a census average of 3.5 children per household and a requrement to visit each household for both naughty and nice children in the 31 hours of Christmas eve, Santa must visit 822.6 houses per second. The math in source 2.1 finds that Santa's sleigh would have to travel 650 miles per second. When the minimum mass of the sleigh is assessed at about 642,600,000 pounds, the physics would cause Santa to be pulled back into his seat with about "4,315,015 pounds of force" (2.1). This would kill Santa. Conclusion: "If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now." (2.1) Source: 1. http://www.daclarke.org... ================================================= Contention 3: Santa and his crew would be incinerated upon an annual attempt. The force described above would cause the lead reindeer to each experience "14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy" (3.1). They would be incinerated in this heat, and the same heat would incinerate the next two reindeer on down the line. The entire sleigh and reindeer would be incinerated in "4.26 thousandths of a second" (3.1). This would kill Santa. Conclusion: "If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now." (3.1) Source: 1. http://www.daclarke.org... ================================================= Conclusion: Not anything exists, so Santa Claus doesn't exist. Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead under hundreds of thousands of tons of pressure. Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead.under quintillions of joules of energy. ===> THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Children are too restricted because So my opponent has still not answered to my question and didn't rebut my argument as well. I would like to mention my opponent's many flaws. First, I would like to ask how the quote about sharp leads relates to this debate today. We were mainly supposed to be focusing more on children being restricted, but the proposition has not elaborated on how pencils in the classroom is related to restricting. Not only that, I find her speech on round #3 already rebutted in my round two speech, in which I had already proved that children are not being TOO restricted in anything. Also, throughout her speech, she hasn't necessarily proved how the children are in desperate restriction, but instead, just gave the example that she experienced or thought. Yet, she didn't do her duty of defining the motion or stating the exact status quo. Lastly, there was no connection between her three speeches, which made this entire debate very chaotic. Therefore, I find no reason to state another argument of my own when my previous argument had not been attacked by the proposition and when her speeches made no sense. Thank you, proposition, for bringing up this debate. Thank you, readers, for reading this debate instead of skipping it. Therefore, I am proud to oppose to this motion today. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism. because As a brief roadmap of my argument for this round, I will be proving that Socialism upholds the first three ideals of Democracy more effectively than Capitalism. I will also be providing a block against my opponent's first proposed point. Contention 1: The economic and social policies of Socialism allow the majority to rule rather than a wealthy minority. As my opponent earlier stated in his definitions, Socialism is distinct from capitalism because it provides equal benefits regardless of work completed. In a Socialist economy, no individual can rise significantly above another, while in a Capitalist system, both vertical and horizontal motion are possible in terms of socioeconomic status. In Capitalist systems, interest groups, often headed by the economic elite, often seek to shape public policy by "donating" or funding campaigns for office. In fact, the vast majority of elections are funded primarily by such interest groups. An overabundance of examples from American campaigns can be found at http://www.opensecrets.org... . When these interest groups donate money and influence policy makers, they are not representing the majority of citizens. They are representing small groups of citizens, and the policies created often favor a wealthy minority over the majority population. Examples of this are abundant not only in the American government, but in capitalist or capitalist-leaning systems worldwide. A Socialist government, meanwhile, offers much less room for individuals to dominate the economy. Rather, in order to donate significant funds to political campaigns, a multitude of individuals would logically have to pool resources. Thus, any significant contributions by individuals to a political campaigns in a Socialist economic system would reflect a greater number of citizens, rather than a wealthy minority. In this case, majority does rule. Contention 2: The economic and social policies of Socialism protect and ensure minority rights more effectively than the economic and social policies of Capitalism. In many Democratic Capitalist nations, minorities are underrepresented in the Legislative branch of government. The Legislative branch is responsible for the creation and passing of new laws. When minorities are underrepresented in this governmental branch, policies that benefit and protect their rights are pursued less than necessary. For equality to exist in a Democracy, the rights and equality of minorities to the majority must be actively protected. The under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch, and therefore in government as a whole, is reflected by their economic and social conditions. For example, in America from the late twentieth century until now, the rate at which the number of impoverished African Americans is double that of the national rate of increase. The majority of Americans are caucasian, and thus the "average rate" primarily represents them. The rapidly rising number of impoverished African Americans effectively parallels their representation in congress; African Americans hold less than 10% of the seats in America's legislative branch. Perhaps one of the most significant recent examples of infringement on minority rights caused by the under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch is America's infamous Senate Bill 1070. A document originally proposed by Arizona and passed by the American senate, SB 1070 enabled police officers to pull over drivers and make "reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person" in the case of "reasonable suspicion." The law essentially legalized racial profiling for Arizona state police, infringing majorly on the rights of Latino Americans. Latino Americans are another minority group underrepresented in Congress. They, on average, also have a much lower per capita income than the American majority, and more often live in poverty. The relationship between these factors in undeniable. Argument Block: Equality is an inherent part of Democratic ideals. Equity does not suffice in a true Democracy. The use of equality in Democracy is parallel with the belief in Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people ought to be treated equally in a society. Equity, meanwhile, would be referring to "Equity theory," or the perceptions of fair or unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships, which in this case are relationships among the citizens in a country. Equity theory would try to create as "fair" a distribution as possible. The idea is inherently flawed. While Egalitarianism is simple and absolute in concept, being the equal social and economic treatment of all by government, equity theory is debatable. The definition of equality is not subject to interpretation: it is the state of being equal. Fairness, meanwhile, is a very flexible term. Many people have different interpretations of what would be fair and what wouldn't. In the case of a "Democracy" based on equity alone (although such a thing would never be a true Democracy), one could take members of society who were more intelligent, more athletic, or more talented and treat these people at a different level than individuals who were less so. It could be considered "fair" to treat one who is "better" better. On the other hand, people with mental or physical disabilities should be treated differently, as well. It is only fair to the rest of society and to those people if the government spends less on them and cares less for them. The definition of equity and fairness is too broad and too malleable to be used in a Democracy. It can be easily warped to create a government under which not all citizens are represented, minority rights are not protected, and private interests dominate the political and social mechanisms of the country. I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel because He dodges a train thrown at him by Nam-Ek while Faora decides to purposefully take the rocket as I assume that she believes she's strong enough to take it. I saw it wrong... Well... There goes that argument. And the girls don't step in front to protect him if my opponent wants to try and argue that point. Admittedly, I should have rewatched the episode to make sure that I wasn't misremembering... There goes that point gone... Tara Strong is th Woman of 1000 Voices. You wouldn't believe how much of a fanboy I am of her... I have an autographed picture hanging on my wall. As you voters can clearly see, the PPG have not won any category and tie in only 2. While speed and reflexes are definitely important factors in a battle, they ultimately do not put the girls above the Man of Steel. Well... Good job... You have effectively AFIRED YOURA LAZAR! All my base are belong to you. Well... Crap... One thing my opponent will NEVER dispute: the girls are cuter than Superman... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Political Science, the most evil science ther ever could be, using law like a flea, bloodsuckers because Below, please find how your claim concerning me allegedly having the burden of proof to be incorrect. "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning."[2] Now, despite the fact that my opponent has offered ZERO evidence to support his claims, I will not be so brash. I will offer what I believe to be a worse kind of science than political science... Eugenics. "Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of eugenics and brought it to its natural conclusion: the Holocaust of World War II, where millions of the "genetically unfit" were exterminated in an effort to create a "master race." Those considered unfit were not just Jews, but also the criminal, weak, feeble-minded, insane and disabled (not to mention priests and nuns and those who helped try to hide the Jewish people)." [3] Sources: 2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.ncregister.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Sonic Booms Should Be Outlawed In Africa because Thank You, I was getting so sick and tired of people on this website debating non-issuses like gay marriage, health care, or the war in Afghanistan (like anybody cares). But nobody had the cojones to bring up a serious issue like this one so before this debate starts I just want to commend you sir, good luck. You took the con position so you are against Sonic the hedgehogs boat spars being turned into bandits and then being put into a aerosol can, ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!. Pro is the only way to go. This could get us out of the economic crisis my friend. The marketability could grow Lynx Spray Range, they will hire more employees, the employees now have more money, they buy more things, other companies grow and so on. This how this gets achevied. 1. The other day i was at the mall and i smelled Africa the first thing that came to my mind when i got a whif of it was, "this needs part of Sonics boat mixed into it." Thats how we get it to smell great. 2. If these Boat Spars are turned into bandits that would make National News. Headlines read "Banks robbed by Boat parts." it's a appealing story. Now that everybody knows about the bandits and is furious with them the spray company can stop them now they have the image of being heroes and saving banks from robberies. Plus people will know about the bandits so they will be intrigued to see what a colonge with the bandits inside of smells like so... People buy it and the company has a positive image. 3. Now, Kids don't always watch the news but the company can advertise to them for FREE! The spray can be advertised on Sonics show and Video Games. Maby Sonics adds a talking cologne bottle as a friend I don't know something like that. So now when Timmy is preparing for his 3rd grade dance he'll want the spray he saw on his favorite show/video game Sonic. This plan is bullet proof. So if you care about the global economy VOTE PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments because A disappointment to be sure, but somewhat expected with all of my opponent's "witnesses" exposed as simple liars. Extend all arguments from both rounds. NEGATED. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Richard Dawkins because Nothing to say really. My opponent forfeited because there is no argument to make. Vote PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I can out insult anyone, via flame war because Firstly how dare you try to question the validity of my manhood. If I ever see you in RL I'll be sure to give you a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to your delicate feminine chin lover boy and give you the discipline you need. My relationship status is only complicated because the Vegster maintains an extraordinary extravagant lifestyle, that in the words of masta bis is "an unpardonable breach of confidence for me to reveal." Indeed good sir my swagger is unprecedented and unparallelled. I pretty much got chicks lined up with their mouths open on all fours in abc order, single filed lines stretched out a quarter mile long ready to take down Mista V's smokin' hot pipe, or rather gargantuan man-meat. I'm far from cocky because I actually have a narcissist complex, but its been evaluated, verified and determined to be substantially justified. The Dr agreed no treatment was necessary. Enough about me though, I'll write my autobiography later which will is certainly be best seller and catapault my income into the million dollar bracket. Narcissism: http://www.grandiosity.org... I'm sorry about ragging on your delicate feminism prince charming, but I just thought if you could take a D**K you could surely take a joke. Look man the Vegster is actually a tender loving compassionate soul, so for the time being instead of ragging on your homo erotic fudge packing pleasures, I'll concede to your family members instead. Lets start off with your obnoxious sister that you're parading around in your compilation of pictures, like shes supposed to be America's next top model when that's obviously far from the case. I'd like to point out this picture, which made me burst out with laughter upon examination: " http://www.debate.org... ; Wow dude, just wow. That's a photogenic moment, really? The chick looks like you captured a wild crack addicted methhead and stuck her in a nice dress. Also the poor girl if she had black hair, would look EXACTLY like that chick from the ring " http://img.photobucket.com... ; As for your mother I actually don't have anything bad to say about her, because honestly shes a hot milf that would make a great addition to Mista's 2010 draft team. I just hope she doesn't have a gag reflex or she wont qualify for the roster. Tell your mother Papi Vegster says hi. Back to you, but damn where do I start? Do I start off with the fact that you're missing a couple of chromosomes which makes you a irrevocable homo erotic beefsickle lover with aspirations to be a pop icon amongst the entire gay community? Or maybe I should mention the fact that you're a corny brainwashed tool in the JROTC program? I can't believe you would even have the audacity to brag about that, you get more sighs then a waste line son. You're the Chaplin of your battalion too? Congrats bro that's a merit of the same equivalence of wining a medal in the special Olympics. Lastly I'd just like to briefly mention the fact that you listen to Nickel Back and Evescence, which does nothing but further elaborates your epic cornyness. That's it. I'd like to urge a CON vote too. Kids going to need all the help he can get. VOTE CON <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abel Would Have Killed Cain because I thank truth_seeker for accepting this debate and look forward to an interesting discussion. Argument My opening will be brief. Essentially, the morality of this story is inconclusive...it is not possible to conclude that either party did what was "right" to earn the favor of the Biblical God, either because 1) we cannot fathom God's will, or 2) the Christian God is not omnibenevolent (thus rendering the Biblical conception of morality to be false). Because the morality is arbitrary, God's favor is also arbitrary. What is not arbitrary is the Biblical description of human nature, and it is this nature that compels Cain to kill Abel, and would compel Abel to kill Cain had God favored Cain. Morality is Inconclusive In Genesis 1, God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." (Genesis 1:29) God did NOT grant animals for human consumption, yet Abel tends to flocks and sees fit to butcher " fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock" to offer to God as sacrifice. (Genesis 4:4) Cain on the other hand offers what was given to him as food (i.e. plants) as an offering to God. For some unexplained reason, God saw fit to look upon Abel the butcher with favor, even though what Abel did to his flocks also would have resulted in "[the firstborn of his flock's] blood [crying] out to [God] from the ground" (Genesis 4:10). What makes the butchering of animals different on a moral basis from the butchering of humans in the eyes of God is unexplained. What is clear though is that man was not to eat the flesh of animals, so for Abel to tend flocks with any sort of flesh-related purpose is at best morally ambiguous, at worst a Biblical contradiction. In the end, it is not possible to say why Abel was looked upon with favor...the decision by God is arbitrary at best, contradictory at worst. The Name of Cain The name "Cain" means "to acquire." [1, 2] The movie Noah made a big point about this, as Cain's successor Tubal-Cain utters more than once "[God] cursed us to struggle by the sweat of our brow to survive. Damned if I don't do everything it takes to do just that. Damned if I don't take what I want." ( http://www.moviequotesandmore.com... ) A probable moral to the story is that Cain "took" from Abel God's favor by killing him, or so he thought, and that such taking is inherently sinful. However, was Cain and ONLY Cain "destined" to do this, or could Abel have done this as well? There is no reason to think that Abel was incapable of doing so...after all, both Adam and Eve sought to acquire knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. Thus this "sin", this act of acquisition and the desire that drives it, is ubiquitous in humanity, according to the Bible. Had God favored Cain and not Abel, there is every reason to think that Abel would have done the exact same thing Cain had done to "acquire" God's favor from the favored sibling - it is human nature, according to the Bible. Conclusion According to the Bible, man is sinful. According to Christ, not one of us is without sin (John 8:7). According to Genesis, sin is very closely linked to the act of acquisition. The consequences sinning were not known at the time of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel, and so upon describing two scenarios that involved the desire for acquisition (the original sin and Cain and Abel), man in both cases "falls" by sinning. It is not explained why acquiring the knowledge of good and evil and becoming "as one of us [i.e. like God], to know good and evil" (Genesis 3:22), is a sin to begin with, and it is not explained why God favored Abel over Cain. At best, moral conclusions from these stories are arbitrary, and thus, given the Biblical account of human nature, any human would have done as Cain had done in his situation, meaning thus that Abel would have killed Cain had God favored Cain. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.jewishworldreview.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Public schools provide better education than homeschooling. because Counter-Argument to Contention 2 and 3 Contention 2 --- It's argued that public schools have more "diversity" in teachers and the subjects they teach than homeschooling parents can give their children. See my rebuttal on Argument no. 1 that public school teachers are "qualified" to teach their subjects, which too often they are NOT. Even if students are taught six or seven subjects in public school by "qualified" teachers, what exactly does this "teaching" consist of? When I was in public school, and it is exactly the same today, "teaching" consists of the teacher making the student read the next chapter in the subject textbook, and then there is a discussion the next day on this subject matter (IF the students are lucky enough to have a teacher who does this). Is there any reason why an intelligent homeschooling parent cannot give their kids the same dumbed-down public-school textbook to read, or far more interesting textbooks or REAL books and other reading material on any subject under the sun that the student may be interested in? Moreover, a parent can hire a low-cost college student or tutor to teach their child any subject whose complexity goes beyond the parent's particular knowledge at the time. In public schools, moreover, the student has to study the subjects dictated to them by the school curriculum, even if the student is BORED TO DEATH by the subjects (example: Geometry, Trigonometry, European History, etc.). Why should children be in an education PRISON where the wardens dictate what they should study and learn? In homeschooling, parents who love their kids pay much more attention to each individual student's abilities and likes and dislikes regarding the subjects they enjoy learning. Also, homeschooling allows each student to study a subject he or she loves IN DEPTH, AT THEIR OWN PACE, unlike in public schools, where kids are treated like rats or factory robots going through a maze of little classrooms, going from classroom to classroom and subject to subject, every 50 minutes. What if a child loves literature, or biology, or history in public school and would like to spend more time on this subject? The teacher does not have the time or the desire to give such student special attention on each child's personal choices of which subjects they love or hate. Children are treated like factory workers in the public schools, where all child must study the same subjects in the same curriculum, being bored to death most of the time. With homeschooling, students can study subjects they love all day long to their heart's content. It's these subjects they love that can lead the child to the eventual career they will choose. There is no such freedom of learning for the child in the typical public-school education prison. The so-called "diversity" of subjects taught in public-schools turns out to be an education cage children are locked into. Counter Argument to Argument 2 With home schooling, there is no school board?? I don't understand the 'benefit' of a school board?! A school board is just a collection of parents/teachers/school bureaucrats who dictate the same idiotic curriculum and rules for the public schools. The best thing to do with school boards is to abolish them, and let all children homeschool. Kids would be a lot happier. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state because I would like to thank you for posting this debate and allowing me to be the negative. Please excuse my random outburst earlier. I have turrets. Just kidding. But, no, seriously on to the debate. I now will start by offering my case and then addressing my opponent's. 1 Peter 2:16-17 (Old King James Version) As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. This verse shows how we should not misuse our faith but in fact to use it to honor the king, meaning the government. The words of Peter here show how we shouldn't abandon our faith in our relations with the government, but in fact use it to uplift our government. In this debate I will value Natural Rights, specifically the rights to the pursuit of happiness and liberty. These rights are inalienable and cannot be rightfully taken from anyone by anyone save their creator (God, nature, chance). Thus my criterion in today's debate will be social contract. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Hobbsian Social Contract Theory. So if you need further explanation about it I insist that you inquire of wikipedia. Otherwise I will move on. I have three contentions to offer in today's debate. CONTENTION 1: The Bible clearly supports a Church fully engrafted into the State. CONTENTION 2: The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that. CONTENTION 3: Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights. Now back to my first contention. The Bible clearly supports a Church fully engrafted into the State. If you look at the old testament you see a nation (Israel) created by God for the purpose of glorifying God. At first and in its purest state it was a total and pure theocracy, where the government was God and that was that. This shows that God wholly supported the idea of a nation where church and state were not separated. This level of connection may be impractical and unattainable in today's world but its basics can still be reasonably practised in our modern Government. A colonial period philosopher, Roger Williams (the man who first conceived separation of church and state), said, "Separation is not a principle that keeps the church from participating in government, but is in fact an idea that keeps the state out of the church and only that," Williams furthers, "The church is an institution of God and is therefore inherently good, the state is an institution of man is therefore inherently evil. If we allow the state to interfere with the church then its evil will corrupt the church. If the church is allowed to have a say in the government then its good will help to purify the state." I am not suggesting that the US government is evil but am instead saying that it has been purified of that evil by only partial separation of church and state. This brings me to my second contention. The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that. The first amendment reads," Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....." As we can clearly see the founding fathers took to Mr. Williams idea of separation. Note that they specifically stated that the state stay out of the affairs of the church but never that the church stay out of the state. This is because it is impossible to uphold natural rights through strict and total separation of church and state. Thus I arrive at my final contention. Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights. To arrive at this conclusion I must quote the Encyclopedia of Psychology: "Every belief is a religion of sorts, even atheism, which requires its own amount of faith, is a religion in and of itself.... Every belief that one holds, experience that one has, event that one goes through effects our decision making thereafter, consciously or unconsciously, without exception....Therefore to perfectly separate church and state would mean to completely remove any notion of God from the thought process of every citizen of said country." Such a control on thought would violate every citizen's natural right to liberty thus strictly separating church and state would tear down natural rights, which is an unjust act and therefore cannot be allowed. Now on to my opponent's case. He began his case with a quote from Mathew 22:21 which I perfectly agree with. But I must point out that my opponent failed to correctly interpret this passage of scripture. Rather than requiring the strict separation of church and state he was tackling the problem of governmental obedience. If you look at history you see that Rome was in control of Israel at the time and the Jews were constantly questioning Rome's authority. The given statement from Jesus is his response on whether or not one should pay his taxes to an oppressive government. He said that while Caesar demands his tax, God demands his own and that we should obey both and pay both their due. I have clearly shown in my own case how his value of Democracy is better upheld by negating the resolution. And thus it still stands, but as a point for my case, and not his. Again my case upholds his criterion of Religious Freedom better than his. He makes the statement that the US non-involvement in 'Holy Wars' is due to the strict separation of church and state. This is false. Yes, the US has evaded such wars, but it has done so through partial separation and not strict separation. My opponent brings up the 'Holy War' argument again as his first contention and I again negate this by saying that such success is not attributed to strict separation but to partial separation. His second contention was that of the Constitution. I have explained in my second contention how this is completely incorrect and how the exact opposite is true instead. My opponent brings into light the idea that if no strict separation is enforced then religious freedom for minority religious groups is lost. This is again false. I am not implying that the government declare a national religion or that they pass laws favoring Christians, but simply that prayer in schools is allowed if a teacher or student so chooses to participate, or a prayer to open a town hall meeting, or the freedom to hand some one a piece of religious literature in the airport with out getting sued. That is all I want protection from, these and other such restrictions given in the name of strict separation of church and state. To conclude, through the words of the most the most popular religion (the Bible) and through the foundation of our government (the constitution and colonists) I must negate the resolution. It is through the preservation of the all important natural right to liberty that I must negate the resolution. It is for the better of our sovereign nation of the United States of America that I must negate the resolution. It is for all these reasons and many more that I must negate the resolution. Thank You All. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against this is the best conservative estimate of how many planets have complex life like ours: 1429 planets because For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are close to 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies. With this simple calculation you get something like 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places. 25 percent of Sun-like stars have planets. This means there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our Galaxy. With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, suggesting that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems are in the Universe. http://arxiv.org... "what's the probability of life forming? one in seven billion" Considering what we know (or rather lack of) about Abiogenesis, applying "odds" to the event seems somewhat strange (despite what creationists would have you believe :P). So what do we know then? Habitable zones are the best guess approach to determining possibilities of life. These habitable zones exist as a range from the sun in which water can be supported on a planetary surface. Additional factors normally include a super giant gravity well that in essence protects the habitable zone from comets, asteroids etc. Habitable zones however are not stable creatures. They are dependent on what life stage their sun is currently in. Stars like our Sun go through three stages that could foster life. The first lasts about 10 billion years while the star burns hydrogen in its core. Our Sun is currently in such a period, called the "main sequence", and the Earth lies within this stage's habitable zone. The zone extends from just within Earth's orbit to nearly the orbit of Mars (or 0.95 to 1.37 astronomical units, with 1 AU being the distance between the Earth and Sun). When the star begins to burn its hydrogen in a shell around a growing helium core, it brightens and expands and becomes a sub-giant. The habitable zone sweeps outward, extending from 2 to 9 AU. The inner edge of this zone remains habitable for several billion years while the outer extreme, where Saturn currently orbits, is habitable for a few hundred million years. The star then fluctuates in brightness for about 20 million years as it switches to burning helium almost exclusively, before becoming a red giant and swelling to 10 times the diameter of the Sun. For about a billion years afterwards, the habitable zone around the red giant extends from 7 to 22 AU, the outer edge of which lies beyond the orbit of Uranus. So planets that are currently very cold and icy can warm up and become potentially habitable. This shows the time period over which these conditions change is very long - long enough for life to form ( comparing that with the time it took for life to emerge on Earth - an estimated 700 million years). Habitable zones are as much an issue of placement as they are of time. The chances of life forming increase. Due to the limits of technology, the types of planets we can detect are limited (large gravity well Jupiter sized planets). Computer modelling offers the best solution to determining probabilities of habitable zones. Current modelling estimates arrive at a rate of 25-50% of extrasolar planetary systems will have a habitable zone capable of supporting an earth like planet (Giant "super earths" i.e. rocky planets the size of Jupiter are also being discovered with increasing frequency). Adding to the chances, we must consider aspects like Jupiter's moon Europa, which is thought to have a subsurface ocean with an environment similar to the deep oceans of Earth. Venus once had a climate similar to Earth's and vast oceans of water. Recent Mar's photos show water formed canyons, deltas and waterfalls. We also know life can be supported in scalding, acidic hot pools, in the driest deserts, and in the dark, crushing depths of the ocean. It has even found a niche in the frigid polar regions, in toxic dumps and nuclear power plants. Undersea hydrothermal vents also support entire ecosystems. Hydrogen and oxygen are the in the top 3 most common elements in the universe. Of the top 3 elements they are the only two to form a compound. That being water. So as for your "best conservative estimate", I would say you are quite a far ways behind. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against World Peace In Prehistory (5) because Bump <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Public Nudity Should Be Legalized because I thank XStrikeX for responding to my response and expressing interest in my expression of interest in his expression of interest in my debate. === RESPONSES === //Nudists or just people who suddenly have the feeling of undressing should obey the law and not commit this crazy act in public.// On what grounds shouldn't they do it? Whether they should or should not do it is independent of whether it should or should not be legal. It may or may not necessarily be good for someone to slap themselves in the face. Should it be illegal? And on top of that I'd argue it's not only something that shouldn't be illegal but also not necessarily something they shouldn't do. They can have a good reason to be doing what they're doing. // Furthermore, I have never heard of a nude person being beaten or tortured by the US police. I believe torture is illegal by the government in the US, so thus, no nudist will be physically harmed [1]. Torture and physical pain is a cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.// I never said torture. I do not THINK the government is systematically capturing all the nudists and sticking them in torture chambers...I don't really know...but we'll leave that out of the discussion since that was just not one of contentions and I don't really have any reason to think that. However! Physical pain is certainly not being interpreted as cruel and unusual punishment and in contradiction of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by any level of the United States government. In-fact, physical pain is widely implemented by the government in the form of supposedly "less than lethal weapons", which include the taser, riot-gun, high-pressure hoses and many others. [1] The taser is the most likely to be used against a nude individual and can be excruciatingly painful delivering 50,000 volts to that individual. Tasers can sometimes inflict death and their use is even outlawed in various countries for both civilians and police do to their being perceived as inhumane. [2] I have a video of an innocent nude man being tazed by cops for refusing to put cloths on. A crowd is watching the whole thing unfold and are obviously very angry at the police officers since the man was non-violent and did nothing wrong, un-like the cops. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post this video since it is uncensored. //Would you want your own young child or say, a wandering four year old to suddenly encounter a nudist?// I, honestly, wouldn't care. Why should I be afraid? They're not harming my child. They're minding their own business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity. If there were we would be born with cloths on. //This is indecent and will scar the child for the rest of his or her life.// This is an incredibly fallacious and possibly disingenuous assertion. Prove it or drop it. How will they be scarred by nudity; something that is natural? Do they not see their own nudity? Do they not need to feed from their mother's breast as an infant? Will they not read of the sexual organs in biology books? //As the child grows up and hits puberty where all those hormones start kicking in, that becomes a bigger problem. Being already exposed to nudity, the children may develop an addiction to pornography or other inappropriate actions.// Do you know what puberty means? It means that, biologically, they are now ready for sexual intercourse. Of course, that may be independent of whether they are emotionally and intellectually ready for such a thing. Nonetheless, puberty is the most pivotal time to start learning and understanding human anatomy. Entering life unprepared in this field can be disastrous and there's really no need to suppress the discovery of such incites; that would serve no purpose other than upholding outdated, unintellectual and unfounded taboos which desperately need doing away with for the progression of a healthy society. //Breasts and penises are not things people express without any emotion. Those body parts are sex tools.// Completely untrue. We were born without cloths, nudity is out natural state. Being nude may easily be done in an act of pursuing comfortability. On a hot day the cooking sweat captured by cloths can be almost unbearable. In the cold cloths can keep one warm but in the heat that is the last thing you would want. Another perfect reason people want to go nude is to avoid unsightly tan-lines. When we wear cloths our areas which are so unjustly called "indecent" never reach the light of the life giving sun. This leaves many people with bleachy buns--who wants that?! //Walking around nude scars children for life and certainly does not place a good impression on other people.// Prove that it could possibly do any emotional damage! It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense for this to occur. As for people getting a good impression--are they justified in being offended? Sure, they have the right not to like it and look away just like the nudist has the right to be nude but do they really have a good reason for being so negative about it? It's a silly and pointless taboo that accomplishes nothing. If they're offended then it's their fault for being stupid. //Truly no need. Why do you need to go around walking naked? If you want to show your muscles, then just wear a piece of clothing that shows your muscles. Clothing was made to be worn. It's not a handcuff that restricts you from doing things. It's just a shirt, pants, and shoes.// Like I just explained; that's completely untrue. There are many perfectly reasonable purposes one could have for being naked. And it's not your place to tell them they shouldn't when they're clearly not hurting anyone. Besides the reasons I've already described there are more. They might just be doing it for fun. Running around naked can easily be fun without being sexual. Or get this--they may even be doing it to protest unjust anti-nudity laws! The Boston Nudist Party. //Not in the public. If you really, really have the (weird) urge to go and express yourself, do it somewhere in private, where children or other adults who don't want to see you cannot see you, such as a nudist beach or a nudist colony. You will certainly fit right in there.// That's life-style segregation. You're forcing anyone who wants to mind their own business a certain way to only be themselves with others like them in a special area. It's tyranny! Why stop their? Shouldn't we do that with any life-style choice you disagree with? Lets say you don't like emo fashion. Should we force them to go to emo-camps? //[By the way, whenever I say "you," I am not referring to my opponent, FREEDO. I am merely using it as an example of an anonymous person.]// Well...streaking does kinda sound fun... //People can get sick and/or feel uncomfortable.// If someone would seriously become ill from seeing nudity then they have a personal medical issue that they need to sort out with their doctor. //Clothes are also made for warmth and protection, besides fashion. If there is a person who is not wearing anything at all, he/she can injure him/herself. A person wearing no shoes can hurt his feet by stepping on a small shard of glass or burn them on hot asphalt. A cold wind and temperature can cause a cold or fever.// Is it the governments role to force someone to only do what it sees as healthy? Then why stop there? Outlaw cigarettes and do-nuts, force everyone to brush their teeth. Remember, I'm not arguing that nudity is something everyone should do. I'm arguing that people who want to should be allowed to. === NOTE === I had an additional argument which covered how this is a pointless taboo but I ran out of room. I pass the podium to Con! LET IT HANG LOOSE! === SOURCES === 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with space exploration is not a waste of money because Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited practically every single round of this debate. He's put forth no arguments and no rebuttal. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should mobile phones be allowed in schools? because Arguments: Argument #1: Loss Having mobile phones in schools would promote theft as the majority of students have valuable phones. This would also mean that losing a mobile phone would be too much of a risk. Argument #2: False trust It's inevitable that if students were to bring mobile phones into schools, they wouldn't just be used for good things like research and calling someone in the case of an emergency. Granted, the technology is amazing, but it would be more logical to have some kind of tablet installed in classrooms, as computers are. Rebuttals are for round 3. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet. because I am in no way upset. It was you who declared you'll take and win any debate, and you who chose to accept when I called your bluff. A swift search of Google declares that "Supposedly" no such thing as the "Reroute Bypass Approach" has ever existed. Such suppositions, if truly supposed so widely as to be supposed without the context of a particular supposer, would be present on Google. This is because access to a part of the network without access to the network is incoherent. To post something within the view of the Internet is clearly to have some form of access to the Internet, if only posting access. The fact that you knew enough to accept the debate shows that you also had enough reading access to know you had been challenged, notwithstanding the contrary interpretations implied by your difficulty addressing my argument. The notion of this "RbP" is absurd and would hold the burden of proof even had you not chosen to concede a nonstandard burden of proof to your disadvantage. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Homosexual actions are immoral because ===Framework=== In regards to Pro attempting to establish homosexuality is a choice and not a matter of innate preference, I feel no need to attempt to refute it. Not because it holds any merit but because it has no relevant implications as to the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Pro may argue that his framework proves homosexuals *choose* to act contrarily to natural law and that they *choose* to engage in acts damaging to their health, but my criticism will be entirely with these points as standards of morality in themselves. I will argue that natural law is not a sound ethical theory and that (a) that the prevalence of HIV among homosexual populations is both inconsistently argued on Pro's part while (b) also not being either a necessary precondition for homosexual acts or unique as an attribute to them. The reason I don't see the choice/natural dichotomy of homosexuality as relevant to this moral debate is because we are dealing with acts, not preferences. I may fully accept that pedophiles innately have the preferences they have but that is clearly not a good argument either for (if they are innate) or against (that they are environmental or chosen) pedophilia. ===Natural Law=== Pro's argument from natural law argues that the human body and specifically human organs have a natural teleology or purpose. He then reasons from this that acting contrary to the "intended" purpose of those organs results in immoral action. Homosexual acts like anal sex, my opponent argues, use the organs involved in a way not intended (i.e., immorally). I will have a few criticisms of this point, the first stemming from the existence of teleology or purpose in a relevant moral sense and the second from natural law failing to cross the is-ought gap. (A) Teleology Why does Pro believe that teleology or natural purpose exists? Well each of our body parts seem to have been brought into existence for a specific purpose. Our hands feel right for grasping things, our eyes seem right for seeing things, and likewise the male member seems right for procreation. Natural lawyers extrapolate from the fact that we use our organs for specific purposes to the idea that that purpose must be a purpose not in a descriptive sense, but in a normative sense. Herein lies a large problem with natural law. Why do we insert normativity at all? Pro would say normativity comes in at the point where choice and rationality do. But why at all? Obviously if we presuppose that adherence to function is 'good' or 'bad' then non-choices wouldn't conform to that in a normative sense (perhaps descriptively though) while choices would. But we first have to justify good and bad as qualities in or not in adherence with function. Pro never does this. He merely generalizes based on the nature of our language in regards to certain things. For instance, the fact that we naturally think our stomach is acting "good" when it is not presenting health complications and "bad" when it is. But our language in regards to bodily health surely can't be held up as a legitimate marker since we only use the words "bad" or "good" in this regards as placeholders for either the fulfillment or disappointment of our preferences as to the functionality of our organs. Pro here is making the mistake of extrapolating merely from linguistic convention. (B) Is-Ought Problem This is a problem formulated by David Hume in which the extrapolation of what is good from what simply is is shown to commit an unwarranted argumentative jump. Hume explains it succinctly: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds from some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establish the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of all sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. this change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained: and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it." [1] Pro and other natural lawyers are unwarranted in their conclusions consider the argument: "Anal sex is contrary to the natural teleology of the sexual organs, therefore anal sex is immoral." The contrariety of anal sex to the sexual organ's teleology may be taken as a premise. But the premise does not by itself analytically necessitate the conclusion. In order for that to be so another premise is required to be supplanted, namely that acting according to purpose is good while not doing so is bad. Pro has failed to do so. ===Health=== (A) HIV Transmission (i) Pro's argument is as such. A large percentage of those with HIV are gay. Therefore homosexuality has negative health repercussions. Therefore homosexuality is immoral. There are several problems with this argument though. For one, it offers a completely arbitrary cut-off point where once it has been crossed, the activity becomes immoral. If only 20% of those with HIV were homosexuals would it change anything to Pro? My opponent has left us completely in the dark as to how and why this makes homosexual acts per se immoral. (ii) The next error in Pro's reasoning is that it fails completely to take into account female homosexuals. He even admits by hid own admission that his data "indicates a huge problem with men who have sex with men". In fact, Pro offers no evidence that either lesbian sex results in "too frequent" transmission of HIV or that lesbian sex has any unique health defects which would cause them to be immoral. Remember, the resolution surrounds homosexual acts in a general sense, not just those between men. Therefore Pro has an evidential gap by not mentioning lesbians. (iii) The next error in this line of reasoning stems from the fact that Pro has failed to prove that homosexual acts by themselves are necessarily immoral. His argument on this point rests merely on a portion of homosexual males who have transmitted or are carriers of the disease. But since it is certainly possible that one could engage in homosexual acts and not get the disease, at best Pro's point could only apply to a homosexual if they themselves have HIV. Therefore Pro's point is non-specific to homosexuals and he is unnecessarily applying his conclusions to most of the homosexual population. (iv) The final error in Pro's reasoning lies in the fact that the transmission of HIV is non-specific to homosexuality and theoretically could be completely eradicated. If homosexuals practiced safe sex and remained relatively monogamous, combined with further research into treatment of the disease, it would be fully within the realm of possibility that HIV would be eradicated amongst homosexuals. But since this is the case, Pro's moral case can't possibly apply to homosexuality qua homosexuality, but merely to people who engage in unsafe sex and as a result transmit the disease which includes quite a good of heterosexuals as well. (B) Pro's last point attempts to establish a link between homosexuality and mental illness. As Pro admitted though, correlation does not necessitate causation. As such, Pro attempted to causally link between the things that he believes tend to cause homosexuality with the predisposition to certain mental illnesses. However, given that homosexuals are also at a higher risk of social ostracism and bullying[2][3] and that this leads a higher risk of the illnesses Pro mentioned[3], the link Pro highlights fails to establish a morally relevant connection. Sources: http://www.debate.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted because I thank Yassine for accepting this debate. I am not sure what to expect from it, but we shall see. C1. Benefits & Impact Marriage, as defined in the resolution, entails a range of benefits for the couple, including constitutional benefits such as tax protection, tax rebates, inheritance rights (pension & estate), medical rights, spousal privilage and transferrable recognition of relationship. This also constitutes benefits regarding immigration, and housing, to name just a few. A case study would be in the US, there over 1,100 benefits, rights and protections are provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.[1] Further, marriage is known to convey a plethora of health benefits for said couples.[2] Studies have conclusively linked marital status with decreased mortality from cardiovascular diseases, cancer and surgery. Improved mental well health and longer lives.[3] Thus, to permit incestuous marriage would be to grant the same privileges that any other married couple currently enjoys across the globe. The impacts of such are relatively unknown due to the strong legal and social stigma against incestuous relationships. However, the fact that consensual incestuous relationships can and do occur is well-established. Famous case studies include relationships between siblings removed at birth/young age only to later meet (cf. accidental incest).[4-6] C2. No harm principle John Mill once argued "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." , this applies within this context of liberty in this case. Since (consensual) incestuous marriage is only going to be as harmful (i.e. not very/at all) as any other marriage – thus if we value the institute of marriage for the run-of-the-mill couple, then we have no legitimate reason to prevent incestuous couples from doing the same, and preventing such impinges upon the liberty of the parties being oppressed.[7] Incest for those nations that prohibit is it regarded as a “victimless crime”,[8]and hence according to the no harm principle ought not to be prohibited. To prohibit such a marriage would be to prohibit based on immutable characteristics, however people cannot be accountable for their immutable characteristics, only for their choices. If closely related individuals have a romantic attraction to each other, the fact they are closely related is not something that is “correctable” by either individual, it is inherently unfair. This would be equivalent to prohibiting selling something to someone based on their race or ethnicity, or employment based on their sexuality – clearly none of these have anything to do with one’s values or rights as a person. C3. Arbitrarily nature of prohibiting incestuous marriage & relationships The term “incest” is a loosely defined word, as it’s contingent on society’s perception of “closely related”, however all humans are related on some level, thus incest on some level is occurring within every single relationship on some level, since we are at most 16 generations removed from any other person in 99.98% of cases.[9] Moreover, the practical implementation of laws regarding incest attest to the arbitrary nature with those that do prohibit incest do so with varying “closeness of relation”, for example the UK prohibits anything closer than first-cousinship (the 12.5% rule), whereas Brazil prohibits only on the third degree (25%) and some states of the US prohibits anything closer than and including first cousinship (6.25%). [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ] Such widespread disagreement follows from non-intrinsic “wrongness” with degree of closeness of relation. If we permit second cousinship for example, then we need a good reason to justify why we permit that and not first cousinship. If we permit first-cousinship, then we need a good reason why we permit that (12.5%) and not those of half-siblings (25%), and so on and so forth. The lack of an intrinsic reason regarding closeness of relationship entails there isn’t an inherent reason to prohibit incestial relationships, and by extension, marriage. C4. Discrimination Given the above, prohibiting incestuous marriage is discriminatory in the same manner as prohibiting same-sex marriage, or prohibiting inter-racial marriage. If we value a society in which the majority does not oppress the minority on its own whims, then we also value a society where the option for marriage with “close relations” is available, as we do those of the same gender or different race. References 1. http://www.hrc.org... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ; 3. http://student.bmj.com... 4. http://www.spiegel.de... 5. https://books.google.co.uk... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. https://books.google.co.uk... 8. http://books.google.com... 9. http://ideas.4brad.com... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should adopt the British honors system because To understand why the United States of America (USA) does not require the honours (please spell it the British way if you're going to refer to a British tradition) system of the United Kingdom (UK), one must first realise the vastness of cultural inconsistency between the two nations. One is a land of European cowboys slaughtering native Americans to shreds in the name of racial dominance turning into the world's foremost melting pot of all cultures and races, it is the epitome of irony in every single way. The other is a land of Royalists that has had knights, referred to as 'sires' (yes that's spelt right and pronounced how it's spelt) and had al high class women referred to as 'madams' (stemming from the French word 'ma dame '). Needless to say, the terms 'sir' and 'dame' came form these and, what my opponent forgot to mention, is that there is a second level of honour that is now the same for both men and women and allows power in court decisions and law passing; the title of 'lord'. USA has a completely different legal system to the UK and the people of that nation are proud to have a very dissimilar ethos to that of the British. America is fundamentally by the people, for the people, in every single way imaginable. They vote in a President and their soldiers, police force and all emergency services do it in the name of the President and his/her people, not in the name of someone born into automatic, divinely attributed, power. In Britain, one pledges allegiance to the Queen/King of the time and the entire nation revolves around this tradition held onto so desperately despite Britain almost entirely democratic apart from this one sentimental aspect of their culture. Thus, it is clear that to be 'knighted' by the Queen would be an honour to the British since it is a culture that clings desperately onto a far outdated tradition for the futile hope that this will somehow preserve the nation in some shape or form. If anything, the British should be getting rid of the honour's system due its lack of contextual validity in today's society rather than America beginning to adopt such an irrational system of honouring the successful. The American dream is not to serve the Queen to death and beyond, nor even the President. It's to get the big house, the fast car and the family that love and adore you. Thus, their priorities, culturally, are not comparable what the British ones and there is no parallel to draw between the two societies to insinuate that the honour's system belongs in the USA. It does not fill an American with patriotic warmth or pride to undergo a British ceremony that is based upon terms used to regard the British knights and ladies of high class. This is, after all, the only purpose for the honour's system to her than the legal authority of lords, which my opponent must prove are required in USA's legal system. In conclusion, there is no reason whatsoever that the honour's system should be adopted in USA and many cultural, practical and historic reasons, from the Medieval wars of Britain, why USA having it would defeat the purpose of its origin which I have proven to be Patriotism. Relevant sources Sir and Dame origin: http://blog.dictionary.com... American history: http://americanhistory.about.com... British history: http://www.british-history.ac.uk... House of Lords: http://www.parliament.uk... The American Dream: http://www.loc.gov... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because Gay marriage is not marriage hence,the main aim of gay marriage is sexual pleasure.If in doubt,why cant they reproduce?People who engage in gay marriage are those obsessed with pornography.If you want to show love,show it in a way that you appreciate the person,show concern about his situation and not because you want to satisfy your selfish,immoral interest.If caught in my country,you would spend seven to fourteen years imprisonment and this will make not to join some groups or contest for political positions because you have been convicted of a crime. Gay marriage is not the so-called enjoyment.People who engage in gay marriage do this due to peer pressure,the need to become famous and so on.Which act can they perform apart from sodomy,kissing?People who engage in gay marriage still have sex with females why?Gay marriage is futile,time wasting and future consuming.These questions are for you: -If human rights could be accepted without controversy,why is gay marriage still being debated in different part of the world. -Is gay marriage normal? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with comunissium because Glad to see your return Sedvodka! <(||<) (>||)> First, I must unfortunately point out that you have not addressed my first critique of your argument - namely that the fact that Communism has (according to you) failed in one country does not imply it will fail in another (and indeed fail completely). As for my second argument, do you too find the Sickle and Hammer schnazy? <(||<) (>||)> You state that, "the problem with communism is that it does not give one a chance to better themselves...you take away the difference between the rich and the poor, what will people aim for?" I believe that money is a motivator for doing what you do not enjoy doing (namely work). It does not follow though that money is the only motivator. Here is a list of the top 7 reasons why employees leave their jobs (1): 1. The job or workplace was not as expected 2. Mismatch between job and the person 3. Too little coaching and feedback 4. Too few growth and advancement opportunities 5. Feeling devalued and unrecognized 6. Stress from overwork and work-life imbalance 7. Loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders I fail to see "lack of pay" as one of those. I do think Communism attests to one important feature of the working class: work we enjoy is work we'll do. For instance, I am a large fan of Excel spreadsheets. If I could spend my days in Excel and earn enough money to satisfy the needs of my family than what do I have to complain about? I love Excel, I love my family - my two chief loves(2) have been met. Senator Tom Coburn, another man who does what he loves, delivers babies in hospitals for free simply because he enjoys it (3). In a Capitalist Society we advocate the love of money (and the desires it feeds) as a driving factor for our economy. What has this produced though? - Poverty - Starvation - Murder - Abuse/Wide-Scale Violence - Class Division - Racism - Sex-ism - Child Prostitution - Slavery The list can go on, I assure you. What have you claimed Communism has produced? Laziness. I will gladly take this character flaw over the atrocities mentioned above. Communism for our Future! -Y 1. http://www.leadershipconsulting.com... 2. I must note here that these are not my two chief loves but this closely resembles them. 3. http://thehill.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States. because Contention 1: No legittimate need exists for the consumption for alcohol. Much like how hard drugs such as crack or cocaine are illegal because of the harms they impose on the user, alcohol should also be prohibited. No medical use exists for the consumption of alcohol; the only thing alcohol can do is impair one's ability to make logical decisions. Contention 2: Alcohol related deaths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has prevented thousands of DUI-related deaths from occurring. Making it illegal is a much simpler solution. The only dangerous abusers of alcohol are those who inflict harm on others. After a new prohibition, if alcohol abusers inflict harm on others, it will be obvious. Contention 3: Today's America is different than the America during the Prohibition My opponents will likely use the Prohibition as their prime example of why alcohol should remain legal within the United States. However, today's scene in the United States is much different than that of the Prohibition era. Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same. It won't be a perfect system; people will get away with sneaking it into the US, producing it at home, and abusing it, but like drug-abusers, these incidents will be both rare and obvious. Unlike other drugs, alcohol cannot be snuck in small packages in clothing or hidden in other baggage, making it much harder to sneak through air travel. Contention 4: Any Prohibition Era-like backlash will eventually dissipate Even if Prohibition Era-like backlash occurs, it will eventually dissipate. Alcoholism is passed down from one generation to the next; children who are around parents or peers who abuse alcohol are more likely to drink in the future. By prohibition alcohol, the number of adults consuming alcohol will decrease. A black market will inevitably be created, and a few wealthy who can afford to purchase alcohol illegal may continue. However, the overwhelming majority of alcohol abusers tend to be from low-income areas, thus removing them from the picture. Holistically, few adults will continue to consume alcohol after a prohibition; consequently, the number of children growing up to consume alcohol illegally will decrease with every generation. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am not a troll! because So your saying vegetarians are basically boycotting all of Africa cause their main export is chicken? Link me Africa's main export then I will consider your argument. If they are eating meat and not in the presence of "blacks" where are they getting said meat if they are trying to avoid using the "black" supply of meat. You are still definitely racist even if you have a black cousin. That is like saying I can't be racist to clowns and that I don't hate clowns and I'm not a clown hater cause my family owns a circus... Troll on bro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ReganFan is a failure on this website. because "With ReganFan's slandering, he has made conservatives in general appear vicious, cruel, and ignorant; therefore, making other conservatives look worse." This is subjective opinion and thus it can not be used to prove either way that i was successful or that I was a failure in my attempts to make conservatives look better. My opponent has failed to uphold his end f the Burden of Proof, and I strongly urge a vote for Con. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Polygamy should be allowed in the United States. because "I am not assuming that religion is right. Just because it's what I believe, doesn't mean that I think everybody has to believe it. That's what first amendment rights protect." EXACTLY! See the problem with that statement is when you involve religion in government or laws you have to start making choices between what is right and what is wrong, legal and illegal. When you adopt the Christian belief of marriage and deem others illegal you make one religion better or right and the others wrong. This is why we have adopted separation of church and state. "I do believe that there shouldn't be an act passed saying polygamy should be made legal, but then again there shouldn't be an act passed that says it is illegal. It is a personal preference, and it is not the government's right to deny that preference." Which is it? You yourself have supported my argument. This is a country of FREEDOM, what right do we have to impede upon the rights of others and their choices? It it not the government's right to deem something as opinionated as marriage legal or illegal. There are many different definitions of marriage; rather then just have one, why can't people all have their own definition? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because If one contradiction stands, then the resolution is negated. Fortunately, all will. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1st: Infinity and my opponent's "applicable" definition. "Suppose" is the last definition on his sourced definition of consider. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, it is the least applicable. In this situation, "consider" obviously means "regard". A number cannot be regarded as greater than infinity. Therefore, my opponent's claim still contradicts the dictionary. Good try, though. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2nd: " God is able to create something that he cannot lift, and still lift it." This is obviously an invalid argument. If God can lift this something, then He cannot create something that He cannot lift. My opponent's definition doesn't matter; there is still contradiction, whether my opponent believes that it disproves omnipotence or not. Good try, though. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3rd: My opponent's interpretation of "Drug legalization". My opponent has created an unnecessary faction in his definition. Legalizing drugs for a portion of the population is still legalizing them. Legalization- http://www.merriam-webster.com... "to make legal" My opponent's interpretation of Drug Legalization is inconsistent with the dictionary. My opponent's rebuttal only creates another contradiction. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONCLUSION: In one way or another, my opponent has contradicted himself. If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity. If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid. If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything. If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them. If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health. My opponent has contradicted himself. Therefore, the resolution is negated. VOTE CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because I have AIDS. Even though I'm a virgin.... Also, the stuff about my father was true. And your quote has a typo, "The royal palace in Jordan is absolutely beyond belief. The building spans 500,000 acres wide, there is an indoor shopping mall of all things, and you can't go anywhere in the complex without being at least twenty feet away from a bathroom." *twenty billion miles* B - I - L - L - I - O - N I spoke with The Great Philosopher Mick Jagger himself. Also, all that the shopping mall sells is dildo's. But I don't like to talk about that. It makes me remember to many horrible things involving my dad, me and a closet.(and a dildo) And man, you think your weather is worse? You say that there, your grandpa shitting sittingbull and cousin eddie have death by excessive diareah? Here diareah is impossible. do you know why? Ya, it's because it is soooo damn hot that our shittt boils inside us, and evaporates out of our mouth. Every time I eat, in about an hour afterward, I get shittt for desert. Every were I go, I have brown steam spewing from my nose. I once decided I would rather starve that taste anymore poo, however once all the food have left my body, my stomach acid started to boil, and my toung melted. I can't speak. Also, the inner part of my esophagus was chard to a crisp, so now I have to breath out of a hole in my throat. The acid also killed one of my lungs. Now I have to carry around five oxygen tanks...5!! (Black man voice) Do you know how haaard it is for a man wit' one leg(the cute puppet in round 2)to carry around FIVE FAWKIN' OXYGEN TANKS MAN?!? F. I. V. E. Bags One leg........ Recap: <>I have AIDS <>MY dad rapes me..... <>Shittt evaporates out of my mouth <>Only have one lung <>Breath out of a throat hole <>Esophagus is melted <>FIVE oxygen tanks, ONE leg IM Fucckked Vote Con <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against CM Punk is more powerful than God. because CM punk; although he maybe a powerful human, cannot possibly be more powerful than the omnipresent, omniscient and Omnipotent God. First off you cannot perform a GTS on an omnipresent force. As you obviously have the intelligence of a 9 year old i shall explain these terms to you. Omnipresent means that he is in all places at once, meaning he is behind you, in front of you, next to you, above you and below you (yeah that's right you're floating, see how powerful this guy is?). Omniscient means all-knowing, he knows what moves you will make, how you will make them and most importantly, how to counter them. Omnipotent means all powerful, seriously even without the other two God could still beat you with this you want to try to grapple him? Pillar of salt. You want to kick him? Pillar of salt. Punching? Pillar. Moving out of turn? LIGHTNING. I bite my thumb at you sir <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits