text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with The Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation is better than the Minkowski interpretation because Ave Vale <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Funnier Jokes Wins. because Two bored casino dealers were waiting at a craps table. A very attractive blonde woman arrived and bet twenty thousand dollars on a single roll of the dice. She said, "I hope you don't mind, but I feel much luckier when I'm completely nude". With that she stripped from her neck down, rolled the dice and yelled, "Mama needs new clothes!" Then she hollered "YES! YES! I WON! I WON!" She jumped up and down and hugged each of the dealers. With that she picked up all the money and clothes and quickly departed. The dealers just stared at each other dumbfounded. Finally, one of them asked, "What did she roll?" The other answered, "I thought YOU were watching!" Moral: Not all blondes are dumb, but most men are gullible. REASONS FOR DECISION IS APPRECIATED. GOOD ROUND. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence because That was boring. VOTE CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Somebody will accept this debate. because But I don't have a "are somebody". Vote tie <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because Waterboarding is used to collect life-saving information Consider the following hypothetical: A nuclear weapon goes missing in Pakistan. The trail leads to New York City, and coded e-mails implicate a certain Pakistani national, identified as a member of al Qaeda, as instrumental in smuggling the bomb into the U.S. by landing it on an unprotected coast where it would be picked by up and transported by truck to an undisclosed location for detonation. A search warrant is obtained, and the New York terrorist is arrested. His computer files reveal his deep involvement in the plot, but some files cannot be decoded and the suspect refuses to talk, proclaiming that soon it will be too late to interrogate him. Under present law, President Obama could choose to revoke his executive order and allow waterboarding in this case. here is no guarantee that water boarding would work, but there is significant probability that it would. There is no guarantee that if waterboarding works, that the bomb could be recovered before it is exploded. It's not likely, but possible, the terrorist might suffer permanent harm from the waterboarding. he resolution does not demand that the intransigent terrorist be waterboarded; it allows the President to make the tradeoff and to order waterboarding if that protecting the United States requires. The Con position is that waterboarding should never be used, and it should be illegal under all circumstances. I provided a list of the types of information that could properly lead to a warrant for waterboarding. Con argued that the standards of absolute certainty should be used. I pointed out that absolute certainty is never used in law, because it is obviously unachievable. No person could ever be found guilty of anything, nor could wartime enemies ever be fought on any scale. Con did not justify his use of "absolute certainty" as the appropriate standard. Waterboarding is effective. Waterboarding is only used as a last resort. Only three of the 1500 GITMO terrorists were waterboarded. Con did not deny that it worked, revealing, for example, a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge that would have killed a thousand innocent people. Con argues that even though it worked to save lives, that there is some definition of "effective' it does not meet. The only thing relevant is that at least sometimes it saves lives. Con's approach is so cite general opinions of the method being ineffective, while never contradicting the specific evidence of it working. Con cites the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee as claimed there was, in there examination, no evidence that waterboarding was effective. Con's cited source reveals that the reason Republicans did not participate in the hearings was that it was known at the outset that the important evidence and witnesses would not be available to the Committee because it remained secret at the time. Democrats decided to proceed even though they knew the evidence would not be presented. They then concluded what they knew at the outset, that they didn't have the evidence. They did have opinion of all e Preceding CIA director's,starting with George Tennet, who President Bush retained from the Clinton Administration. Thus excluded from "evidence" were the opinions of the people most likely to know all the facts. Con argued that people will confess to anything under waterboarding. that's why waterboarding is never to be used to extract confessions. The purpose is to collect actionable information to save lives. Informants. whether waterboarded or not, often provide false information. The important fact is that good information is also produced, and it is verified by the security agencies. There is little or no danger of permanent harm to the subject In the opening round, I quoted the definition of waterboarding used by the CIA. The CIA method uses simulated drowning it which water is not taken into the body. Con cited a study of waterboarding practiced in past history in which the person was actually drowned, with water taken into the lungs. In the last round, Con again referenced an example of waterboarding using actual drowning rather than the CIA method. there is plenty of experience with the CIA waterboarding techniques. Thousands of U.S. special forces and CIA agents have been subjected to the technique as part of their training. There is also a small number of journalists who have volunteered as subjects. Not a single case of permanent harm is know. None of the terrorists has suffered permanent harm. The study Con cited was not the CIA technique, and we don't know what else the subjects endured. Are we to believe that historically, as practiced by the Chinese and North Koreans, their prisoners were only under medically supervised simulated drowning and nothing else? Con said there were other studies, but he didn't cite any. The only alternative is rendition Terrorists could choose to avoid waterboarding All they would have to do is sign on to the Geneva convention's or independently negotiate an agreement to obey the conventional rules of warfare. Giving up the practice of cutting off journalist heads on television is too much for them to accept. I claim that no moral person would accept the probable death of thousands of innocent people if harsh interrogation of a terrorist offered a chance of saving them. If waterboarding is illegal, the only avenue for a moral president to use is turning the terrorist over to another country for the harsh interrogation. President Clinton used rendition, and President Bush allowed waterboarding as a more humane and more reliable alternative. President Obama has kept the alternative of rendition alive. Waterboarding is both more humane and more reliable. Con said it was a false dichotomy, but it's a real dichotomy for a moral person. The escape is to care more about the terrorist than the innocent people. Terrorists are already terrorists I challenged Con to say what KSM would do that was worse than cutting off heads of television. He didn't say. Con pointed to cases of indiscriminate use of torture. That's not what the resolution affirms. It's critical that all the safeguards be maintained, and especially that use of harsh interrogation could be stopped by subscribing to the conventional rules of warfare. What Con described was two sides both dominated by terrorist mentality. In any case, the President should be allowed to evaluate the tradeoffs of the information potentially gained versus potential downside of publicity. That cannot be done if a law against waterboarding is illegal. If hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake from a nuclear weapon, the downside of publicity will lose every time. Waterboarding will never be a common practice, just as it was only used on three ITMO detainees. The safeguards will ensure that it will only be used when the odds favor saving lives. Terrorists renounce all civil behavior, so it's a modest countermeasure when it's the moral choice. The resolution is affirmed. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I suck at debating on this website because Obviously my opponent agrees with me. He admits that I'm right when it comes to being bad at debating therefore, vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne because Contention 1: Mothers should select their childrens' names. a Mothers have a greater right to select their childrens' names because they invest more time and energy in the childbirth process. Since I am the mother and I want her name to be Ariadne, even if Olga is a better name than Ariadne, my wishes should be respected. Contention 2: Olga is an ugly name I mean, just listen to it. What kind of image does "Olga" bring up? Gross Contention 3: Ariadne is the name of a Greek princess In mythology, Ariadne marries Dionysus, the god of wine. I want our daughter to have the mythological figure to look up to. If we pick "Olga", all she has to look forward to is being horse vomit. Contention 4: Olga is not fashionable The name Olga was popular in the 1880s. Do you really want our daughter to wear petticoats and be an uneducated housewife? Contention 5: Ariadne is not a common name If she has this name, she will stick out for all of the right reasons. If she has "Olga" she will stick out for all of the wrong reasons, get depressed, and commit suicide. Contention 6: I am clearly the dominant partner in the relationship I proposed to thett and made him my soulmate, so whatever I say has to go. Contention 7: Vote for Royal because she is Royal That about sums up my case. <3 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War because "It's a piece of equipment that isn't allowed." Sure it is. I never used two sources to give Mewtwo any powers, equipment, etc. Mewtwo's powers were generally described, and then it was mentioned that he/she/it uses a piece of equipment specifically in the manga. I didn't use anything "non-canonical." My opponent has decided to rehash more points in his argument. We're just gonna be going around in circles if he chooses to use arguments and points which have already been negated. Such arguments are: "If Manhattan can stop time and travel through time as he pleases, without being able to be stopped, then it's an unlimited ability." "The fact is, Superman has limits. You don't." "Superman has limits. Manhattan doesn't." Firstly, my opponent clearly doesn't know much about Watchmen, and how Adrien Veidt rendered Doctor Manhattan useless. But that's all irrelevant, because I've already addressed these points in my second round argument; my opponent has chosen not to put forth a retort to the argument *I* put forth; he's merely using the same argument I addressed, which means my argument stands. "However, if the plan cannot be countered, then you're out of luck." If there's a plan, it can be countered. Besides, my opponent already showed me his plans, and I've already countered them. "You can't just say that Nezarr would know what to do." I didn't. Not at all. I clearly and concisely said what would happen. "Wrong. Margaritaville nullifies your time powers." Explain how, then. Just because my opponent says it doesn't make it so. He's again stating something which I've already addressed, and not providing an un-rebutted rationale. Again, whether the planet is "Margaritaville" or not is completely independent from Manhattan's ability to cease time. "The time is stopped at five o' clock. Time doesn't pass, but everybody thinks that it does. It's kind of like how Manhattan can still move after freezing time, but everybody in Margaritaville can still move." This doesn't make any sense...at all. Absolutely none. If time is stopped *already,* then Doctor Manhattan's work is already done for him, which is an advantage for me. Simple as that. And my opponent has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the science behind time stoppage -- let me explain: To be in motion requires speed; speed is dependent on time; therefore, if time stops, so does speed, which means you cannot be in motion. Not only that, but light would be unable to be perceived and the flow of oxygen and sound would stop completely. Just because the people in "Margaritaville" don't perceive time's stoppage doesn't mean it isn't stopped. If the time is stopped at 5 o'clock, then the effects of time stoppage will consequently occur, too, which means all my opponent's team are completely at the will of Doctor Manhattan, considering his powers make it so that he wouldn't be affected. Manhattan's control over time isn't "nullified" at all -- rather, it's assisted. So yeah, thanks. "Yugi can put the puzzle back together again if you shatter it. Plus, it's protected by dark magic." You can't put something which was evaporated back together, because there wouldn't be any visible traces of it remaining. And so what if it's protected my dark magic? 1: I don't see how that counteracts Manhattan and the Surfer's ability to manipulate anything composed of matter; 2: nowhere in my opponent's chosen source does it say that the Puzzle is protected by "dark magic," which means he's applying something which is "non-canonical," which is in violation of the rules. "Yugi is in the Shadow Realm. Apparently, you lack power over dimensions." The Surfer is capable of going back and forth through any dimension he chooses. As is Manhattan. Not only that, but being in the "shadow realm" doesn't impact my team's powers; again, the area of battle is independent from my team's abilities. Yugi's power would be increased -- but he's still no match for my team, which is composed of the most powerful beings in the universe. "The Triforce of Courage does grant certain protection, and the Triforce of Courage isn't matter." As for the idea of the Triforce of Courage offering protection...I already addressed and debunked it; my opponent is yet again rehashing arguments. Using arguments which have already been negated probably isn't the best way to go...just sayin'. Anyway, here's how it's debunked: "So, the idea that the Triforce of Courage protects Link cannot be verified by the "canon" my opponent has chosen, which therefore means it's irrelevant, and that my opponent has broken a rule by applying a trait to Link which is "non-canonical." ...and I never claimed that the Triforce was matter, so my opponent is using a straw man argument. (1) I simply said Manhattan and the Surfer wouldn't have too tough a time breaking it up -- not once did I say they'd use their matter manipulation ability. ...besides, the Triforce *has* to be composed of energy or matter, which means it is, indeed, susceptible to Manhattan and the Surfer's ability to manipulate those two things. "However, Link and Yugi are underage, so they don't drink." Underage people drink. Besides, if a teammate did decide to attack them in a drunken rage, they'd have to defend themselves, whether they were drunk or not. "This is what happens when unlimited powers are used." Again, I've addressed the "unlimited powers" argument. My opponent really needs to get some material which hasn't been negated. "However, Ganondorf can't be evaporated or controlled, and sending him into space wouldn't defeat him." If Ganondorf is made of energy or matter, than yeah, he's susceptible to being evaporated. And, well, my opponent says "sending him into space wouldn't defeat him," but he doesn't back himself up. It'd be kinda hard for him to be in battle when he's busy at the outer limits of the universe, no? Plus, my opponent never rebutted the strategy of sending him to a planet and then destroying it, so it stands. "Bada-bing, bada-boom. My opponent has clearly broken the rules, and has broken the spirit of Ultimate Team War." ...no, I haven't. Not at all; I've already explained how: Me: "you cant place a limit on something in which limits can't logically apply, which means it cant be with nor without limits. it's essentially like asking if there's a limit on one's ability to walk -- sure, you can get tired, but there isn't an energy bar which runs out, rendering an individual unable to walk. It's the same thing with Manhattan's ability to manipulate time, energy, and matter -- there isn't an energy bar, which means limits don't apply. The mentioned abilities aren't really fields in which having a magnitude of power makes sense." So no, I haven't broken the rules. My opponent is attempting to distort them in the middle of the debate to fit his argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, so it really is too bad for him. "He has the unlimited power of immortality." Him: "Team Member 2: Ganondorf Dragmire (The Legend of Zelda series) Ganondorf ( http://zelda.wikia.com... ...) is the wielder of the Triforce of Power ( http://zelda.wikia.com... ...). "Presumably through possession of the Triforce of Power, Ganondorf gain near invulnerability and astonishing magical powers, even allowing transformation into various beastly forms and, apparently, granting immortality." However, in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." Notice the following: ". . . apparently, granting immortality." However, in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." Not only does my opponent have an immortal member of his team -- but that's irrelevant, because "in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." My opponent can either stick to his distorted rule and have it used against him, or he can realize it's irrelevant. Either way, it's good for me. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Abortion is Morally Justified because Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over. About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. No, this is not due to disease, SIDS, or even mal-nutrition. 4,000 living beings are killed everyday due to abortion. This is one of the most controversial topics in America. Many people even chose their president based on their view. But what I wonder is, how can the murder of a living being possibly be so controversial? Abortion should be considered murder, immoral, and illegal. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus. Abortions are most commonly performed between the sixth and twelfth week of pregnancy, where conception occurs at week two and birth occurs at week forty. Abortions are also performed routinely up to sixteen weeks and then less often into the later months of pregnancy. And what is the definition of murder? Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings. Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being. Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining? Is a doctor who performs a Caesarean Section delivery creating a life where there was none before? If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? If there is any uncertainty, would you rather murder than not murder? Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers? An egg and sperm are each alive even before they've joined in fertilization. Each of your body's cells are alive, but they don't have independent legal protection. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax because Look, mate. I know what it's like to live in the possibility of their being majestic creatures out there somewhere, but I simply learned of a majestic process far beyond any creature - the Universe. Trust me on this. Let go of these pictures that people edit to fool poor folks like us that would rather not be tricked by their own species' technology. Start looking into something that can be proven and open new doors to humanity and how we understand it. Consider the reality we stand in as not always being the reality; and that the Universe created this reality for us at some point, along with the matter, bacteria, amoeba, fungi, plant, bug, fish, animal and human. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Abel Would Have Killed Cain because Rebuttal The bulk of my opponent's argument quotes from the Bible. I will address his commentary directly. 1) CON: " According to the Torah, animal sacrifices were made to atone for sin." What makes this "moral"? Why would God want man to destroy a part of His creation? Why would this please God? Without answers to such questions, my argument stands: " What makes the butchering of animals different on a moral basis from the butchering of humans in the eyes of God is unexplained." My conclusion also stands that the morality in the Bible is completely arbitrary. 2) CON: " God tells Cain that if he does what is good then he will be accepted just as Abel, but Cain clearly refuses." How is it clear that Cain does what is evil? There were no commandments regarding murder. There was no guideline from God or anyone else to stipulate what was good and what was evil. Even Adam and Eve were at least told beforehand what exactly constituted Biblical morality - don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Cain was not told anything. Keep in mind that Abel killed animals to satiate God, resulting in "[the firstborn of his flock's] blood [crying] out to [God] from the ground" (Genesis 4:10)." Yet for some reason God found this pleasing. This reason is never explained in the Bible. If Abel did what was "right," then what is "right" is to destroy a part of God's creation to please God. Cain did the same, he destroyed a part of God's creation by killing Abel...yet this did not please God. Going by this logic, the morality in the Bible is contradictory. 3) CON then uses 1 John 3:12 to support his argument, that " Cain had been doing what was evil, and his brother had been doing what was righteous." Here we run into the exact same problem. What was evil about Cain's actions? What was righteous about Abel's actions? 1 John 3:12 does not elaborate. Cain did not have the 10 commandments to instruct him on how to act. 4) CON's conclusion is extremely problematic: " It is divinely instituted that Abel belonged to the righteous bloodline of the Messiah." This is simply wrong: a) Abel belonged to the bloodline of Adam. It is through Adam that all of mankind is condemned to lead a life of sin. Like Adam, Abel was a sinner. Abel was not righteous, even if he strove for righteousness. Abel did not have any offspring, so it is impossible for Abel to have a bloodline from him. I must add that Cain also strove for righteousness...indeed it is Cain who first conceived of making offerings to God, not Abel, and not Adam or Eve. b) Christ was born via immaculate conception. He was not Joseph's son...he was the Son of God. c) In order for Abel to belong to the bloodline of Christ, Abel must have been born from Christ's offspring. This is an illogical and blasphemous assertion from CON on several levels, as it would require that Christ do what the Nephilim did in Genesis, i.e. procreate with humans, and would require Christ to have impregnated Eve to sire Abel, which is simply not Biblical. 5) The most egregious point against CON's argumentation is his advocacy of predetermination, that "Cain was destined to commit this murder" and thereby had no choice in the matter. This goes against most Christian teachings of the necessity of free will to give man a choice to accept and love God. If all of life and existence is predetermined, then it stands that God, who created all of life and existence, created the good AND the evil, and thus caused evil to come into existence. If so, then God is good AND evil and caused Satan to "fall" as well. This contradicts Biblical morality, that God is omnibenevolent ( http://www.openbible.info... ). Conclusion My opponent has made a good number of assertions, but there is no reasonable basis for most of them, and some (such as Abel and Christ being related) are just flat out wrong. The Bible does not explain what is good and evil in the time of Cain and Abel. It does not explain why killing animals is good, while killing people is not good. It does not explain why God did not look upon Cain with favor. It does not explain what is sinful about the act of acquisition, whether it be knowledge or otherwise. Many of CON's arguments highlight various contradictions in Biblical morality, such as 1) an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God creating evil, and that 2) predetermination means that man cannot help but to sin, and God knew this before he created man and thus wished to curse man because it is His will, which again contradicts the omnibenevolence of God. I thus conclude after addressing all of CON's arguments that CON's rebuttal is invalid, and my arguments from round #2 remain uncontested. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears. because Thanks PR for your acceptance and hope to have an enjoyable debate with you. Introduction To fully understand my arguments, we must imagine what Goldilocks looks like, her characteristics, her age. So, instead of boring you guys with fancy words, I’d like to describe her via pictures, after all, they’re worth a thousand words. Sweet and innocent ^_^ Case These are my arguments for the opening round. Please note that I may introduce new arguments/rebuttals as the debate proceeds further. The Door was unlocked. As said on the very first sentences in the story, Goldilocks went in after no one answered. She had the courtesy to knock, but since it no one answered, she tried to open it. It was unlock, in our society, we would usually lock our doors, but no, the three bears were so naive and thought, “Should we lock the door in case a blonde human breaks in and enter and possibly destroy our meal? Nah.” When a door isn’t locked, we can safely assume that no one lives there, that it’s a vacant house. After all, it’s in the middle of the forest. Goldilocks had a reasonable cause to enter. She had a rational basis and consideration to enter that home. Again, since she probably taught that since it was unlocked, in the middle of the woods, it was abandoned. Aside from that, consider the following: She was probably looking for a new home We don’t know her backstory, since the storyteller didn’t state it, but everything has a reason, we just need to speculate. What if, Goldilocks went to the forest to look for a home, since maybe she ran away, or her parents kicked her out, or her former house was set on fire, who knows. She was hungry The storyteller stated that when Goldilocks entered the house, she was hungry. She could be hungry before she entered the house. We don’t know her backstory, so we can assume that she could’ve ran away from home looking for a new place. She was tired Similar to the one above, the storyteller stated that she was tired after eating, but a meal isn’t enough to make you tired, but considering that walk on the words plus the meal, it surely made her tired. Ergo, her motive for going in was justified in a way to find shelter. Who’s to blame? Blame the three bears Admit it. It’s obvious that the three bears were partially negligent on Goldilocks going inside their home. It’s their fault for not locking the door, their fault for leaving their porridges uneaten. And seriously, why the hell did they go outside anyway? Blame Goldilocks’ parents/guardian Again, Goldilocks has no backstory. So all we need to do is speculate. What’s a more likely reason for an innocent 6-year-old little girl to go for a walk? I say she was abused, she may have some mommy or daddy issues, fighting, spanking, raping, etc. But of course, we can go to the other reason, like what happened in Little Red Riding Hood, she asks for her parent’s permission to go to the forest. But then again, a reasonable and loving parent won’t allow this to a 6 year old girl, shame on them. But I like my first reason better. Anyway, that can be a result to Goldilocks’ motives on breaking and entering, she was abused, she needed a new home. Blame the government We can blame the local government of the jurisdiction in the story for two things. First, if Goldilocks does NOT have any parents/guardian, it’s up to the state to have jurisdiction and responsibility over her, she might be living in a government-funded orphanage or children’s social service and ran away for God-knows-what reason. And if she is living on the streets, let’s blame the government on that too for failing to care for a child and her needs. Second, the government needs to be blamed for giving a home to 3 animals. Obviously, if those are one of the cases, we can safely assume Goldilocks is a troubled child with lots of issues, she needs a family and a home. This may also result to Goldilocks’ motives on breaking in. Goldilocks isn’t responsible for her actions. We move on to my last premise, which is my favourite. As I’ve stated above, Goldilocks’ legal guardians may and should be negligent on Goldilocks’ behavior, and not Goldilocks herself. Here’s why: Goldilocks is a juvenile She’s a child for Pete’s sake, she shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions. Now, you might argue that this is a legal argument and is irrelevant to the debate, but I’m making it relevant. Why, because this is an important factor to satisfy my burden on defending Goldilocks. This story was made a few hundred years ago and was set in the middle ages, and in the middle ages, and if breaking and entering was serious crime then, then Goldilocks would probably be punished regardless of this insanity-like defense (assuming the three bears reported her). A juvenile like Goldilocks is immature, irrational and above all, childish This relates to Goldilocks’ psychological state and her brain, you see, everytime we think or feel, it affects our brain, our actions comes from our brain, and a brain isn’t perfect until we’re in our 20’s. Goldilocks is six, seven years old, but either way, her brain is as small as a pea. The Prefrontal cortex (in our brain) is the part that develops at the last part. This thing controls our reasoning and judgment. Goldilocks isn’t even a teen yet, so we should not blame her for any wrongdoing because she’s a child. It’s not fair if we do so. {Source: http://teenbrain.drugfree.org... } To support this claim for the final time, refer to the contention below. Goldilocks is a blonde, making her stupid Okay, that blonde bit was probably uncalled for, but in seriousness, Goldilocks is actually an idiot. (Definition of stupid: http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Now let’s review the story, shall we? Here are some quoted lines: "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed. So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl. "This porridge is too cold," she said So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge. “ Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up. Goldilocks was alone while she was eating, and if you notice, I underlined a few phrases, you see, a decent child wouldn’t comment on something in that way, she could’ve just said ‘urgh’ or something. But no, she had to shout an unnecessary and lame full sentence. Next, she went to sit. "This chair is too big!" she exclaimed. So she sat in the second chair. "This chair is too big, too!" She whined. So she tried the last and smallest chair. Again, she was alone. No need to shout out if something is wrong, just think in your mind, jeez. Then she whined, meaning she cried, a decent and normal child won’t do that, especially to a silly think like a chair being too big, seriously? This just shows how troubled Goldilocks is. To add more stupidity, it’s also very idiotic for a person to break and enter a home, eat a meal, sit on a chair then break it and eventually go upstairs to take a nap. In conclusion to this, it very much supports my juvie-insanity-defense, and I’ve legitimately argued that Goldilocks entering the three bears’ home wasn’t Goldilocks’ fault. Well, that’s it for me, good luck, PR! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency because The Resolution Thanks to Pro for proposing a great topic, He echoes complaints we often hear these days, to the effect that there is something wrong with modern cars. Cars are now the best they have ever been. "Go back about 20 years and the number of cars delivering 40 mpg or more was greater than what we’re seeing today. Those cars, however, were lighter and did not include weight-adding safety features we take for granted today including front and side airbags, traction control and antilock brakes. Many of today’s cars are delivering the best of both worlds: excellent fuel economy and the safety features consumers appreciate." http://www.autotrends.org... The Toyota Prius is a mid-sized five passenger car that consistently gets 50 miles per gallon under both stop-and-go city driving and long trips. It does so by using hybrid technology that reuses the energy of braking, having a continuously variable transmission for efficiency, and having the lowest aerodynamic drag coefficient of any mass-produced car. It can be bought new for well under $30,000. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is extremely reliable. So what's the complaint? Cars do have bad periods. Cars of the early 1970s were less reliable and had less power than the cars of the 1960s. That was a consequence of pollution standards. So is something like that the nature of my opponent's current complaint? Not as far as I can tell. Cars are consistently better now than they were in past years. The complaint, as far as I can determine, is not that modern automobiles are no good, but rather that people do not always buy them according to the values that my opponent would like. Pro cites cars being bought to impress others, cars bought with more power than Pro thinks people need, and especially there are too many Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). That's a complaint about vehicle owners, not a complaint bout the vehicles. Pro's standards are by no means objective or universal. The resolutio fails because the present market includes cars that suit every reasonable requirement for efficacy and efficiency. Why aren't all cars lime yellow? Things claimed to be objective standards are really value judgements. Nearly everyone would like a car that is safe, economical, comfortable, beautiful, and low polluting, when it gets to tradeoffs among the various attributes, it's reasonable for individuals to make different choices. Scientific studies have determined the safest color for vehicles. http://kochvillefire.com... It is a lime yellow, the obnoxious color corresponding to the peak color sensitivity of the eye. It's used for fire trucks http://www.flickr.com... and occasionally for cars http://motoring.friday-ad.co.uk... A further improvement is to use fluorescent lime yellow. Fluorescent colors convert ultraviolet light to visible light, so it produces more light than the incident visible light. Objectively, fluorescent lime yellow is the safest color. The technology is available to paint every car that color. So why are so few cars lime yellow? It is because few car buyers put so large a premium on safety. Aesthetics has value. A world full of fluorescent cars would only please a very few safety fanatics. The rest of us are willing to take a small incremental safety risk. SUVs People buy cars of all types for frivolous reasons, but many people buy SUVs to meet genuine needs, People need to haul stuff around. That's why station wagons were once so popular. People have large families with children and dogs. They tow boats and trailers. In rural areas, they haul quantities of supplies from distant towns. They live in mountains, in places with bad roads, and in places with heavy winter snow. I live in California where the land is flat, there are good roads, and it never snows. However, there are mountains about two hours drive to the east with ski areas that get several hundred inches of snow per year. Lots of avid skiers live here in the flat lands and head up to the land of chains-required regularly. An SUV is a reasonable choice for them, usually as a second car. I have a friend with back problem, something to do with a pinched nerve. After some experimentation, he found that the chair-like posture of SUV seating suited him well, and the pain he endured from conventional car seating disappeared. He lives in Florida, where snow and mountains are notably absent. Tall people need the extra height of an SUV. Many SUVs have evolved so as to be more like cars. One auto reviewer noted "Many compact SUVs have become so car-like that I was surprised to encounter the seating position of a conventional SUV in the new Sorento. You sit high relative to the instrument panel, and the windshield is upright by current standards." http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com... Safety Pro cites an out-of-date book on SUV safety. Ten years ago, SUVs were more subject to roll-over accidents than regular passenger cars, but that's now been fixed with improved deign. The Institute for Highway Safety reports that, thanks to electronic stability control in SUVs, "someone driving a 2009 model year car is almost twice as likely to die in a rollover accident as someone driving a 2009 model year SUV. .. More stable car-based SUV designs have also played a role in decreasing SUV rollover death rates," http://money.cnn.com... considering all types of accidents, "Adjusted for number of registered vehicles, and only considering those vehicles 1-3 years old, SUVs are now far safer than passenger cars overall. For 2009, there were 39 occupant deaths per million registered SUVs—versus 82 for cars, and 94 for pickups." http://www.thecarconnection.com... A person driving an SUV is safer than a person in a regular car. That means that concern over safety is a valid reason for buying an SUV. SUVs are better than cars in dealing with poor road conditions, like mountain snow or flooding. Weight, wheel base and heavier construction provide better traction and passenger protection. Fuel Economy The fuel efficiency of both cars and of light trucks and SUVs has risen slowly since 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org... Cars went from about 14 to 23 mpg, and the SUV/light truck category from about 10 to 17 mpg. The US government sets fuel standards. " The [2002] standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for light trucks, a classification that also includes sport utility vehicles (SUVs).." http://www.policyalmanac.org... . Vehicles last about 20 years, so the fuel economy will continue to rise for another ten years as old vehicles are replaced with new ones. The average vehicle is driven only about 12,000 miles per year, which makes fuel cost a secondary issue. http://www.project.org... The average price of gasoline for the past year is about $3. http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com... A car getting 25 mpg will use $1440 worth of gasoline. At the Truck/SUV mileage of 17, fuel cost rise to $2118, an extra $677. The total cost of driving a medium sedan 12,000 miles is $7440. Compared to the $7440 basic cost, paying $677 for the low mileage of an SUV, or saving $1059 with a 50 mpg Prius is still marginal compared to he other costs. Buying a more expensive car adds to the depreciation and insurance, but that applies whether the expensive car is an electric vehicle or an SUV. Today's cars are excellent. What's important is that there are cars available that provide the combinations off features so that each buyer gets what he wants. People are not foolish for wanting SUVs, nor are they foolish to want small economical cars. The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT. ITS BEST IF YOU HOLD ON TO ONE OF THE LEGS BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY GOOD AT IT CAN HOLD IT BY JUST 1 WING. TURKEYS DUCKS AND GOOSES ARE HARDER TO HOLD BECAUSE THEY WEIGH MORE. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States because I thank my opponent for his hasty and well though out response. Sub-point 1a: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking. Although in certain areas of the world, this does hold true, this does not have to be the case. The red light district of Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a perfect example of the hotbed of crime that a lack of regulation around prostitution can create. With proper regulation and government action, however, these ailments can prevented. Higher levels of monitoring and regulation made by government authorities can reduce and eliminate human trafficking. If all prostitutes were required to bear licenses and go through other bureaucratic safeguards, then it would be much harder for people to be forced into prostitution as my opponent suggests. The Dutch government is actually in the process of reducing the crimes that prostitution has brought on, with some success (1). Furthermore, a large number of human trafficking occurs in poor, eastern European countries. Only one third of Dutch prostitutes are native to the Netherlands (2). Eastern European countries face unique circumstances that encourage human trafficking that most central American and north American countries do not (3). Through close regulation and steadfast application of justice, human trafficking would not be a problem in areas of the United States where it might be legalized. "Sub-point 1b: Legalizing has the problems of illegal prostitution, child prostitution." As I have just stated, these are all problems that can be solved with proper regulation and legislature. Systems can't be designed to be perfect and pimps would sometimes find a way around whatever regulations were created, but America in this case ought not to restrict the rights of it's citizens in order to preempt the actions of other criminals. Furthermore, my opponents sources are out of date to my source 1, which describes the actions that the Dutch government is currently taking against the crimes my opponent has pointed out, with success. Sub-point 2a: Legalization of prostitution doesn't decrease sexual assault. I find my opponents continued use of the Dutch example convenient, due to the flawed nature of the Dutch prostitution system that is evident in the previous lack of regulations. Furthermore, although my opponent claims that legalization doesn't "help", he fails to state in any way how legalization could "hurt." He presumes to say that legalization doesn't decrease violence, but also never claims that it would increase. Therefore it can be assumed that even if the claims of my opponent were true in the theoretical American prostitution system, America still ought to legalize prostitution in more areas of the US in order to grant individuals more freedom. Furthermore, if prostitution was indeed a legitimate occupation, then prostitutes would be able to seek protection from law enforcement when they are attacked by customers. Physical violence is also not unique to the sexual service industry. Workers rights has been a subject of heated debate since the industrial revolution. Injury is common in the workplace, especially for workers in high risk occupations, such as mining and construction. The difference for prostitutes is that another person is attacking them. however, legalization will protect prostitutes. An example of this is the American strip club business. Strippers engage in a service that is similar to prostitution, and are subject to sexual assault. Strippers, although, are legitimized by law, and strip clubs typically have bouncers and guards who protect the performers. The same could be done in brothels. Sub-point 2b: Legalization of prostitution does not decrease the risk of health concerns. The problem presented in this point is actually contains a presented remedy. The article claims that the problem lies within the lack of health and safety checks on the buyer side of prostitutes. This again can be remedied through regulation. One could be required to pass a health and safety check to be licensed to hire prostitutes (much like a drivers license). Furthermore, use of a condom could be legally required. "Contention 3: Legalization of prostitution hurts women"s human rights." This is not true. Instead, legalization of prostitution promotes humans rights in general. Men and Women should enjoy the right to become, or hire the services of a prostitute if they so wish as it is the personal choice of those persons as to what they do with their bodies. Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas in order to promote the ideal that each citizens has the right to make their own personal choices, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. With proper regulation to protect the rights of those involved with prostitution, and to prevent crime, legalizing prostitution would be a step forward in human rights. Women and men should not be forced into prostitution, but they should be allowed to choose it if they so wish. Regarding the quote "it is an expression of men's control over women's sexuality" , one could argue that because the men are the ones who have to pay for the sex (in most cases) that it is not exploitation, but instead women capitalizing on certain men's inability to satisfy their sexual needs, therefore putting the prostitute in the position of power. Furthermore I would like to point out that my opponent only cites the ailments of countries with legal prostitution that also have unique ailments. In the case of the Netherlands, it is the high volume of eastern European human trafficking. Taiwan is a country that is plagued by a myriad of humans rights violations esp. for labor workers. Furthermore, Taiwan is also neighbored by under-developed countries that contribute to the increased crime rate. I believe that I have sufficiently disprove my opponents contentions, or proved why they are not a problem for the US, or proved that they are easily remedied. I have also sufficiently proved that prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States. I urge that you vote for the affirmative. 1. "Half of Amsterdam's redlight windows close". The Times (London). Retrieved 27 March 2010. 2. http://www.rnw.nl... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Creation vs. Evolution because First, I want to apologize for my forfeit. If anyone knows about my history of debating, they would know that forfeiting a round for me is a). highly unlikely and b). not without good reason. This particular instance I was bogged down with a heavy load of philosophy homework, and I simply underestimated the time available to me. To make up for my lack of a response, I will be sure to put full effort in this round and produce an effective rebuttal to my opponent's argument. ==================== Accuracy of carbon dating +==================== The most common, and perhaps simple, criticism of radiometric dating creationists use is instances in which it failed. This proves to be nothing more than a silly criticism -- simply because a few examples of group X failed to do Y, doesn't mean the rest of group X is doomed to the same failure. Does one bad M16 mean the rest in the world are faulty? Does one bad car mean the rest in production should be halted? Of course not - unless you can demonstrate an inherent flaw there is no reason to assume that since one goes bad the rest will too. In fact, it's been observed that "radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time[1]." So how would you go about explaining the overwhelming percentage of successes? ==================== Floods ==================== My opponent's first piece of evidence for the flood is to refer to many other civilizations having myths about a worldwide flood - with supposed detail that would validate Noah's Ark. This is simply a factually incorrect claim. If you take at this list[2], it gathers flood stories from many civilizations. Further, the seashells on the mountain claim: this can easily be explained by the uplift of land[3]. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My burden in this debate isn't to provide evidence in support of evolution. Given the vague resolution (it's not a statement), the only thing I can derive from my opponent's round is that he believes Creationism to be true and Evolution to be false. The problem is, he only supplies evidence AGAINST evolution, and nothing for Creationism -- to say the former implies the latter is to create a false dichotomy. However, I will be generous and assume that for him to win this debate, he only needs to invalidate evolution whereas my burden is to do the exact opposite. As is with practically every Creationist claim, a full rebuttal often involves a simple science lesson. Every creationist argument are either strawmen or simply an example of a lack of understanding (perhaps willful). What's frightening about this is that the scientific knowledge needed to dispel their arguments is quite old, often decades ago confirmed. ---References--- 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. http://www.talkorigins.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am me because I thank my opponent for this debate. My opponent has made a volley of claims. "After all, Christianity holds that people are basically spirit containers, temples for the will of God." That does not make one a me, as "The me is the order out of chaos, the great attributes of civilization, the powers of the gods." http://www.crystalinks.com... "while I may not be wrapped around the waist of a naked goddess, I would like to be, and that has to count for something." It counts for nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Clearly the masses have already decided that 'I am me' not 'I am myself.' " http://en.wikipedia.org... The masses of Mesoptamia once thought that the earth was flat. Popular belief does not make something true or false. This applies to celebrities ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), conspirists ( http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk... http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk... ) and novice poets ( http://coffeegrounds.wordpress.com... ) as well. "Iamme, an organization devoted to teaching the English language. If they don't know what's what, no one does." The "Illinois Association for Multilingual Multicultural Education" http://www.iamme.org... does not declare endorsement of the phrase "I am me" as gramatically correct. Perhaps they just thought otherwise. And, again, people thinking that it is gramatically correct does not make it correct. http://en.wikipedia.org... "At least one paper analyzing communications notes the frequent usage of I am me in conjunction with other phrases." This book ( http://cat.inist.fr... ) does not really cover what my opponent claims. It appears to be an article about marketing ( http://direct.bl.uk... ), and it probably says in it that it is okay to be gramatically incorrect in titles because it is shorter http://en.wikipedia.org... and so gets attention better. Intentional misuse does not make things gramatically correct. So, in conclusion, every possible interpretation of the sentence, "I am me", is false. -"I am me (direct object)" is gramatically incorrect (conceded by PRO, while he tried to argue that it is still correct indirectly). -"I am electron mass" is false (conceded by PRO, who dropped this argument in the third round). -"I am me (religious spirit)" is false (as my opponent is not "order out of chaos", "the great attributes of civilization", or "the powers of the gods", though he may think he is. In no case is my opponent "me", so one knows that the resolution is negated. Vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. because I thank my opponent for providing me this wonderful opportunity to debate. Thank you! Now to debate. Value: My opponent's value is dropped. By my opponent's definition for morality or moral, it means to have the majority gains favor because the definition clearly states "conform", meaning making social standards of people equal and to act in accordance. Therefore, he supports my value. Thus, my opponent's value is inferior to mine. My value supports better because it looks on to welfare of society which supports society and the individuals in it. My opponent stated that in his value that breaking a moral law for a good purpose is wrong. However, there will be consequences on the affirmative. Affirmative side should not be judged upon this. To be morally permissible, it is the intention that should be judged. Because the act of killing one in order to save many is noble, it is morally permissible. In the decision of doing this, killing one would be a last resort. The reason for killing one is that there is no alternative solution to the matter. Value Criterion: My opponent's value criterion is not clear. Value criterions are supposed to support value statements, not tell the requirements for this debate. That is for observations or analysis. Therefore the criterion is dropped. Contentional 1: My opponent also did not set measurements of morality. Therefore, it is vague. By moral, meaning the principles of right and wrong behavior, the act to save more people by killing one can be justified as moral. In the definition provided moral can also mean a moral obligation. A human being has the duty to protect humanity. Moral also means conforming to the right standard of behavior. As stated above, in the definition of moral to conform to the right standard behavior means to act in accordance and together (majority) in deciding wrong from right. Therefore, why is it not moral to save more lives? Killing and condemning people are the same thing. Killing is the last resort of a situation that brings harm, meaning death, to innocent people. By taking inaction will result in further sacrifices, but by taking the initiative to kill one will save more. Contentional 2: My opponent states that it is wrong mentality. In my opponent's definition, it states that morality is conforming to a standard of right behavior. "Conforming" means to act in accordance or harmony. Therefore, it supports that all people are equal in social standards. Thus, moral meaning conforming to a standard behavior and innocent meaning free from evil motives and morals contradicts wrong mentality. By conforming in to a standard behavior of right means that the majority judges the term of innocence. If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, there must be a clear reason why the person is suspected of being a terrorist. Therefore, it is not mentality wrong since the majority conforms to the decision. A. Why is killing wrong, "no matter what"? Killing is the last resort to a situation that causes harms, meaning death, to people. By saying killing is wrong, no matter what, it means that no matter how crucial or life-threatening the situation is, we must not kill. The intention should be judged. If by killing more, more lives are saved then it has the intention of saving more lives. Therefore, killing is not wrong no matter what. B. By happiness, I defined it as the absence of physical pain. If the greater majority is protected, there will be more happiness, meaning less physical pain. There will be less physical pain to the majority. C. Again, mentality is conformed by the majority since moral by the definition is conforming to the right standard of behavior. The majority conforms what is wrong mentality. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against People do not value life in general. because You must value life enough to not waste it on this site. I commend you <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The United States of America should go to War with China because " 'The United States went to war (war in this case meaning an armed conflict) with Iraq' " To be "At war" with someone, does not mean that you personally are shooting them. It means that someone who holds your allegiance is. Taxes are the mechanism by which the entire nation is at war with Iraq. " 'The United States has entered peace talks with North Korea'" The fact that this linguistic sloppiness exist does not automatically make it correct. Entering peace talks, unlike "entering a war," does imply personal talking, and the media's usage is simply incorrect on this account or at best imprecise. Debating resolutions, on the other hand, require high precision. " 'The United States was upset with the 2008 election outcome' In this context, it is clear the people of the United States were upset, as it implied emotion, and as the U.S.A is technically an inanimate idea, it implies the people within the U.S.A, or the majority, were angry. " "the people" can have no literal meaning but "the totality of people." Majorities are irrelevant. The United States was not angry about the election outcome. Certain segments within it were. " To further my case, the definition I gave for the United States was http://en.wikipedia.org... .... According to this, it says [the very first sentence] "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." . This means the U.S.A isn't an animate object, meaning it can't go to a War concert with the People Republic China, also an inanimate object." In other words, the resolution is meaningless and impossible by the definition you have just sourced. That does not further your case. Sending representatives is an ALTERNATIVE TO the resolution, not a FULFILLMENT OF the resolution. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Empathy should have no role in judging appeals because My argument is going to primarily focus on your claim that we should want judge who reach decisions solely based upon the law, not feelings. About 10,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States each year. The Supreme Court only hears 100 cases on average per year, or this has been the case recently. "Formal written opinions are delivered in 80 to 90 cases" ( http://www.supremecourtus.gov... ). I think it's abundantly clear that it's very difficult for a case to make it to the Supreme Court. Most of the cases that make it to the Supreme Court rarely involve a clear right or wrong answer. Many rulings are complex. Some have little basis in law. Some have a lot of basis in law. But it's obvious that the Constitution does not address every issue that comes to the Supreme Court. The Constitution also includes phrases, which will be interpreted differently by different people, like "due process of law", "just compensation", "cruel and unusual punishment", or "equal protection of the law", just to give a few examples. These phrases are not explicitly defined. As you and I both know, Marbury v. Madison set the precedent for judicial review. As a result, the Supreme Court has reviewed many laws over the years and ruled over their constitutionality. Over the years, there have been many close decisions. Just last year, D.C. v. Heller was decided 5-4. Boumediene v. Bush was decided 5-4. I can go on with other close decisions. This observation gives heavy support to the claim that most cases rarely involve a clear right or wrong answer because the Supreme Court is often split. Justices should be impartial, but this does not mean they do not bring views to the court. As reflected in the close decisions, 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices usually wind up on the "liberal" side and 4 usually wind up on the "conservative" side. Their interpretations differ. The interpretation of the broad language in the Constitution reflects the values of the judges, as there isn't always a definitive right and wrong. The language "cruel and unusual punishment" is very broad and hurts your argument. There is no standard for "cruel and unusual punishment". There's no specific description of what makes up cruel or unusual punishment in our laws or in our Constitution. The decisions in Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Hope v. Pelzer (2002), Trop v. Dulles (1958), Ford v. Wainwright (1986), and Atkins v. Virginia (2002) were not based upon "the law" as you state. They were based on judge's interpretations of those laws. There is no law that defines what constitutes as "cruel and unusual punishment". That is left up to judge's opinions and values. Now this is not my argument for empathy yet. This is my argument to refute your assertion that all decisions should be based solely upon the law. That's idealist and it's also impossible. There is rarely a clear right and wrong side in a lawsuit that goes before the Supreme Court. There are varying interpretations to laws. There is unclear and broad language in our Constitution and laws. Too much empathy can distort decisions and doesn't belong in every case. But it is very important in many cases. Empathy just has to be used carefully in decisions. The fact that many decisions cannot be reached solely based on laws and are often based on interpretation brings other values into consideration. Justices' experiences and values will effect their interpretations and application of different laws. In advocating for empathy, I will use the argument that has consistently been used in this debate. A case before the Supreme Court this year involves a former student of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona. Her name is Savana Redding. In 2003, she was taken out of class by the vice principal. The vice principal had found prescription-strength ibuprofen on one of Savana's classmates earlier in the day. The classmate blamed Redding for them. Redding claimed she didn't know anything about the bills and hadn't seen them. She was ordered to strip to her underwear and bra in front of an administrative assistant and the school nurse. She was also ordered to pull her bra and panties away from her body. The search produced absolutely nothing. No other students suspected of involvement were ordered to this search. There is no black and white decision in this case. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the 9th Circuit Court's ruling that the search was unconstitutional. When reviewing the case, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to empathize with Savana and think what it would be like to be stripped to her bra and underwear. However, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to also empathize with the school and think about the security of a school. Justices influence each other. Having justices who empathize with both sides will influence other justices and improve the discourse. Again, there is no clear right and wrong in this case. The word "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment puts this decision up to personal interpretation. It's quite clear that one can't rule solely based on the law in this case. The word "unreasonable" asks for individual thought. It asks for careful consideration. I can go more in depth in the following rounds. But I just think the claim that empathy should play no role in judging is ridiculous. I find it very hard to imagine wanting a judge without empathy. I ask you not to confuse emotion with empathy as the Republicans have been doing. That is far too basic and frankly retards the debate. In closing, I'll make it clear. Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy is merely identifying with the thoughts, feelings, and state of another person, as you stated. Empathy is looking at the world through the shoes of another person. It is important when considering the person who was cruelly or unjustly punished. It is important when considering the person who was refused a fair trial. It is important when considering the rights of someone who has been oppressed for over 200 years. It is important when considering the person who was unjustly searched. Not only is it important to emphasize those, but it's important to emphasize with the defendants, as there should always be a balance. Much of the Constitution contains broad language. That language is not explicitly defined. When cases involving that language are brought to the Supreme Court, they do not always have a clear right and wrong answer. These decisions require the personal interpretation of each justice, the personal interpretation that has been shaped by their values and opinions. One of those values can certainly be and should be empathy with others. Empathy is not meant to decide the outcome of a case. Rather, empathy should complement and inform the judge's approach in a decision. Impartiality and empathy can coexist on the Supreme Court. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Scorpions are good pets in general. because Lethality vs. Harmful I already conceded that scorpions are largely not lethal. The crux of my argument comes from the fact that scorpion stings are dangerous, painful and require a hostpital visit if they happen to small children or elderly people. Just as red ants aren't lethal, you wouldn't want your child playing with red ants because their bites are painful. Something can be harmful without being lethal. I have already shown with a reputable source (The Mayo Clinic) that if small children are stung you need to seek medical treatment. While pet scorpions may not be lethal, not only is the possibility of being lethal there, they have a sting that is harmful to three very distinct groups of people pointed out by the Mayo Clinic. Elderly Children Pets Their venom can cause shock in some victims and there is a population of those allergic to scoprion venom much like bee venom. [1] They are not safe pets. All I'm saying, is that the general public might not want to have a scorpion as a pet because of these warnings of potential harm to distinct groups of people which would eliminate the "general" clause of the resolution when it comes to scorpions as pets. Ease of Care The point I was trying to make with the ease of care remark was that most common pets (cats, dogs, hamsters, fish etc) are all realatively easy to take care of. Ease of care in a scorpion does not set it above other pets which are also easy to care for. Also, scorpions are not as easy to care for as my opponent makes out. They require strict habitat control with temperatures near 100 degrees at all times (via heat lamp) and a strict humidity level to keep them happy or else you'll have problems. "[T]he habitat should be maintained at a high humidity level by regular (daily) misting. The substrate should be kept damp, but not wet. If there is mold on the substrate or condensation on the walls of the tank, the humidity is too high." [1] That seems pretty picky for a pet "easy to take care of". You have to mist the cage, keep the humidity to a correct level. That sounds more intensive that dropping a few crickets in now and again. Longevity You compared scorpions to popular pets (cats and dogs) and used longevity as the common denominator. Therefore you were insisting that longevity is what made cats and dogs popular which would make scorpions popular as well. However, I was saying that longevity is not necessarily an important factor for some people and for others longevity is a deal breaker. Each pet owner is different. Some want long living pets, others want short 1-2 year pets. Either way, longevity alienates short life pet fans again making them fit a specific market and not "general" pet owners. Most Popular Pets My opponent forgets that I did not make these assumptions about beauty and personality appeal from the top of my head. I derived it from the top ten list of most popular pets in the US and came up with them using common factors between the ten of them. My observations about the appearence is derived from 10 popular sources. All of which have common factors. All of these things were derived from data. The resolution driving this debate is whether or not scorpions are good pets in general. In general meaning they have to appeal to everyone or just about everyone. While some things are indeed subjective, I was trying to find common traits that are accepted by the general majority and in doing so have shown they do not coincide with the likes and wants of the general public. Sure, scorpions can be a good pet for a small group, an individual, a niche but the debate calls for the defense of scorpions as good pets for the general public. As for the other points: - Watching your scorpion eat might be cool once, twice maybe even three times but more than that? Probably not. Things get old eventually. - It's interesting because it's not general. Scorpions are uncommon for a reason. - Like the eating thing, watching them burrow and climb will only be interesting for so long. - A general pet should not require gloves to operate. As for the cuteness of scorpions, you yourself said it's subjective. I pointed out that the things that make a scorpion cute would not go over well in general. Also, they would turn off people who are afraid of insects or spiders. There are those out there (quite a few actually) who are afraid of anything small with more than four legs. This crowd would be completely shut out from the scorpion pet crew. They wouldn't be able to handle one. Because if you really look at it simply, a scorpion is merely a bug. Scorpions are not good pets in general. They exclude too many groups of people such as overprotective mothers, people who find fuzzy pets cute, those who are afraid of insects or spiders, those who want a short term pet. The resolution is negated. [1] http://exoticpets.about.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Batman could beat Spiderman in a fight. because I will go over my opponents case, then I will go over my own. ***** OPPONENTS CASE ***** 1. MASTER OF DISGUISE "I doubt that. Batman has a full body suit, voice distortion device and an electric shock device on his mask, so that anybody who touches it would get a shock. So yeah, maybe a grilled 4th grader could figure it out. Also in public Bruce acts like a shameless douchebag just to throw everybody off the hook. " I am Not even talking shock devices physically touch Batman to know who he is. No one needs to Does no one find it convenient that his mouth and jaw are exactly similar to Bruce Wayne's? Spiderman has a full body suit, so any plausibility of him being Peter Parker is eliminated. "But that wasn't even what I meant. I meant actual disguises. Often when Batman has to retrieve information about gangs and their whereabouts, he disguises himself as a mobster. He has various alter-ego's like Matches Malone, Thomas Quigly, Detective Hawke, Lester Krutz and many more." http://batman.wikia.com... Actual criminal. This is a horrible disguise, because if someone knew that ACTUAL criminal and noticed the dis-similarities in Batman's facial features and his persona, Batman would be screwed. He is lucky in the series that the author gives the snow white effect, and this doesn't happen due to some retarded criminals. If this is the argument for him being a master in disguise, and this is all batman has going for him, then he is up against a big challenge in spiderman. 2. BATMAN'S GOT DIRT ON EVERYONE "Gotham city is very similar to New York with its tall buildings, so Batman is familiar as well. About the gliding, you're partially right, though Batman does have a pneumatic system in his boots giving him somewhat of a jet pack (not entirely though, but he can build up quite some speed)." So now your admitting to batman's fallacies in maneuverability. We simply must presume that when is comes to agility, and ability to move away from attacks quickly, that Spiderman will take the cake. This also allows "You're also forgetting Batman is a master tactician. Of course he knows he's in disadvantage if he went straight to him. There are many villains of his who are better in combat than Batman (like mr. Freeze), but he has defeated him despite." Ah, so you are also admitting to Spiderman being better than Batman! To say that batman could spiderman in a fight then based on solely purposes of preparation, is then to use a semantics argument. Even after all this, the argument falls. Batman can research the crap outta spiderman all he wants, but at the end of the day, he will always physically lack the strength and abilities that Spiderman Possesses. 3. BATMAN'S GOT INSANE STACKS "First off, in reference to spidermans web shooters. Spiderman only has web shooters in the cartoon series. In the comic book and in the first movie, spiderman can shoot web purely out of his palms, without the use of any mechanic device. Thus, we do not recognize that spiderman can be blocked from shooting webs. However I still contest that money should have nothing to do with the fight they have. Spider man in a city setting should be easily able to escape any gas that may be able to deter his spidey senses. Even without spider senses, batman's strength is far inferior to that of spidermans. Batman is only human. Spiderman is a mutant. It all comes down to whether or not Batman can take a punch." Each argument made thus far has been an admittal to defeat. I agree with this argument in it's entirety. I am sure Batman can take a punch, but what about 2 or 3 or 4? How many can Batman take before he is defeated? If spiderman is really that much stronger, that much faster, and that much all round superior, then what chance does batman really have against Spiderman? Bat man being able to take a punch is not an argument that supports him winning a fight against Spiderman. The argument you were trying to make here is now deterred, as well. I ask the question, if batman can afford vast quantities of items, how are they going to help him? Now that you agree that spiderman is superior, we can assume that Spiderman can dodge anything on Batman's cute little utility belt. 4. BATMAN IS A PREDATOR "No, with predator I didn't mean someone who can escape. With predator I mean making good use of your training as a ninja and waiting in the dark until your prey is distracted, then grab him when he doesn't notice." You see, with Batman's many weaknesses, he has to rely on staying hidden. Spiderman is powerful enough, to where he can confront his enemies Full Force, and still take out the crooks! But even spiderman has tactics. He has sneaked up on his foes before as well, often gently webbing down above the enemy, to drop down as a surprise attack. http://marvel.wikia.com... (Peter_Parker) 5. BATMAN CAN BEAT ANYONE "Yes Bane broke his back, but he still recovered, didn't he? Azrael took his place in that time but Batman subdued him because he was too violent." So then Batman was beaten. If he can be beaten, then he cannot be anyone, and this point falls. ***** MY CASE ***** C1: Batman relies on his equipment " That is like saying without Spidey's spider powers, he couldn't win either. Batman has them, so he makes use of them. Also if you took away his equipment, he would still be a multi-millionaire, ninja, master tactician, master of disguise, master of interrogation and police techniques and combatant. Also one of his biggest powers is his great will power, with that he can achieve about everything he sets his mind to. " That's not the point I was trying to make however. Think about it this way. Batman Can lose his equipment. What then? Spiderman cannot just lose his powers... They are part of him. Batman may be an intelligent individual, but this will not help him if Spiderman can get his equipment away from him. He is basically now Spiderman's victim, and is subject to whatever Spiderman wants to due to him. C2: Spiderman's web puts Batman at a disadvantage " Yes, it's his ultimate if not only weapon. That means if Batman found a way to destroy it, Spidey would lose. I've already told various ways to destroy that web of his. That's the difference between Spidey and Batman. Spiderman keeps clinging to his superpowers, making him predictable, while Batman keeps improving his tactics and adjusting them to his enemy, making him unpredictable and hard to beat." In order for this argument to work, you must present a way for Batman to accomplish this, which is virtually impossible, as these abilities are naturally a part of Spiderman. Batman's equipment is not, as said above. Also predictability won't matter if Batman cannot defeat Spiderman. This is the only thing Batman has in his arsenal, but even you said Spider man is Superior. All he has to is wrap batman up in a shroud of web to impair batman to the point where he cannot use his weapons. C3: Moral choice "This is what you understand under "defeating". Kill? No. KO? Likely. You said yourself Batman has been beaten numerous times, but never really killed (unless you count the trips to the Lazarus pit). But there are ways to subduing Spiderman and letting him live. Spiderman has killed several times, which he mostly did out of anger. This shows Batman is mentally more stable than Spiderman. So if we talk about killing, then it would be an infinite fight since they would never kill each other. But if we're talking about KO'ing, then there's no problem." How can you say one is truly beaten, if they can always come back for more of a fight? The enemies that Spiderman has killed (whether out of anger or not) are still dead, and can never return to battle Spiderman, thus they are truly defeated. If Spiderman can do this to Batman, then Batman will be defeated. Batman cannot, and will not kill any one for any reason, so no matter what Spiderman is free to defeat Batman at will. I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him good luck in the final round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women on US submarines because [ Introduction ] Thanks, Con, for the debate... and welcome to DDO! In the future, keep in mind that the instigator of a debate has the burden of proof, and thus is expected to post an argument first in Round 1. That said, I'll begin this debate anyway by presenting several contentions under three specific categories, and then offering an initial rebuttal against arguments against the resolution. My rebuttal in the next round will expand based on your arguments. Thanks again and good luck! [ Legal Argument ] Quite obviously, there is no good (fair) reason why women should not be allowed to serve on United States submarines. There is no private employer regarding the Navy -- It is funded by the United States government, and the government like all employers has a legal obligation to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This statute mandates equal opportunity employment; in other words one cannot be turned away from a job on the basis of their race, creed or sex [1]. Therefore, preventing women from serving on submarines strictly because of their gender puts the United States at odds with the legal obligations it is bound to. This act is not only immoral but illegal as well. [ Moral Argument ] Throughout the ages, women have been inhibited from various aspects of academia and the work force due to their gender. Over the years many brave women have worked and fought hard to change the system and prove that women are just as capable of men at performing most jobs. While admittedly men have superior upper body strength and other minor physical advantages, the field of submarine work does not have gender-specific requirements that should limit women working to do something which they are both qualified for and passionate about. To do so is to practice blatant discrimination which is contrary to the goals and values of the United States. [ Pragmatic Argument ] The submarine service has some of the most technical requirements for officers. Many years ago, 70% of the male navy officers had technical degrees. Today, only 25% of the men in the navy have technical degrees (such as in the field of engineering, etc.). Meanwhile, the number of women with technical degrees is increasing. Ergo, it makes sense to open the field of submarine service to women given their expanding qualifications. This is a practical endeavor for the Navy. The number of potential male employees is decreasing while the number of potential women employees is increasing. By restricting women, it limits the pool of potential employees and may lead to an under qualified person being hired next to a more qualified individual. Not only is this immoral and illegal, but counterproductive and even dangerous regarding the citizens the Navy is supposed to be protecting. We deserve to have the most qualified soldiers on board regardless of their gender. [ Arguments Against Women On Subs ] We must evaluate the reasons women have been not allowed to work on U.S. submarines in the past. There are 2 arguments: Cramped quarters and sexual harassment. Because submarines used to be very small, there existed little privacy for the crew on board. The Navy felt that the women would have too little privacy thus presenting a problem. However, it's more than obvious that (a) not every woman requires privacy and (b) some women do not care about this issue. If men are okay with the close quarters, then it is reasonable to accept that women can be just as okay with it. Many are, and that is indeed proven by their willingness and excitement to join the submarine crew. Moreover, modern submarines are far larger meaning this problem is no longer even an issue [2]. On the basis of sexual harassment, Admiral Barry Bruner notes that there will be increased training aimed at avoiding sexual harassment, improper onboard relationships and other related problems. In other words, any sex-related issue will be prepared for and warned against. Additionally every submarine with women on it will have multiple women so as to not feel isolated. Only female officers will be allowed on board initially meaning in many cases they may even be higher ranked than their male subordinates. We should expect that men are decent and capable enough of respecting the ranking hierarchy in the military and not violate a superior. We should also assume that men are not barbaric animals and capable of upholding a professional demeanor in the workforce by not raping or harassing their coworkers. To presume that men will not be able to control their urges is demeaning not only to women but especially to the men who are regarded as sexual terrorists. [ Conclusion ] It is immoral, illegal and impractical to ban women from serving on U.S. submarines. The United States government is responsible for upholding U.S. laws and sentiments regarding equality. Since female citizens are equally expected to pay taxes, and female soldiers are equally responsible to their military commitments, then to discriminate against women in particular areas is unethical. The only arguments against women serving on subs are now either completely irrelevant, or resort to reducing men to uncivilized barbarians enslaved to their animalistic cravings. This is discriminatory to both men and women. It is not women's fault that men like to have sex; they should not be inhibited in their chosen profession simply because men in the past have been dangerous and irresponsible. Every crew member is responsible for their own actions and work ethic. Women are just as qualified as men for this particular line of work, and to restrict more qualified individuals from serving puts both the members on board and all citizens of the U.S. in danger. We should have the best and most qualified people working in all parts of our military regardless of their reproductive organs. Thank you. [ Sources ] [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://www1.voanews.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Faith Can Help To Heal Sickness because LordGrae r1 :"I would like to state that he must show that faith cures better then the placebo affect." TheUser r2 : " If I must show that faith cures better than placebos, then I'd be happy to." It was agreed upon that he must show that faith is not just a placebo, but works better, and I must show that it is merely a placebo, or perhaps a negative. I showed a fairly reputable study that shows how faith shows little correlation, and the little correlation it does show can be considered part of the nocebo effect, and not affirming that faith can truly cure. My opponent has given the example of the bible. We never agreed to accept the bible as truth, and it is an unreliable source for this topic. If he had looked at my profile, he would have known that it would be foolish to even attempt to use it as a source. Regardless of your beliefs, dear potential voter, you must admit that since we never agreed on accepting it as truth, he cannot do so. He mentions Orthodox Jews, which cannot be compared to the general population because they have very different practices that can have a physical, and not faith related effect on their health. (Rules about eating, smoking, drinking etc.) It also does not specify the percentage difference between these groups. Another study mentioned was only of 250 people, a poor sample size. Since depression is not really a normal 'disease' we cannot treat it as such. And any significant difference can be seen by the community aid and family support that people of faith tend to have more of, because they are less likely to be ostracized from the community and their family. In short, all the studies were either unreliable, discussed diseases that can be attributed to physical, and not spiritual causes, and missed providing percentages, which are the only things that really matter when looking at data. In conclusion, he failed to successfully refute my studies, and made this sentence, which seems to make absolutely no sense in the context of the situation. TheUser r3 " that was not a good thing done on the doctors' behalf. It was not right of them to take away an effect that worked. Basically, they took away the faith of the patients. " Please vote for me. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pokeban because I'd first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. 1.Your comparison to Dragon Ball Z: This comparison is entirely illegitimate. The acts committed in Pokemon closely parallel criminal poaching and animal abuse. Those committed in Dragon Ball Z (excepting ridiculous hairstyles) in no way reflect events which occur in the real-world. Therefore, the comparison is a fallacy. 2.a. Your experience with Pokemon does not necessarily reflect that of all children. Those who are, perhaps, heavily disturbed, or less intelligent than yourself would be more inclined to imitate the abusive behavior found in Pokemon. b. Pokemon closely resemble animals, in appearance, and in behavior. 3.Yes, Pokemon do not exist. I am merely stating that the actions of Pokemon trainers, in our society, would be considered criminal. Children are inclined to imitate the actions of their heroes, fictional or no, which many of them perceive Pokemon trainers to be. 4."When catching a Pokemon, they may be involuntarily caught, but after being captured they are perfectly content." a. This seems to fit your definition of prison. Pokeballs are indeed place of confinement, however comfortable. b. You fail to warrant the Pokemon's degree of content. It would be rational to assume that a capsule, the volume of which is less than a Pokemon's physical size, would be very uncomfortable. 5. I uphold that Pokemon trainers commit the despicable acts of animal abuse and poaching. Our children are negatively affected by exposure to this material. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons because don't compare me to Hitler , that's a low blow you just delivered , your argument is just nonsense. Yes I am saying mentally handicapped people are unable to look after children because if they were fit to look after them why do they need carers for themselves ?? 24hr normally ... You are just jumping on the P.C bandwagon , disabled people have the same rights as us , they are human , but there is no human right for having children . You cannot justify allowing two mentally disabled people to have a child , as there is a very high chance it will be passed to the child and even if it isn't imagine being the child . If you have aids , its already against the law for you to have unprotected sex . If you have cancer chances are you have not thought about having children , or have already had them , plus it has been proved cancer is not passed in the genes while , being mentally handicapped has , not always but quite often has . Now come back to me with a real argument , not so much as for the rights of these people having a child , but for the child as well. Also don't bother comparing peoples arguments to Hitler's ideas , its an insult to the millions dead because of him. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US because This debate is a part of the Intermediate Debate Tournament, R1, instituted by TUF. As Pro, I will be arguing the following position: Resolved: The United States federal government should implement solar road highways within the United States boarders. Debate Structure: R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Contentions R3: Rebuttals and Rebuilding Contentions R4: Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, and Closing Statements In addition, if Con is not satisfied with the structure of the debate, he may make suggestions to alter the arrangement in the first round. I look forward to a thoughtful, respectful debate. Good luck! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership because I would firstly like to state that I am aware of the vast amount of arguments for and against that have been used in the past. I am going to attempt to illustrate my position not from the standpoint of morality or assertation of societal acceptance but from a strictly business standpoint since nearly every law that has been created has been made from a strictly monetary stand point. The points of public safety will no doubt arise and to that I will make a compelling argument as to the absurdity of those claims. In the current state of the economy we are looking at many jobs being lost. Many of those jobs started to be lost on the corporate level including mass lay offs starting about a year and a half ago and have now trickled down to the small business owner. The industries that have been affected are numerous and far reaching and have severely affected our deficit spending, which is at a record level of 454.8 Billion, by the reduction in taxes paid through depressed consumer spending. Why then is a perfectly resonable indulgence such as cannabis, a taxable commodity, still illegal? As someone who has travelled around I have witnessed fellow American's take up the art of brewing beer and in places such as Flagstaff, AZ microbrews are the norm while big corporate beers such as Budwieser are rare. This has provided an economy of young entrepeneurs, many of whom still in college, and has provided a job base in a community that would not be able to offer the ammount of jobs to supply the demand of university students in the region. Marijuana, which is decriminalized (not legal) in 10 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon)( http://www.slate.com... ), is an untapped industry on the same level as tobacco. As recounted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse "According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, 14.8 million Americans age 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, which is similar to the 2005 rate." This is an overwhelming number of Americans who partake in an activity deamed anti-social. Now I am DEFINITELY NOT advocating 12 year olds smoke pot. I do condone decriminilizing use for those individuals 21 and over who have the ability to make a choice for themselves and do have the ability to indulge in other intoxicating substances such as alcohol. Choosing which substance is ok to remain legal and which is not based on assanine illogical rhetoric is not only unpatriotic but near "Orwellian." Accoding to the site "Tobaccofreekids.org" the average state "sin" tax placed on cigarettes is $1.18 which works out (depending on brand) to be an approx. 30% tax. And according to a study headed up by John Gettman, leader of the Coalition for the Reschedulng of Cannabis, conducted in 2006: "A study released Monday finds that marijuana is now the nation's biggest cash crop, with the value of the annual harvest exceeding that of corn, soybeans or hay -- the country's top three legal cash crops. The study, conducted by public policy analyst and former National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws head Jon Gettman, used official government figures to arrive at an estimate that the annual pot crop is worth $35 billion." That would generate $10.5 billion in new taxes if taxed the same as cigarettes. Or in other words enough to pay for out of pocket health care for half of the uninsured many of whom are children. ( http://www.amsa.org... ) The other aspect of what I am proposing is introducing an entrepenureal spirit into those who are young and looking at entering into a lucrative business venture. As with the microbrew community, the pot community is a tight knit group that finds no problem in finding a target market. As stated previously the pot industry in the United States is an estimated $35 billion industry that has little barriers to entry as all the necessities for setting up and growing can be bought at the local Lowes or Home Depot. Hydroponic growing, a once mysterious method (at least to the layman) of growing crops utilized mainly for the growth of pot, is now being used for the GREEN community to produce healthy crops of almost anything imaginable and with far greater yields than conventional methods. Now that it is more widely known a legal grow operation can be set up in any household with little needed space, producing returns per square foot of approx. $130/mo (based on 1 ounce yeild per plant and one plant per square foot - at street value of $400 per ounce) making an unused closet capable of paying for rent each month! Heading off any argument that somehow legalizing the production of marijuana will encourage or increase use in children is completely and utterly false. Selling to children would obviously remain a highly penalized charge and carry significant weight in detering the selling to children as it does with alcohol. By removing the criminal element to the product, thus eliminating dealers that are already partaking in a crime, this will leave those who purchase the substance legally with the option to smoke legally distribute legally or engage in illegal activity and making them think twice about thier actions. Undoubtedly there will be a few who engage in the sale to minors as with any regulated substance, however, by regulating cannabis and making retail operation legal the profit margin and temptability of illegal sale dissapear. Dealers operate primarily on bulk purchase, being able to buy a pound at a reduced cost and breaking it up and distributing it at an inflated price (often 100% markup at that quantity.) By making it so that this practice is improbable (since it will be possible for Joe Pot Smoker to go into a convenient store or hash bar and purchase at the same price he paid before on the stree) will actually reduce the selling to children. As long as the distributor (if operating as a retailer of the substance) obtains a license and abides by the law of the state regulatory agency than thier should be no problem with whether or not thier will be a social disruptance or a change in behavior. As a renewable energy source mass hemp fields (that do not produce THC) can be used as a source for ethanol and "Farmers who grow hemp claim it is a great rotation crop and can be substituted for almost any harvest. It grows without requiring pesticides and is good at aerating the soil. On a per-acre basis, one estimate claims hemp nets farmers more income ($250-$300) than either corn or soybeans ($100-$200). A full crop of hemp only takes 90 days to grow, yielding four times more paper per acre, when compared over a similar 20 year period with redwood trees in the northwest United States. However, there are other varieties of trees that yield two to three times more than hemp." ( http://www.madehow.com... ) The production of this crop (as with most Bast crops) yeilds everything from paper to substitutes for fiberglass. Historically it is the first cultivated crop dating back to Mesopotamia in 8000BC. People use the drug for relaxation, proven medical benefits and as a biodegradable textile of which the possibilities are seemingly endless and from a business standpoint for job creation. It is time that we set aside the racially motivated and politically motivated laws that were created during a time of American shame where it was used to encarcerate Mexicans and African Americans because of our distrust of them. Enforcement of marijuana laws costs $7.6 billion annually (as opposed to 10.5 generated just with cannabis alone). The DEA would not want to confirm the findings of countless research organizations because to them, just like my reason for the legalization, it is a business decision and they would not want to take an action that would put many of them out of work. And to that I say "Hey you can always sell pot!" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever. because You said it's "obvious" that MJ's voice appeals to the most and widest range of people based on the recod number of sales of the Thriller album. However, you cannot prove that people bought the album because they loved MJs voice. There are other reasons why people buy albums, for instance: the album's popularity, peer pressure, a present for others, etc. Plus, "The world's best-selling album cannot be listed officially, since there is no international body to count global record sales ... Historical data before the 1980s and from developing countries are also incomplete. Information is also lacking for non-English language albums" (Source: Wikipedia). I never said that Madonna was a better pop singer than MJ. I'm saying that she'd be a good challenger. Other prominent challengers would include John Lennon and/or Paul McCartney and Elvis Presley (The Beatles and Elvis were considered to be part of both the rock and pop genre) amongst others. Because Elvis and The Beatles have collectively sold more albums than MJ did with Thriller (assuming that Thriller really is the best selling album of all time), then... do you even have another argument? Ps. You're really cool for saying "Suck it" at the end of a debate. That was a good one. Very original. Very intelligent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents. because Unfortunately I am not a true Christian, but I doubt many of them would be too pleased with this either, what with that commandment banning killing. I know what an eternal hell is like - I live in Scotland. But the fact that the age of a text does nothing to its value, I will now ask my opponent to concede to this term: witches and wizards are real, because it says so in the Harry Potter books. May I ask what people will do when they refuse to take the authority of your "God"? I'll hope you assume that all people are born atheists. Take a baby of 1 week old and put it on a desert island (ignore that it will die without care for arguments sake) and it will not baptize itself. It will not give itself holy communion by the time it is 10, nor will it throw on a black robe and a yarmulke. "Studies show that the countries where people are religious and listen to God are more advanced in terms of social order, less criminality rate, less rapes and abuse and perversity, less homosexuals. So it is logical to assume that if all laws and traditions would be adjusted so that they conform to the bibel , the society as a whole would benefit greatly." I'll assume you mean countries such as Saudi Arabia, where there is, of course, less crime, because being gay constitutes a crime and carries the death penalty, and the religious police regularly beat women who speak when they are not allowed to. All in the name of blind obedience to a man in the sky that cannot logically be proven. Also, the oldest Abrahamic religion in the world - Judaism - doesn't have a "hell", so your argument is null considering that the bible and Christianity was based entirely upon this religion. My argument stands that breaking some arbitrary "rules" does not warrant death. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with uniforms for kids because true but just because it's not porn doesn't mean kids should dress inappropriately. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: I'm HOT!!! because PRO's CASE. 1) I'm blonde. 2) I have blue eyes. 3) I have a slender athletic build (like a basketball player) 4) I have a six pack 5) I am overall muscular. 6) Ladies love me. 7) Therefore, I'm hot. Now upon noticing this syllogism, I cannot help but notice that there a few leaps in logic. Firstly, PRO never provides any evidence to confirm any of these so-called facts. For all we know, he could be a hideous beast who dwells in his parents' basement. PRO could have EASILY posted a pic to confirm his appearance. Upon doing so, he may very well obtain the admiration and adulation of the "ladies" of this website. Indeed, ladies would love him here as well, yet oddly enough, he refuses to post a simple picture. Second, even if we were to assume that all of that is true, that wouldn't lead us to the conclusion that PRO was "hot." After all, he could have all of that, but if his facial appearance (which he makes no mention or description of were to look something like this: http://i130.photobucket.com... , most would not think of him as hot, despite his body, eye color and hair color. He'd probably have to wear a mask no matter where he went, for I suspect that most believe that the above face is a face that not even a mother could love. Third, don't you think of it as odd that he makes no mention of how his face looks. Very strange indeed. He described everything BUT his face (which, often times, is the most important description). What does my humble (*sarcasm*) opponent have to hide from the world, much less a debating community where we debate things and such? Fourth, the ladies he refers to could very well be pragma lovers, and simply "love" my opponent for his money or possessions rather than his body. Thus, I believe I've shown that his premises are inadequate in proving whether or not he is hot. Furthermore, since I've shown how he has refused to provide even the most basic evidence (such a photo) and information (he left out the matter of his facial structure) to confirm his claim, this would likely mean that he is indeed presenting you with false information (as many do on dating websites when it comes to this) rather than the truth. Conclusion: Thus, it is very much likely (given the evidence) that my opponent is not hot. To add: If we are to take the resolution in any other way, then my opponent has failed to show that he finds his surrounding temperature unbearable. Given that is it currently 80 degrees in Rockville Centre New York, this would suggest that it wasn't hot, thus making it unlikely that my opponent is hot. In fact, a credible scientist concurs with the notion that 80 degree air is warm rather than hot ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... ). <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against ayy lmaos because Extend. BoP on Pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against High heels should be illegal and destroyed as well as halting production of high heels. because Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited another round. I have successfully negated the resolution by refuting my opponent's points and presenting six strong arguments against it. Vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against 6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson because Dev Patel --->Sam Jackson In accordance with my opponents wishes I will adhere to his *Double Challenge* and connect Dev Patel and Samuel L. Jackson in no less than 3 links. But for good measure I will go ahead and do it in 2,3,4,5, and 6 links. ==2== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Shaun Toub 2) Shaun Toub in Iron Man with Sam Jackson ==also== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Seychelle Gabriel 2) Seychelle Gabriel in The Spirit with Sam Jackson ==3== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Cliff Curtis 2) Cliff Curtis in Live free or Die Hard with Bruce Willis 3) Bruce willis in Unbreakable with Sam Jackson ==4== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Katharine Houghton 2) Katharine Houghton in Kinsey with Chris O'Donnell 3) Chris O'Donnell in Max Payne with Mark Wahlberg 4) Mark Wahlberg in The other guys with Sam Jackson ==5== 1) Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire with Anand Tiwari 2) Anand Tiwari in Fair Game with Sean Penn 3) Sean Penn in 21 Grams with Melissa Leo 4) Melissa Leo in The Fighter with Christian Bale 5) Christian Bale in Shaft with Sam Jackson ==6== 1) Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire with David Gilliam 2) David Gilliam in Severence with Toby Stephens 3) Toby Stephens in Dark Corners with Christien Anholt 4) Christien Anholt in Hamlet with Helena Bonham Carter 5) Helena Bonham Carter in Fight Club with Brad Pitt 6) Brad Pitt in True Romance with Sam Jackson I believe this to be sufficient enough proof that I am not using a website such as the aforementioned http://oracleofbacon.org... ==Challenge== Nicole Richie ---> Sam Jackson <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because As stated previously, IVF is used to help couples conceive a child. This is especially true for same-sex couples who cannot bear children (for obvious reasons). Through undergoing the procedure, a surrogate can be found for male couples so as to carry their child for them. ("Human Reproduction") Female couples can have eggs taken out, fertilized, and then placed into their uterus. Similarly, women who are single can also undergo the same procedure. IVF is also known to help those who are older. It can "be used to maximise the chance of older patients conceiving." ("The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF"). "Human Reproduction." Successful In-vitro Fertilization Pregnancy with Spermatozoa from a Patient with Kartagener's Syndrome: Case Report. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org... . "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.createhealth.org... . <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better) because COD is more realistic <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because 21. I am indeed. 22. Yes and no. 23. What a grasp at straws.... Yes. 24. I believe its called agreeing to disagree. 25. Yep. 26. Nope. I was just noting that they were vague. 27. Sure. 28. nope. my username is untitled_entity... nice try though. 29. I like my fish whole. 30. They're opinions, which I guess could be viewed as arguments. Factual experience can count as evidence. In the course of my debating experience, there have been times when an opponent has taken something to heart that wasn't intended to be interpreted as such....Therefore my experience counts as evidence. Sources are irrelevant for this debate, as we are debating an actual issue, and I don't really have anything to prove to you..... Thanks to my opponent for this debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Balanced Budget Amendment because Thank you for accepting this debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment. As another war on the debt limit is looming over us and the fiscal cliff just barely passed over us, we need some serious thoughts on ways to reduce the deficit. One of my proposals is a Balanced Budget Amendment. Pro 1: The BBA Addresses Chronic Deficit For the past several years, the United States has been running deficits upwards of $1 trillion or more and there is no end in sight. We are in a period of chronic deficit and it is deficit that we can no longer sustain. As John Adams purportedly said, “ There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt .” [1] These words reign true to this day as we are seeing what is happening in the European Debt Crisis. Figure 1-1 shows how bad the debt has become. So, let’s put this into a different perspective. What if the average income family spent like the federal government? Figure 2-1 shows what the consequences would be of such a family. Figure 2-1 The data from this graph is from 2010 where the median income family was $51,360.00. If a typical family followed the government’s lead, it would therefore spend 30 cents of every dollar on credit card. This means that the family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt – a total equivalent to that of an entire mortgage, only without the house. Who would allow such a family to continue borrowing from them? [3] If such spending is not right for a typical family – what then justifies the federal government to spend in such a manner? What is the main cause of this problem? It isn’t that we don’t have enough revenue – we simply have too much spending. Figure 3-1 shows the revenue to spending relationships Figure 3-1 [4] As we can see from the above graph, the deficit is government spending – not low revenue. In fact, revenue will surpass the historical average by 2018, spending will still remain even well above that, even after the $2.1 trillion in cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 . So, why is the BBA appropriate for this chronic deficit problem? Because it addresses the real problem, which is overspending by the government. Pro 2: Flaw in Democracy One of the great flaws in democracy was attributed to Edmund Burke in 1754 (emphasis added) [5]: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury . From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The BBA is one way to fix the flaw in democracy because it limits the amount of money that can come from the public treasure. Conclusion The United States should adopt and pass a BBA because it immediately addresses our chronic deficit and spending problems which threaten economic viability of our nation. Secondly, a BBA is appropriate because it fixes the flaws in a democracy by limiting the amount of money that can be taken from the public treasury. [1] http://www.goodreads.com... ...; [2] Courtesy of http://www.heritage.org... ... [3] Image and caption provided by http://www.heritage.org... .... [4] Image 3-1 is courtesy of http://www.heritage.org... ... [5] Quoted in http://www.debate.org... ...; Note, if there are any problems with the links above, go to http://www.debate.org... ; <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The New Deal: Good or Bad because Recently, the FDR's New Deal program has come under fire, due to the recent idiological split on the current U.S. budget. I would argue that the spending on the New Deal caused Americans to overcome the Great Depression <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize because Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. ----------------- I will be taking CON in this debate and in doing so will let PRO go first. ---------------- I reserve the right to clarify the topic should I deem it necessary. -------------- Good luck to who ever accepts this debate! ------------- My opponent may propose definitions. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The New Deal: Good or Bad because What does Black treatment have to do with the success of the ND? We must look at what the objective of the ND was, and if that alone was successful. Well, FDR stated that the objective of the ND was to decrease unemployment. When the ND was finished, unemployment had dropped from when he enacted the ND. Therefore, the ND was successful based on how FDR defined success, which is what we are examining. If WWII dropped unemployment further, it is irrelevant because the ND had finished and unemployment had already seen substantial decrease. FDR did not define success as dropping the Unemployment to pre-Great Depression terms, but rather from 1933 terms, thus the ND was successful. I would rather not dignify the last part of Con's argument, given its fallacious nature. He cannot prove this, so why type it? Besides, Lincoln enacted Nationalistic legislature 70 yrs prior funded by "taxpayers", as well as the Civil War pension fund which inspired SC. Who created dependancy culture? -Thank you <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene because Unfortunately my opponent can't handle the fact that he's too incompetent enough to debate properly, so he resorts to monotonous and trite "insults" against women in a desperate attempt to look as un-pathetic as possible (it's not working). His "class clown syndrome" i.e. trying to use humor to mask his blatant lack of intelligence is failing miserably. Nobody thinks he's smart, funny, or apparently attractive (or else he'd have a girlfriend and something better do with his time then post useless debates). I'm going to go make myself a sandwich right now; Pro can hold his breath for his. Extend my arguments. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status because Brian! We meet again... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Suppose your best mate was an airy-fairy bloke who got duped into marrying an arsefaced wench named Mary. Feeling sorry for the lad, you and your chums decided to throw him one hell of a bachelor party for which you wished to hire only the very best and most beautiful exotic dancers. When calling the agency from which they would derive, you specified that this was a bachelor party for your heterosexual pal and wished for entertainers who were extremely sexy and incredibly talented individuals. The manager responded with "Alright, then" and told you he'd be sending his very best strippers, Jamie and Pat. Imagine your surprise (and horror) when Jamie and Pat showed up and began removing their shirts and knickers only to reveal two sets of hairy, lumpy balls, and enough chest and pubic hair to weave a large fur carpet. Jesus bloody Christ -- the agency had sent two MEN to dance at this bachelor party, though the name of the agency you hired them from was called Girls Girls Girls. In an outcry of "False advertising!" none of your friends hesitated to pick up the phone and complain to the deranged manager. The logic behind their complaint, you see, is that they intended to hire FEMALE strippers and thus male strippers would simply not suffice to their liking. Applying this theory to charities, sure it may seem unreasonable that charities pick and choose who to help. However let us not forget that the basis of any charitable organization, in addition to volunteer work, is MONEY. People choose to donate to certain causes based on a particular premise. For instance, animal lovers donate to charities aimed at protecting wildlife or even PETA. Some feel it is important to contribute to the poor and homeless, while others think it's imperative to remember struggling families and children in other parts of the world. Whose right is it to apply OTHER'S money to suit your own needs? Those who donated to the GMFA organization did so with the intention of helping homosexuals who had contracted the virus. Perhaps they had done so because they themselves are gay and feel that their bretheran are continuously ignored or harassed in society. Maybe some feel that a lack of sex education regarding homosexual conduct is what contributes to such a large quantity of gay men contracting the disease. Perhaps they have lost a lover, friend or family member who was gay and who could not seek assistance BECAUSE of their orientation. Or maybe they simply wanted to help fund the cause. Similarly, if I donated to specifically help children in Darfur, I might be a little irked to learn that my money was actually being sent to help a family in Wisconsin. Sure charity is charity, but regardless, it is one's right to donate to a specific cause with a certain premise. Morally, the charity must do everything in their power to protect and fulfill that expectation. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rape and Abortion because I am going to focus this last round mainly on refuting my opponent's points about gradual development. I think that my perspective on the right to life has been has been taken too far. More importantly, the points about gradual development do not suffice to prove that rape is a relevant consideration. First off, the right to life is not like the value of a commodity. A commodity can have any value, ranging from 0 to the highest conceivable amount something might be worth. The rights do not work in the same way. The whole point of a right is that a right cannot be violated under ANY circumstances, barring a few exceptions. In John Locke's theory, unless you violate the rights of others your rights can never be taken away, period. Nature rights theory was created to be much different than the utilitarian calculus, which can theoretically allow for anything if the benefits are thought to outweigh the costs. If something has to right to life, it cannot be killed because it's right to life is outweighed by some other consideration, this completely defeats the purpose of having a right to life at all. What my opponent is essentially arguing for is a utilitarian theory in which certain attributes, in this case the "right" to life, are weighed to a certain extent in value. These such systems have been shown to constantly fail because, as I said, it is impossible to make such precise judgments in a practical situation. There is no way for anyone to objectively judge exactly how much the right to life would be worth; a system in which it simply cannot be violated is far superior. On another note, my opponent goes much too far in his understanding of what happens to those who fall a little short of the right to life. The right to life and the right to be treated well are very different things, and the latter implies a much lower standard. It is my belief that the essential reason why my opponent and I agree on the traits needed for the right to life is that these traits in combination give an entity a stake in it's own existence. Only an entity would these traits would understand itself, life, death, and thus be able to possess a true desire to live and fulfill itself through life. Many higher animals and all but the most terribly impaired humans are up to this standard and therefore should not be killed. But is it wrong to painlessly kill an animal are person that does not comprehend or understand its own existence? This state is so natural to us as humans that we may not realize that other beings do not possess it. Killing animals or people that truly do not understand the ideas of life, death, and self is not in any way harmful to them. That does not mean they should be "butchered to cut costs" any more then all babies should be aborted. Badly disabled people, simply animals, and plants are very often valuable to us for other reasons and should not be made to feel pain when it can be avoided, but painlessly killing them does not violate any rights. I was not aware that the entire civilized world rejects that euthanasia of animals or humans in a vegetative mental state. The more likely explanation is that my opponent has taken my position too far and tried to apply it in the most negative way possible where this was certainly not necessary or implied. To go into the point of individuals having some but not all of the characteristics: many of them frequently occur in combination and all five are needed for the right to life. Consciousness is necessary because it is a prerequisite for the other four traits. Self-motivated activity is important because it demonstrates that the entity has some form of will or desires for itself. Self-awareness is possibly the most vital trait because without self-awareness and entire does not even comprehend its own life and death. Reasoning is also essential for this to occur. Communication is the only criteria I find sketchy, but the point of it is that a communicating creature must understand the difference between itself and others and possesses to desire to express information. These traits together give an entity the capacity to have concern over its own life or death. In essence, the ability to want to life as opposed to the inability to express understanding and desires in matters of life and death is what gives an entity the right to life. This definition is inclusive in that all five criteria must be met, but the standard for meeting any one of them is very low and they all are absolutely essential. Moving on... I will agree with my opponent that for the most part we are only talking about late term abortions here. One note I would like to make is that we are talking about what justifies or does not justify an abortion. The fact that rape is a reason to want an abortion is not what I am arguing against, of course that's true. Now, I have already argued that the right to life does not change it value, if it is possessed then it cannot be overridden. My opponent is supposing that the value starts at 0 and increases to whatever the full value is, so there must be some intermediate phase at which fact that the mother was raped outweighs it. This suffers from far worse flaws that the traditional linguistic/philosophical problem of demarcation that my opponent has referred to. The problem isn't that we can't draw an exact line, the problem is that there is no way of having even the most remote idea of where the line should be or if it exists at all. Anything else could be a factor besides rape and there is no way of knowing how much each consideration is worth. It is much better and more rational to begin with to say that the right to life, if it is indeed a right, can never be violated. There is still the demarcation problem, as always occurs, but the issue with this is pinpointing the line by narrowing down the area. With my opponent's proposal, we cannot narrow down the position of the life because we have no way of knowing where it is. There is absolutely no way to weigh the psychological effect of rape against the right to life. It seems that what my opponent is essentially arguing is that a fetus conceived by rape can be aborted slightly later in normal cases. In my position all abortions are ethical regardless of the development of the fetus, but I can see why distinctions according to development would be made. I cannot see, however, why rape has anything to do with this. Even if a right "develops" gradually, comparing a woman's right to avoid psychological stress to a fetus's right to life is apples to oranges. You can't say one outweighs to other. The solution, of course, would be to recommend that raped women get abortions early on (I can't see why they wouldn't do this anyway). If one is really opposed to late term abortion then rape should not be enough to override the fetus's rights. The fetus is, of course, innocent of any crime. So, I think I have done enough to show that my position is not as my opponent has represented it. I do not arbitrarily choose "human" traits as my standard, I choose those traits which are by rational conclusion necessary for the right to life. They are applicable to any entity of any mental level, whether animal, human, or alien. These traits need to be inclusive because they are so basic and essential, without them the right to life cannot be conferred. My opponent, on the other hand, convolutes rights into some arbitrary scale. This is clearly not the most reasonable way to interpret and apply rights theory. In conclusion, a fetus must either have or lack a right to life. If it lacks this right than it can be aborted regardless of rape. If it has this right then we cannot let psychological considerations override its right to exist. Rights do not exist on a scale or allow for a middle ground. This is a simple antonymic pair. Out of characters. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against the 1980's pop music is best!!! 2 because Technically pop music was supposed to have originated in the 1890s; however, for the purpose of this debate I will accept the common notion that, "The origins of pop music can be traced to post-Second World War in the United States, where a succession of events made commercial sound recordings accessible to the population at large for the first time" (Wikipedia: Pop Music). Thus famous pop musicians and groups include Elvis Presley, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Madonna and Michael Jackson, whom are affectionately referred to as the "King and Queen" of Pop. Although these two artists in particular had reached the peak of their music careers in the 1980s, I argue that the trimpuhs made by these two individuals do not and can not undermine the effect that pop music and other pop artists have made on the world in decades prior. Elvis is called the "King of Rock-N-Roll" yet he is also considered a part of the pop music genre (countless sites support this notion; I will provide citation if necessary). His impact on the music industry is undeniable. His style, song-writing and performance style has been imitated and inspirational for artists of every genre years after his success and death. Similarly, The Beatles have impacted music in a big way, intoducing the world to a lot of "firsts" such as being the first band ever to have all positions in the top ten be filled with their songs at one time, the first band to have over 50,000 fans attend a concert, the first band to create music videos (called "promotional films")... I could go on and on and on. The contributions to the industry and other aspects of pop culture in general (fashion trends, hair styles, new recording methods, new genre - see: acid rock, etc etc etc) are insurmountable attributes given to us by The Beatles. Because of this group and other pop artists, such as Bob Dylan and the Beach Boys to name a few, I would consider the 1960s to be the decade with the "best" pop music. The Beach Boys were the typical All-American guy group that won the hearts of adoring female fans with catchy tunes, and "Dylan's early lyrics incorporated politics, social commentary, philosophy and literary influences, defying existing pop music conventions and appealing widely to the counterculture" (Wikipedia: Bob Dylan). However I will not negate the impact of artists from different decades; in truth I am simply selecting the 1960s as the decade with the "best" pop music because in a previous debate it was advised I select a basis for comparison when it comes to this type of debate with said topic. In that case, I would like to state that the 1960s surpasses the 1980s as the decade with the "best" pop music for a few reasons: the impact of the artists, the popularity of the music, the influence these musicians have had on society and future music, the catchy melodies and beats, etc. My opponent has noted that he feels the pop music of the 1980s was the best because there are less profanities. I would like to point out that there were little to no profanities in pop music prior to the 1970s at best. There were some profanities in 1980s pop music as well. Additionally, Pro has suggested that pop music today consists of strictly computer beats with little input from musicians. I would like to remind him that the 1980s was the decade of synthesizers; although artists have used them before the 80s, they became extremely popular and were the backbone of a majority of the pop music acts during that decade. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with D.A.D.T Policy because Thank you, NukeTheJuice, for opening this debate. I'll try my best not to be offensive. I first need to say that I do support a modification of the "D.A.D.T." policies , however, not an elimination of the overall policy. That said, the "D.A.D.T." has been very effective towards the goal of having an inclusive military. "An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons are currently serving on either active or reserve duty, and it is estimated that there are another one million gay, lesbian, and bisexual veterans."[1] A poll taken by The Washington Post/ABC, conclude that in 2008, "Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that [homosexuals] should be allowed to serve in the US military.", openly, 78 percent believed they should serve. I do not dispute that there would not be an outcry of dissents if the entire "D.A.D.T." was lifted, but polls are polls. This particular poll chooses it's demographics. Here is a poll that, a: requires participant to seek the poll[2](i.e. not random phone call to whoever is home at the time)b:allows for more specified answers c: so far has sampled 200% more participants. http://usmilitary.about.com... Only 40% of respondents support a complete lift on the ban. The rest still support some aspect of the ban. I fall in the 2% that believe Homosexuals should serve openly, but that homosexual conduct (as well as heterosexual conduct) should be banned between active soldiers, and sodomy should remain banned outright. The reason why I would change the policy to allow soldiers to state their orientation is because of the potential that one can blackmail a fellow soldier or officer. I'm sure I'm in agreement with my opponent that our soldiers will perform their duties regardless of the regulations or knowledge of each others sexual orientation. And it seems that for the most part that this is exactly what has evolved from the initial policy in question. It is the other aspects that I believe must remain. Participating in sodomy is a health concern.[3]The Congress has the obligation to retain the good health of soldiers and make any rule in pursuit of "prepar[ing] for and to prevail in combat should the need arise"[4]. The activity would also put other soldiers in unnecessary risk. The duties required by many and possibly most aspects of military operations puts soldiers at risk to exposure to disease host. There is no reason to increase this hazard by allowing personnel to engage in such risky behavior. This portion of the D.A.D.T. should not be changed. Male Homosexual acts should remain banned because the behavior demonstrates the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy. Since Lesbianism does not demonstrate the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy, females could be exempt. The military should not be burdened with having to prove an actual event, so male homosexual activity should remain banned in it's entirety. I will pass on the financial aspect. I am sure my opponent would agree that if it were to be shown that it would cost more to lift the ban, it would not discourage her opinions. >>>>> >Lifting the ban ensures that Arabic linguists and other critical specialists are not fired for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Lifting the ban protects 65,000 service members from being fired by the largest employer in the country for being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.<<<< I agree, however I don't think the military has crippled itself by firing legions of homosexual linguists. The US military is not an employer. There is no Constitutional right to serve. The 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from " tak[ing] away your natural born rights such as Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.", and it certainly doesn't trump Art. 1 sec. 8 par. 14; ('Congress shall have the power...")To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. If we were to concede to both a right to serve and a right to serve "gay", this would completely disrupt both military and civic affairs. Would it not be construed to shield any activity deemed "gay" from disciplinary actions, no matter how disruptive to the "high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."[4] One of the websites my opponent endorsed demands that Congress "Amend military medical and uniform regulations that discriminate transgender[sic] servicemember[s][sic]"[5]. Yes, we should allow men to wear female uniforms. This won't invite any disruption in the daily activities of the military. Klinger never achieved his goal. The military cannot be burdened with the problems that ensue when the privilege to serve becomes a right. Certain provisions of the "D.A.D.T." policies should remain enforced for "[t]he primary purpose.... to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise." Including any activity that puts the soldiers at unnecessary risk. Homosexuals in the military should be able to state their orientation, but "homosexual acts" should continue to be banned. All acts of sexual nature both heterosexual and homosexual should be banned between soldiers while on active duty. Congress has full authority to do as it desires and it should remain that way. [1] http://www.palmcenter.org... [2]This statement should not be construed to imply my being offensive to the "GLBT[Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual,and Trans gendered] Community". [3] http://www.freerepublic.com... [4] http://www.law.cornell.edu... thanks Tarzan [5]equalitygiving.com Con, argument 1 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with immunizations for babies because In conclusion, 1. Vaccinations help protect babies against deadly and destructive diseases, viruses, bacterium and other infections. In essence, they save millions upon millions of lives. 2. Vaccinations for babies (in particular) are necessary, because they eventually stop receiving antibodies from their mother (which they need for protection). 3. SOME vaccinations may cause MINOR complications, such as a rash or small fever, but in reality these "side effects" are infinitely better for a child than the threats that you are vaccinated for. 4. Most (sane) people feel a sense of moral obligation to vaccinate their children and protect them and their health/safety/well-being so long as they have the ability to do so. It helps that vaccinations are almost always covered by medical insurance or Medicare and Medicaid, etc. 5. On a final note, most if not all schools (and colleges) require their students to have vaccinations in order to attend. Although I can make many more arguments for my position, I don't feel a longer list is necessary; my opponent failed to engage me in any type of real debate thus far. I thank you for this challenge, though, and hope I have helped my opponent to understand just some of the many reasons why vaccinations are essential to a child's life. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with If the government were to take our guns, the US military has the right to fight against it. because The stance I am taking in this debate is based on the oath of enlistment. The oath of enlistment can be found here: http://www.history.army.mil... Now, you'll notice it says that the enlisted person will fight against all enemies of the peoples rights. Both foreign and domestic. If our own government took our right to bear arms, then this would make them a domestic enemy, entitling the US military to rebel against our government. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS because I do not agree that this is a controversial issue. I thank opponent for his efforts. I will close with a summary of my case. The law forbids discrimination on basis of sex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 clearly makes it illegal to discriminate "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." My opponent would have this legislation reversed, for the sole purpose of allowing sterilization of the POTUS. The highest office in America sets an example. What a terrible civil rights example to set of reversing a law for the purpose of discriminating against a female President. Segregated restrooms, which are a matter of ettiquette, do not expose flaws in civil rights legislation. My opponent is confused as to what discrimination is. Neither women nor men are discriminated against in the case of restrooms: Facilities are provided for each, and they have equal opportunity to relieve themselves. Even IF restrooms were a case of discrimination, it would not mean that all other discrimination were negated! Civil rights are not moot because toilets are segregated by gender. My opponent has a ridiculous and unfortunate view of civil rights, which I can only hope to correct. To have a child is not a criminal act, although my confused opponent compares it to one. Since my opponent claims the issue is "readiness", whether the POTUS is voluntarily incapacitated or not is irrelevant. All that matters is the outcome, not the intention. So, the resolution is unworkable: If pregnancy, then other issues that could incapacitate a President. You could just as well argue that a POTUS with a history of heart disease in his family is endangering national security. Or a candidate that is particularly old. The selection of a President could become highly discriminatory. Also, you cannot deny an unsterilized woman the office of POTUS on a hypothetical . Hypothetically, a male POTUS may get testicular cancer. Should we then pre-empt the possibility by insisting only on eunuchs in the White House? The electorate has a right to choose the candidate they see fit, and are fully capable of assessing the capabilities and readiness of a woman of childbearing age for office. In the unlikely event that a female POTUS actually does get pregnant and and wishes to be the primary care giver, ie raise children, then resignation is a less drastic option than sterilization. I think I should get the conduct points for this debate because my opponent actually goes as far as to quote mine me on this! Another option is that the Vice President could do the job the Vice President is designated to do and manage the ship while the mother is convalescing. The battle to make employment truly meritocratic, through civil rights, is an ongoing one and has been long and hard fought. To affirm the resolution would be to take a backwards step. My opponent has already conceded the debate . "If outright sterilization is an issue, then a pledge signed under oath to forego childbearing while in office would accomplish the same purpose." Sterilize: to destroy the ability of (a person or animal) to reproduce by removing the sex organs or inhibiting their functions. http://dictionary.reference.com... A POTUS who signs a pledge has not had the ability to reproduce destroyed; the functions of their sex organs have not been inhibited even temporarily, let alone permanently. They are not incapable of reproduction, they have simply pledged not to reproduce. Thank you to the voters for reading this debate. Vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not lose this game of tic-tac-toe. because "I tried lol" You most certainly did. "VOTE PRO" Vote PRO. Well, we agree, then. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against knowledge is free will, knowledge is memory because My point from R1 still stands and Pro has not refuted yet. If knowledge is different from memory in ANY WAY, and knowledge different from free will in ANY WAY, I win. I have proved so just above, therefore Pro has wasted his time with R2. Thanks and vote Con! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate today. I would like to offer my definition for the most controversial term of th evening: Superpower. Superpower: A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. [1] With that in mind, let us start the debate. Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. Future has been defined as the next 5-15 years, and my opponent has agreed to this time frame. I affirm above resolution and offer 3 contentions finding China to be at, or will achieve in the near future, superpower status according to my definition. Contention 1: Military Power Contention 2: Population Contention 3: Economic Power Contention 4: Nuclear Capabilities Contention 5: Influence Today, we must judge the potential superpower of China by three factors: military might, numerical advantage (population), economic strength, intercontinental nuclear capabilities, and international influence. Contention 1: Military Power In recent years, the nation of China has seen considerable gains in military might. The pace and scope of China's military buildup is “potentially destabilizing” in the Pacific, a top defense official warned Wednesday as the Pentagon released an annual report cataloging China’s cruise missiles, fighter jets and growing, modernizing army. [2] China is looking toward dominating the Pacific Region and has successfully done so. The Chinese have established one of the most modern and advanced navies in the world, comprising more than 560 combat vessels [3]. China's longer-term agenda is to develop 'comprehensive national power', including a strong military, that is in keeping with its view of itself as a great power [4] China’s People’s Liberation Army — with some 1.25 million ground troops, the largest in the world — is on track to achieve its goal of building a modern, regionally focused force by 2020 [5] The Chinese have built an impressive list of military achievements: A) Created the world's third largest navy, 562 new and powerful combat-ready vessels. B) Created the world's largest ground army, comprising more than 1.25 million men. C) Domination of the Pacific Region For air superiority, China is developing a new-generation stealth jet fighter, the J-20 [6]. China is a superpower now by most regards. By 2020, it will have the most powerful army in the world, as well as the largest. China’s total military spending for 2010 was more than $160 billion. [7]. China is spending billions of dollars and is achieving results. By any military regard, China is, or will very shortly, be a superpower. Contention 2: Population Without a doubt, a sizable and strong population is a necessary component of the superpower status. China once again achieves this. China has a population of nearly 1.4 billion people, nearly 20% of the entire planet [8]. China's population is a characteristic of their superpower status. "was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability)" [9] With a population far higher than the next contender, and making up more than 20% of the planet, China easily has a numerical advantage in any theoretical advantage. Contention 3: Economic Power Perhaps the greatest indicator of a superpower, is it's economic power. Again, China satisifies this condition. China currently has a gross domestic product of more than 10 trillion dollars, has the highest amount of investment in the world, and an epicenter of economic prowess [10]. China also has a "a superordinate economic capacity " [9]. In terms of economic power China is the economy of tomorrow. In 2016, the United States will cease to be the world's largest economy, China will overtake the United States as the world's most powerful economic nation [11] [12]. Contention 4: Nuclear Capabilities. All theoretical superpowers have a "and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity" [9]. Again, China fulfills this goal. China has in excess of 900 powerful, inter-continental ballistic missiles at it's disposal [13]. China has a nuclear capability comparable to that of the United States and previous superpower the Soviet Union. Contention 5: Influence As a result of gigantic investment and massive economic growth, China is becoming more and more able to be considered an influential power (in line with my definition). To understand why China's influence is increasingly pushing past its borders, just do the math. When 1.3 billion people want something, the world feels it. And when those people in ever increasing numbers are joining a swelling middle class eager for a richer lifestyle, the world feels it even more. If China's growth continues, its consumer market will be the world's second largest by 2015 [14]. China, being the world's largest exporter, [10] exerts considerable control over world markets. It holds the United States at bay with it's debt and currency manipulation. China's massive growth greatly increased it's influence. China's influence is now world wide. In conclusion, when determining whether China is, or will become a superpower, look at the facts: 1. China has the world's largest army. 2. China has the world's largest population. 3. China will have the world's largest economy (by 2016, in 5 years) 4. China has a massive nuclear stockpile. 5. China exerts global influence. By all accounts, China is a superpower, or at least by 2016, it will be a superpower. I urge an affirmative vote. 1- http://en.wikipedia.org... 2- http://www.nytimes.com... 3- http://globalfirepower.com... 4- http://www.cbsnews.com... 5- http://www.nytimes.com... 6- ibid 7- ibid 8- http://www.google.com... 9- http://post.queensu.ca... 10. https://www.cia.gov... 11. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 12. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 13. http://www.fas.org... 14- http://www.washingtonpost.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with User Mikal has a second account, inductivelogic, that always votes for him. because First round is for arguments. Here is some overwhelming circumstancial evidence supporting my assertion. Mikal has won 11/11 of his debates. Impressive. Until we look at his profile and notice a "friend" named inductivelogic who seems to always be involved with Mikal. Proof #1:Inductivelogic has voted in 9 out of 11 of Mikal's debates, the other two debates involving Mikal vs. inductivelogic, meaning inductivelogic wasn't eligible to vote. However, he did make it pretty obvious that he was debating himself as i'll show the conversation below Proof #2: Inductivelogic has voted in Mikal's favor 100% of the time.That's right. In all 9 debates in which he was eligible to vote, Inductivelogic has given Mikal the vote. Proof #3:Inductivelogic's only friend is Mikal. Not only is it extremely unusual for inductivelogic to have been voting in all of Mikals debates, especially always in Mikals favor, but his only friend is one that has exremely high voting involvement for Mikal. Proof #4: Inductivelogic's personal info including relationship status, ethnicity, ideology ect are all basically opposite of Mikals. One thing in particular, inductivelogic's religion is listed as Deism, and Mikal's religion status is Atheist. Inductivelogics only friend Inductivelogics info Link to this picture http://s23.postimg.org... Mikals info Link to this picture: http://s16.postimg.org... Next, here are 9 of the 11 debates in which inductivelogic was eligible to vote in, the other 2 were against inductivelogic. I'll present my evidence and see if you think those 2 debates seemed fake (for the purpose of granting Mikal easy wins). I've shortened the title of Mika's won debates for simplicity but feel free to see them through Mikals account - I provided a link to both accounts below. objective morality is there a god hundreds years old gun control gay marriage college basketball Christianity harm bible true Semi auto ban In the 2 out of 11 debates Inductivelogic didn't vote for Mikal, were against Mikal. See if you think this isn't a fake conversation. Obviously, the outcome was meant for Mikal to win. Conversation 1: http://s23.postimg.org... Conversation 2: http://s13.postimg.org... In conclusion: I am asserting that 1) inductivelogic is Mikal's second account and 2) that inductivelogic is an account meant to benefit Mikal by voting for him and letting him win debates. If you doubt any of my information I have posted on their accounts, here is a link to them. Mikals account: http://www.debate.org... Inductivelogics account: http://www.debate.org... ****NOTE: All of this information is accurate as of Friday, July 19 1:25pm. I would not be surprised if this topic makes him cover his tracks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations because Judges ready? Opponent ready? CROSS EXAMINATION: - My opponent failed to present a negative constructive, there is no information to challenge. - Does the lack of a negative constructive by the CON/NEG imply concurence with the PRO/AFF? FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: The pros greatly outweigh any cons (none stated notwithstanding) in regard to immunization. FACT: Medical science proves that vaccine lots are routinely checked and deemed safe. FACT: Medical professionsals are in favor of immunization. FACT: Immunizations are a cost effective way to protect people and prevent many diseases. FACT: The CON/NEG has not presented any argument. Given the above, there is no reason whatsoever why people should not be vaccinated. It makes perfect sense to receive vaccinations. It is clearly in everyone's best interest to receive vaccinations. In concern for public health, compulsory immunizations are in fact justified. Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Are There Problems With a Belief in an Afterlife? because Rules : My opponent must belong to some religion (preferably Judaism, Islam, or Christianity). My opponent must believe in Heaven and Hell. My opponent cannot use the argument that God alone has all knowledge, and therefore He can judge perfectly. The point of this debate is to see if we, as humans, can see the belief in an afterlife as a fair and moral reward. Purgatory is not an option. This debate assumes purgatory is an incorrect belief. Resolution : There are problems with the idea of an afterlife. Because of these problems, it is likely that an afterlife is not possible. Opening : The main point I will be arguing for is that because of babies who die before they reach an age of a fully developed intellectual mind, and people who are mentally disabled, the doctrine of an afterlife of heaven or hell is unfair. I see two possibilities: 1) Babies and the mentally disabled will automatically go to heaven, because they did not choose evil. (I see this as unfair because they get a free pass.) 2) Babies and the mentally disabled will be annihilated. They never really had complete consciousnesses, so they won't be resurrected to have a consciousness. (I see this also as unfair, because then they never had a chance to earn salvation.) My contention is that none of the main religions have ever answered this question, that is to say, no holy books have ever provided an adequate answer to this dilemma. I believe that it has been completely ignored because this issue completely undermines the fair judgement of who goes to heaven and hell. The best option is to say that no one goes to heaven or hell. This option is completely fair to everyone. I have provided two options for what may happen to babies and the mentally disabled. I do not think there can be a third option (if my opponent is wise enough to see a third one, he/she may argue by that one), so I would like my opponent to choose one of the two options and argue on how it could be fair. I hope for a thought-provoking and intriguing debate. I await for my clever opponent. Cheers! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Meat production should be significantly reduced because Thank you, Lexicaholic for waiting patiently for my belated response. I had to attend my brother's Memorial Day weekend baseball tournament. Sorry for implying you were an idiot. I was tired when I wrote my last argument. I would also like to remind my opponent that this debate's resolution is "Meat production should be significantly reduced" not "Meat production for human use should be significantly reduced." My opponent has ambiguously asserted that "meat consumption" should be lowered instead of production. He seems to take it as an axiom, without informing me, that he means human consumption. >> "but in the face of a changing market there is an alternative to dissolution: adaptation. Perhaps meat production will continue unabated as a source of protein in animal foods, or for use in biology experiments, or perhaps it will become more specialized and cater to the wealthy who often have peculiar tastes (more Kobe beef)." << If an animal eats meat as a source of protein or some rich dude eats some Kobe beef, isn't that consumption? Let me give you the exact definition of ‘consumption' Consumption - the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction. (Dictionary.com) >> "as I am concerned with human health and not the process of the production of meat, as my opponent is." << My third contention in my first post was concerning the fact that red meat raises mortality! >> "... a significant decrease in production without a correlating decrease in consumption would not reduce DEMAND but rather raise the value of meat, as the supply would no longer be sufficient to meet the DEMAND at its pre-reduction rate." << Don't be distracted by the emphasis, the very first line reveals the fallacy of the statement. He conveniently forgot to put the word ‘human' between ‘in' and ‘consumption.' An overall decrease in production to levels below the previous rate of consumption while miraculously still having the same amount of consumption the same amount is impossible. Like I said before, you can't eat what hasn't been made. (and neither can an animal or a Kobe steak fan) My statement that poor people can't currently afford much, if any, steak in no way supports my opponent's argument. >> As increasing supply over demand would lower prices and allow the poor to get their fill of meat. << Now my opponent has switched tactics. Where before he said he wanted people to stop eating meat because it raises mortality etc, now he thinks all the poor people should be eating steak like the upper and middle classes. Then my opponent says that if meat production was lowered, poor people would get even less meat and starve "to an unhealthily low amount." But he forgets that if the grain that previously went into meat production was now free to be used for other purposes, there would be plenty to feed this poor, meat-deprived person. My opponent then tries to offer an alternative to the environmentally harmful current method of obtaining meat. It is unrealistic. No practical growth medium has been found for in vitro meat and I suspect one would be hard to produce. It would have to contain all the minerals that make meat so valuable in the first place, which means we might as well drink the growth fluid. Also, in vitro meat doesn't have much less of an environmental impact than normal meat production. All it does is clumsily slightly lower the impact. Therefore, meat production should be significantly reduced: to save our environment, starving people, and lifespan. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This house believes that environmental cases should be tried in International Criminal Court because Let me define first the terms and set the parameters of this debate. Terms: The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression(Wikipedia) Environmental cases are lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute(Wikipedia) Parameters: 1. So far The International Criminal Court does not handle environmental cases as provided by Part 2, Article 5 of the Rome Statute( only the crime of genocide , crimes against humanity , and war crimes are considered) So with this, I propose that it should consider environmental cases. But take note, it will only be a supplementary court or an optional court; it will not take forcibly environmental cases from sovereign states- so there is no infringement of their sovereignty. States will decide if it will allow ICC to handle environmental cases. 2. The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if: "(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. Short and Clear Arguments (later will be expanded if refuted) 1. Environmental crimes are the concerned of the world, not only by a particular country, because the damage is extended to other sovereign states. For example, illegal toxic wastes disposal not only affecting the territorial sea of a certain country but also that of other part of the sea which belongs to other states. 2. Sometimes, the government is the perpetrator of an environmental crime so it cannot punish itself by its own courts, so ICC must intervene. 3. Environmental crimes are grave like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" sends a positive message because Debate accepted. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler because This debate will address the morality or lack thereof of 'God' as described in the Bible. I as the Pro will be demonstrating how, as portrayed by the Bible, God is similar to Adolph Hitler. The burden of proof will accordingly be on me. My opponent will rebut and make any complementary case he or she wishes to make. Strictures: - Videos as evidence will be dismissed - Sources are to support points, not make them - Preaching, evangelism, and irrational appeals to emotion are discouraged Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals because Well.... I thank my opponent for his quick response! (lol, did you pre-write/pre-type that?) ==DEFINITION== As my opponent only defined 'disparities' and 'threaten'.... I'll take it into my own hands to define democratic ideals.... I define democratic ideals as the beliefs that support a democracy and are vital for a successful one. The most common ones are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Others include all people are equal, political rights, the right to food, to right to work, and the right to practice culture ==ARGUMENTS== -Contention 1- Well... I think I'll first take a look at the above mentioned ideals and examine how income disparities affect these ideals. Life Now, 'life' is a very broad topic, but I think it is acceptable to think of this as "the right to live." 1) Food and social programs exist for a reason, and that reason is to help out the needful. 2) Those who don't need extra help...Well, it's pretty obvious that they are 'living'. 3) Government cannot deprive you of life without due process. 4) Public Hospitals, nuff said. Liberty 1 ) All people are granted the same exact rights, when they gain citizenship. 2) Government cannot deprive you of freedom without due process. 3) Public schools give you the education needed. Pursuit of Happiness 1)Happiness is the state of being glad, pleased, etc. 2) You have the right to try to make a great life for yourself, although this doesn’t necessarily mean you will get it. 3) With both health and education, you have the opportunity to succeed in life (not guaranteed). Equal 1) All citizens possess the same exact rights. No one, due to their income differences, is inferior to some one else. Political Rights 1) Once again, all classes possess the same rights. Other Ideals 1) The other ideals that I stated above were the right to food, the right to work, and the right to practice culture. 2) Practicing culture has nothing to do with income disparities. 3) My opponent gave the definition “The definition of income as defines by National oceanic and atmospheric administration is the total payments received by individuals for employment.” The word ‘employment’ implies that the people we are talking about already have a job, so “the right to work” is fulfilled. 4) Finally, “the right to food” As I stated before, food programs that assist the needy are already implemented and functioning. -Contention 2- The American Dream must be achieved by the people themselves. Our belief is that any person deserves the chance to achieve the American Dream, but this doesn’t guarantee them a successful life. 1)On the Oregon Trail, travelers took everything they had, risked everything, and went West. An estimated 10% of them died through the hardships. http://www.blm.gov... 2) Take another example - The Pilgrims. Nearly half of them died in the first winter, yet all of them risked everything, hopeful for a chance to improve their lives. http://www.holidays.net... 3) Bill Clinton’s biological father died before he was born, and his stepfather was an alcoholic. Family life was frequently disrupted by domestic violence. Despite the state of his childhood, Clinton eventually rose to become president. This obviously proves that there exists a "chance". http://www.notablebiographies.com... -Contention 3- The existance of wealth among the citizens of America simply proves that our free markets are working. Many of America’s wealthiest citizens are also among the most ambitious, clever and hard-working. This is a sign of the freedom to successfully direct one’s economic self-destiny. ==Rebuttals== Well thankfully, PRO put his arguments into a 'easy-to-comprehend' organization. Hence, I will go in order of his contentions. - Contention 1- He states that because of the lack of socioeconomic diversity in congress, Americans will be unequally represented, since the representive elite will ignore the people. 1) Congress doesn't hold all of the power - the Judicial and Executive branches help balance power between them. Some presidents come from poor families, such as Lincoln. 2) These representives are voted into their positions. The 'elite' are a minority - if the majority middle and poor feel like they are not being represented fully, they don't need to vote for these 'elites' or they can step up on their own. Voting is in the power of the people. -Contention 2- He states in this contention that because of a disparity in income levels, minority voices are overshadowed. 1) Who is the 'minority'? 44% of America live are in the middle class and 31% have low incomes... 2) In his first contention, he states that the 'elite' are representing the people, and this suggests that he means the elite are overshadowing the minority. However, the elite are the minority, hence this argument is invalid. -Contention 3- Finally, PRO says that cantidates with more wealth have an advantage over those with less income. 1) Individuals without resources are still entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness, as I have explained in my original contentions. They are still entitled to every freedom outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and can still vote and lobby. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." because I'm impressed with my opponent's speed, but not with his argument. Perhaps if he slowed down and took my time, his arguments would have more substance. ==================== Sentience in animals ==================== ---->>>"I pointed out that not ALL animals are sentient. Only a few of the more advanced ones are. You said nothing against this, really." -->...ladies and gentlemen. My opponent has no real argument. Why? Because he categorically confuses the difference between SENTIENCE and SELF-AWARENESS. To be sentient is, as I stated before, the ability to feel pain or pleasure. One does NOT have to be self-aware to be sentient; practically every animal on the planet is sentient while self-awareness is arguably in only a select few. My opponent's severe misunderstanding of such a simple concept throws this argument in my favor. ==================== Eating animals ==================== ---->>>"Our ancestors ate meat. Our grandparents probably ate meat. Meat is part of the human diet. Human taste buds have evolved to enjoy the taste of meat. We enjoy the taste of meat, because meat is good. Meat, meat, meat." --> Again, my opponent commits numerous fallacies. JUST BECAUSE IT'S NATURAL OR COMMON DOES NOT MEAN IT'S RIGHT. He's repeatedly committing fallacies here and there, and to point out the flaws would be redundant on my part. ---->>>"Also, my opponent has not countered the fact that we only breed cows, chickens, and pigs for meat (well, cows for dairy, too, but the PETA is against that, too), and if eating meat was outlawed, farmers would have no incentive to breed such animals, and it would lead to a severe decline in reproduction, and one goal of animals is supposedly to reproduce successfully in large numbers." --> I have replied to this with your lab rat example. I stated that it should be our responsibility to take care of them, and attempt to find or integrate them into an environment they can live on by themselves. Since we bred them solely for using them (and thus violating their rights), it should be our responsibility to try to fix this and accommodate the rest. ---->>>"Finally, animals acknowledge that there is a food chain, and there has always been a food chain as long as there has been food, before humans. Humans simply arrived to be at about the top of every food chain, although sharks and polar bears are ahead of us. If humans can be eaten by animals because they are meat, and humans can eat meat, they should actively participate in their local food chain and EAT MEAT!" --> Again, you are committing the appeal to nature fallacy. ---->"I attacked your nature fallacy. That was your counterargument, right?" --> YOU DID NOT ATTACK IT. You merely committed it. Voters, do realize that my opponent hasn't given anything substantial to show why this fallacy is wrong; he just merely breaks it over and over. ==================== Using animals as clothing ==================== ---->>>"That WAS my original argument. Because we have correlated eating and using for clothing, I guess nothing further needs to be said." --> And I have refuted it. Because you yourself admit that using animals as clothing can only be justified if you can show that eating them as food is right. Since your attempt at that failed, this argument sinks as well. ==================== Animal experiments ==================== ---->>>"You said that A didn't imply B. I said that it didn't imply the opposite of B, either, and that there may be a lack of correlation. You didn't defend this part at all." --> Look closely at what my opponent states. In reply to my statement that A =/= B, he argued that this doesn't mean it didn't imply the "opposite of B". What would the opposite of B be then? My opponent gives a vague, actually none, definition for opposite and neither the voters or I can tell what he means. But let's pretend that by "opposite of B" he means the "opposite truth value". So in context with my statement, he MERELY STATES THE OPPOSITE. An ungrounded assertion that should be tossed out the window; my opponent has no argument here. ---->>>"Even with such programs, the population of lab rats would never recover to the "glorious heights" that it reached when lab rats were the primary test subjects for scientists. And high population is a goal for animals, which we fulfill." --> There are several serious problems with this answer. First of all, lab rats don't need to recover at "glorious heights" - when was that ever a concern? High population is NOT a goal for animals because animals don't consciously have abstract goals such as this. My opponent is on the wrong footing here. ==================== Animal entertainment ==================== ---->>>"I'm pretty sure that the circus animals would rather perform and be fed than never fed at all." --> If you read my hobo analogy, then you will see that this is a false idea. We should simply give them a habitat, where they can have the freedom to what they will. Feeding hungry animals is fine, but forcing them to be your pet or entertainment is NOT. Here is my analogy one last time: If I went up to a hobo and gave him food and shelter, than this is a moral (or at least not immoral) thing to do. However, I tell him that at the cost of this he must be my personal entertainment. After awhile, maybe he considers to quit - and he should have the right to. YET, can animals quit? No. ---->"Also, you do not provide any sources for animal abuse in the home, and a circus website or video would really have helped your case, but it would be too late to do so next round, as it is the last." --> If you seriously doubt the existence of animal abuse in the world, even only if it's a few cases, then you really need to start Googling. ---->>>"This implies that we should never give the animal a chance. This would mean restricting the animal to never entertaining for food, on the basis that the animal might be unhappy with it. Most animals would rather entertain than starve. Entertaining for food is just about the only option many animals have in today's society, so we should give it to them." --> This statement only applies when the quote is seen in context. It obviously refers to forced animal entertainment, or when the main motive is to recruit animals for entertainment. While yes, it is okay to have a bonding relationship with an animal that includes some rudimentary form of entertainment, it is not okay to have all the other animals to be forced into entertainment. The key word is forced - they should just be left in the wild to roam free. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's argument, I'm sad to say, are monstrously unconvincing. Even as a personal animal welfare advocate (meaning we can use them to eat, wear, experiment, and entertainment), his arguments are not even close to entertaining. Over the course of this debate, he has violated the same fallacy over and over, confused the difference between sentience and self-awareness, and ignored obvious facts. The decision is clear, vote PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This Debate is Stupid because [insert a beautiful argument about neurophysiology and win over the voters with his wit and intellect.] (reference to http://www.debate.org... ) Couldn't resist the temptation. :P Nevertheless I will still not make an argument. Thus con wins just by posting lame "vote for me" images (one of is too big), a single definition, and one point. In conclusion this debate truly is stupid. (seriously, I made 3 debates based on this single topic. How dumb is that? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: That circus animal entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned. because Circus animal entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned for the plain and obvious reason that we are more civilized and must realize that an anthropocentric attitude is morally wrong as well. To further clarify this debate round; circus: an arena often enclosed in a tent or building for performances by acrobats, TRAINED ANIMALS, clowns, etc animal:any such organism other than a human being, esp. a mammal or, often, any four-footed creature (in this debate, we will be referring to MAMMALS) entertainment:something that entertains; interesting, diverting, or amusing thing; esp., a show or performance ANTHROPOCENTRISM: 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience. My first point is that animals do indeed have rights and share the same moral prerequisites for rights as humans do. But lets back up a bit. Why should we deem animals to have moral rights? Simply for exactly the same reason we deem people TO have rights: because each has an inherent value, for himself or herself, are not, like property, value merely as a means to others' ends. But most animals are, like people, sentimental creatures who feel pain just like you and me. Then animals too should be deemed to have rights-rights that not be sacrificed or violated merely for human benefit. In other words, animals feel pain just like you and me. FEDERAL LAWYER by Henry Cohen And I will be proving as well that the anthropocentric philosophy is wrong because lets face it, there are other things out there in the world. WE share this great big planet with billions of other creatures and the act of torturing animals to make them do tricks for OUR entertainment is plain wrong and morally unacceptable. Lets face the cold hard facts; The fact is, animals do not naturally ride bicycles, stand on their heads, balance on balls, or jump through rings of fire. To force them to perform these confusing and physically uncomfortable tricks, trainers use whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, bullhooks, and other painful tools of the trade. We applaud trapeze artists, jugglers, clowns, tightrope walkers, and acrobats, but let's leave animals in peace. Sweden, Austria, Costa Rica, India, Finland, and Singapore have all banned or restricted the use of animals in entertainment—it's time for the U.S. to do the same. http://www.circuses.com... and now to end on a final note for this round; "The idea that it is funny to see wild animals coerced into acting like clumsy humans, or thrilling to see powerful beasts reduced to cringing cowards by a whip cracking trainer is primitive and medieval. It stems from the old idea that we are superior to other species and have the right to hold dominion over them." —Dr. Desmond Morris, anthropologist, animal behaviorist, author *ps: con can debate whichever style suits them. this is my first debate online. and now I wait for the NEGATIVE :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Video Rap Battle: My Ex Is Worse Than Yours because I'd like to thank my wonderful and formidable opponent for extending this most excellent challenge my way. Surely this will be a debate of epic proportions (I know at least I will be highly entertained). I think the only rules for this debate should be no lying... not that we need to exaggerate the extent of our ex-girlfriend's atrociousness. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications on how the voters should distribute their votes accordingly: 1. Who you agreed with before the debate - Vote Pro, cuz she's cute 2. After the debate, judge based on creativity and rhyme structure 3. As for conduct, I think those with the best insults should win this point 4. Spelling and grammar should be translated to lyrical flow (delivery) 5. Convincing arguments... self-explanatory (whose ex sounds worse) 6. As for sources, please refer to our lyrical content, which will be posted conveniently in R4 I'd also like to wish my amusing and talented girlfriend the best of luck... this will be fun :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I can post the funniest videos. because http://youtu.be... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The cosmological argument is evidence for a God because Interesting. This will be fun^_^ Happy new year to debate.org! Hello, and thank you for accepting my debate. I will start by rebutting your arguments. You seemed to have put words in my mouth stating that I made certain assumptions, altering definition of God. "God is claimed not to be part of the universe" - I never said that. "Pro assumes that there was a God that always existed prior to the universe, therefore he admits that it is possible for something to always exist." - I didn't say he always existed. "Note that as defined by Pro, "God" has no properties other than being an 'uncaused cause' for the creation of universe." - Instead you should have taken out the 'uncaused cause' part. :| "1. Pro claims "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." In the current state of human understanding, it is not known whether or not everything has a cause." No, its simple logic. 1+1=2. 1+1 does not equal 3. Basically what your saying is that 1+1 may = 3, we just lack the intellectual constructs to comprehend how. In the case of this debate, its causality. What would exempt the universe from simple causality? "There are at least two possibilities: (1) the universe began to exist and (2) the universe always existed" (1) Then your agreeing with me and therefore proving my point. Its part 1 of the cosmological argument (2) An infinite chain of events with no beginning or end eh? I guess we lack the constructs to comprehend that as well. "No will, intent, or design is implied. Thus as defined, "God" is no more than a particular property of nature." BINGO God doesn't have to be a deity, a being, but simply the cause of the universe. My opponent has yet to prove how the cosmological argument is not how evidence for a God. By a God, I simply mean the cause of the universe, and my opponent cannot explain how an uncaused cause can occur, so my contentions still stand. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with zelda better then final fantasy because ok then I thank you for thy rebuttal. Well in my case I have a lot to answer for on this one I mean shure they are both the same but have you ever heard of entertainment my friend. Well there's alot to say I would love to say that I am a Zelda fan but I will play ff once and a while, it is not nearly as fun based as Zelda and I believe that ff would not nearly be the same as Zelda. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution because In this debate I intend to show Hitler's views using only Mein Kampf and, if applicable, Hitler's speeches. This is because there are authenticity issues with Tischgespräche, the Table Talks. The French translator, which the English translation is based on, inserted text that is not in the German, and also made omissions.[1] Since it is impractical to refer to the German text, I will leave out the Table Talks unless my opponent refers to them, even though several sections (in both English and the original German) support my side. 1. Hitler was a creationist Hitler believed that kinds were fixed: "The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens." He saw nature as upholding his view of non-mixing between kinds (and races): "Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc."[1] He believed that man was created by a Creator: "On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth. To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."[2] "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."[3] These views of Hitler's are incompatible with Darwin's theory. 2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory. Hitler had a negative view of variety in a species: "The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: Lowering of the level of the higher race; Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."[1] Darwin's theory of evolution requires variety in a breeding population so that "natural selection will then accumulate all profitable variations, however slight, until they become plainly developed and appreciable by us."[4] Variety within species becomes variety of species: "As each species tends by its geometrical ratio of reproduction to increase inordinately in number; and as the modified descendants of each species will be enabled to increase by so much the more as they become more diversified in habits and structure, so as to be enabled to seize on many and widely different places in the economy of nature, there will be a constant tendency in natural selection to preserve the most divergent offspring of any one species. Hence during a long-continued course of modification, the slight differences, characteristic of varieties of the same species, tend to be augmented into the greater differences characteristic of species of the same genus."[5] Hitler wanted the opposite of variety: "In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind."[6] Hitler believed that humanity progressed, "like climbing an endless ladder"[1] The theory of evolution holds that species only adapt relative to those around them. "As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates;" Nature cares nothing for human standards: "Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness."[7] 3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf. Darwin's name is absent from Mein Kampf. Nowhere does Hitler even use the terms “Evolutionslehre” (Evolution), “Abstammungslehre” (Evolutionary theory), “Deszendenz-Theorie” (Theory of Descent), or any word that obviously refers to evolutionary theory. 4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, added to their banned list "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."[8] 5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Social Darwinism is not the ideas of Charles Darwin as espoused in On the Origin of Species . Darwin's idea is that whatever is best adapted to the environment it finds itself in will survive. Social Darwinism is the idea of killing so that certain individuals do not survive. On the Origin of Species gives no mandate or encouragement to kill certain individuals. Indeed, before the killers willingly changed the environment by killing, those best adapted to the environment included those deemed unfit by Social Darwinism, because previously they had survived and reproduced. In Social Darwinism, who is "unfit" is arbitrarily decided by the killers. Social Darwinism no more reflects the theory of evolution than any other murderous practice. Darwinism is purely descriptive. It cannot provide a clue as to who, if anyone, should be killed by other men. It is unfortunate that the name Social Darwinism was adopted, it should have been named after its true founder Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level and indeed it is inappropriate to do so. Social Drwinism is neither a reflection nor a development of evolutionary theory. It is its own justification for murder that co-opted Darwin's name. [1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chap XI http://www.hitler.org... [2] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap II http://www.hitler.org... [3] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap X http://www.hitler.org... [4] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Variorum text, ebook). pp 279 http://tinyurl.com... [5] On the Origin of Species. pp734 http://books.google.co.uk... [6] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap I http://www.hitler.org... [7] On the Origin of Species. pp737 http://books.google.co.uk... [8] http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. because So it seems I've taken the resolution a little off-topic from where the instigator intended for it to go. Very well, I do not think it will hurt my case or my position in this debate -- As Con, I must prove why advocates of universal health care should NOT also be advocating for universal food, shelter or clothing. Got it. Well consider R1 to be a detailed explanation of why advocates of UHC are calling for it in the first place, and they are not "nuts" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change. In terms of this debate, Pro has asked that I explain the so-called inconsistency of singling out health care by wanting to make health care universal, whereas other basic human needs like food and clothing are above health care in terms of the hierarchy of necessity, yet people aren't advocating for socialized shelter. First, as I've pointed out, universal food, shelter and clothing are already provided to those in need by the government. Pro notes, "But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally." This is true; one must qualify and meet the living standards deemed appropriate to receive "free" food and shelter. However this is because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone but those who are deemed in dire need. #1 - Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation. Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France). #2 - One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars, putting families into debt and/or causing them to seek no treatment at all (which may cost them their health/lives). Prescription drugs, operations or other medical procedures, doctor visits, etc. are all a lot more expensive than these basic needs, especially because there are often no alternatives. ... For instance, if I broke a bone and needed surgery, there is no getting around that. But if I'm hungry and can't afford a gourmet meal or even a fast food meal, there's always the option of buying a bag of Ramen noodles for 25 cents, or in a moment of desparation, even taking left-over food out of the trash (such as some homeless people often resort to). However while one can build a make-shift place to live (even from a cardboard box) and survive, one cannot perform heart surgery on themselves, for instance, thus making health care a greater need. The same example applies to buying a t-shirt at a craft store for $2 as opposed to an Armani shirt for $200. Third, keep in mind that not only the impoverished can benefit from universal health care. The middle class often cannot afford health insurnace while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing. Thus my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none. While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care. So again, offering universal food, clothing and shelter would turn us into a communist nation. We already have programs that offer assistance in these areas to those in dire need. However the establishment of universal health care would NOT turn us into a communist nation. Instead, it would eliminate the high cost charged by insurance companies, and we'd pay less money for (at least) equal or better health care. Everyone would receive this benefit - not just the rich, and not just the poor. Keep in mind that making health care universal could/would probably increase the salary one earns, because offering health insurance would no longer be a perk of a job offer. They'd have to find other incentives to reward their employees with. Hmm. All-in-all, I have pointed out why universal health care is a good idea, while offering universal food, clothing and shelter is not. Universal health care would SAVE people money, whereas the taxation from all of those other goods would cost people money. It also just doesn't make sense in general, whereas universal health care does make sense. So basically, even if you don't agree with universal health care, that's fine... but to say that supporters of UHC should also support other universal programs is presumptious and frankly kind of absurd. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Zoo's are bad for animals. because Sounds great. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is homosexuality wrong? because " you asserted that humans have somehow 1/2 of each genders- by what word do you mean by "genders"? Gender is more of a social convention- the word better to be fitted here is "sex"- a biological definition for "gender"." I said no such thing. I said that humans share their gender with 1/2 of the human population. 1/2 of the world is male, 1/2 is female. "Yes, gender or more of so sex, is unique, again you missed the point I am trying to prove." No, you missed my point. "So if I act effeminate most of the time, does that question my heterosexuality? Maybe, but it does not dismiss the point that I am biologically male and am man because of that. Because of that, I will act like a man according to my biological trait." This directly contradicts what you just said about how a man can act effeminate. "Second rebuttal, you have set up a straw-man argument. I am not saying it is immoral to have delusions, rather I am saying there is a crystal clear difference between acting like a girl in appropriate environment like in a comedy shows and a man who seriously thinks and is persuaded enough that he is not a "man"." Firstly, this is transvestitism, not homosexuality. And, this doesn't make it morally wrong. "Is having a delusion immorality? Probably," No "but mostly unnecessary to have. You missed the point I am making here, sure, homosexuality is not transsexuality." My opponent contradicts his own argument. He claims homosexuality is not transsexuality, but rather that it is believing you are a gender that is different from your biological sex. "But both are a clear violation and twisted perversion of the natural sex endowed in us humans. Both are concepts founded that defies that of the natural sexes and goes out of the boundaries established between a man and a woman." This argument is only valid if one already believes homosexuality is wrong. This is begging the question. "Third point I am making here is to show that on what basis do we justify the behaviour of homosexuality?" Because it is harmless on its own. "What everyone believes about it? So what if one day, everybody believes murder is okay and so does rape? Does that then make it a "right"? No, no matter what the majority says, it is not always implied to be correct." My opponent is asking me to defend claims I never made. I never said homosexuality is moral because it is accepted by society. "Second, you made again an error, normality is based on morality which in turn based on the Definitive Standard of Good. To redefine what is moral is not based on what one amy think of "normal" but inserting their own standard of morality." Exactly like the Abolitionists did, snd exactly like Jesus himself did. "If homosexuality is justified, what stops us from justifying rape, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia and such acts?" The fact that all those acts have a victim. "but the term which I am looking for really is the boundary of the Natural Sex of each person. To go beyond that boundary of your sexuality will result in a defiance and resistance against that of the body you are created in." While not explicitly religious, this has a very heavy founding on religious concepts and so I will ignore it. "Emotions are subjective- your emotions can change from being hateful to being delighted and then to sorrow." This doesn't make them subjective. I can lose 200 pounds, but that doesn't mean what I weigh is subjective. "If they be not subjective- then are they objective or not?" Yes! "Also what makes you say that 'You either have them or you don't' of that of emotions? So you do not know whether you too have you own emotions?" Where did this come from?! "Are you agnostic about the existence of emotions?" No... "So you cannot feel how you feel or what your emotions tell you? It is clear that every one on this planet has somehow emotions that they contain, to say you're emotionless is too an emotion." Of course I have emotions! Stop putting words in my mouth! I meant that one either feels a particular emotion or doesn't. One is either happy or not happy, sad or not sad, etc. "you admitted that thoughts can be controlled, so will you also admit that thoughts can be thought up as well?" This doesn't follow. "To say that a thought is not a choice is a bending of the definition of what a choice is. I can think up a thought or not think up a thought." A choice means you have control. I can be hit by a car or not get hit by a car, but that doesn't mean I choose whether I get hit by a car. "I did not "assume" homosexuality is wrong, I am just affirming the Bible's stance that homosexuality is wrong." You argued that homosexuality is wrong because it is. You assumed it. "Yes, all forms of presuppositions are circular." But in a debate, one should not make presuppositions. "It repeatedly affirms both homosexual behaviour is wrong both in the Testaments." Religious argument, ignored. 'Also the claims of Scripture are also consistent with what we can see in the world. There is order and complexity and beauty in Nature, which points to Scripture that of the beauty and order of creation. Too, it gives the meaning of being able to judge on various issues based on the authority of Scripture- instead of relying on ever-changing opinions of fallible men." Not only a religious argument but a laughable one at that. "Yes, you are right, homosexuals suffer more from diseases than heterosexuals and prone to sexually infectious diseases." I already gave an alternate, more plausible explanation for this. "No, in the society of which Jesus lived in. The Jews had knowledge of this called "Universal Love" from the second great commandment, 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself'- Lev 19:18. Also, too was an account of David sparing Saul even he knew that Saul is going to kill him. A subtle hint to 'Love your enemies...' of Jesus. What Jesus was doing is trying to explain the teachings in OT and their true meaning." But his society was not a Jewish one. "Of course this is not an argument because everyone bullies, you're right. But this is to show that the LGBT community is not what they profess to be for "equality" or "tolerance" as they too bully and suppress other groups not agreeing with them." Nonsense, just because a few LGBT people bully doesn't mean they're all against equality. "Note on your sarcastic comment, this is clearly an ad hominem directed towards of dismissing it and being "sarcastic" to it. You fell to an ad hominem fallacy." You have no idea what an "ad hominem" is. I didn't insult you, so it's not an ad hominem. "Yes boycott is a protest tactic, but what the LGBT doing is suppression, not protest." No, it's protest. "You refuted that there is no harm? So you ignored those links and sources that I have posted without reading them (especially medical reports about this homosexuality)." No, I addressed them, I just showed there are more plausible explanations. "So if I think about stealing an old woman's purse it it not wrong? So if I think of helping people, is that wrong?" Neither of those is wrong. "The only support you have for justifying thoughts are not choice is how you define it to be." Now my opponent asserts this while ignoring my arguments. "You also have to realise that if you ignore religious arguments, by what justification on why you ignore those then?" I don't believe in any religion. "You also have to ignore of trying to post ad hominem-seemingly attacks upon me or my position" I have made no ad hominem. And while I haven't attacked you, I have every right to attack your position-that is what makes it a debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best Yo Mamma Joke because Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her. Yo mama is so old that I told her to act her own age, and she died. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize because Throughout my opponent arguments he has shown a number of contradictions which I wish to expose during this round. On one hand my opponent has constantly referred to exit exams just certifying "basic competence" and allowing people who fail it to have it "retaken at regular intervals". On the other hand in his response to my contention [C] he argues for raising the standard on exit exams. Throughout his arguments he keeps advocating to make tests harder while at the same time making them easier. As I've proven even raising the standards have no effect. The problem is the test themselves. "Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams AND in states with higher competency exit exams." [A] He goes on to claim that stress helps students. I strongly dispute this claim as it has been proven that learning under stressful conditional conditions impairs just that, learning. [1, Figure 2] Pro goes onto to continue to say that the test can "be repeated many times". But if a student continues to repeat a test with the sole purpose of passing are they really learning? It becomes this rhythmic process where students just try to learn the answer; A, B, C, or D rather then learn the information. Pro attempts to refute the fact that the exam does not have a significant factor on a students life. Then I ask you about the girl from Minnesota who would've lost an entire year of her life having to repeat a grade she didn't need to because someone messed up grading a test. [B] The statement "What isn't tested doesn't exist." is actually quote from my article http://www.education.com... from the previous round, written and sourced by TEACHERS. As I've mentioned throughout my arguments there is reduced funding and time spent on other subjects when there is standardized testing. (Round 1) For the third time I'll repeat that 6% of our employment comes from the arts; it's far to important to ignore. Let me leave you with another quote from that article: "At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are told not to teach social studies and science until March." Sounds to me like it doesn't exist. [C] "I previously offered evidence that the high school degree is viewed as meaningless by employers, and it remains meaningless if exit exams do not do their job." True, but you also ignored my point I put out last round which I'll repeat for you. "As I've said before 2/3 of students are already taking exit exams, and seeing as you said employers do not think diplomas mean anything, that would seem to support the fact that standardized testing does not mean anything. Simply put: Employers do not think diplomas mean anything. 2/3 of Students with diplomas have had to of passed a exit exam. Therefore employers do not think passing an exit exam means anything." [D] The problem with tests is that you can't always test what it important. What is important varies from person to person. If I want to become a graphic designer then that is what is important to me. Standardized tests are this "one size fits all." mentality that doesn't work in today's schools or economy. Teachers should be free to pass someone if they adequately show they have excel in what's important to them and have shown they have learned. That's the point of school after all isn't it? There are a multitude of ways to do this such as student projects, portfolios, essays, and class discussions. [E] Responded to in point [D]. [F] Take note my opponent has admitted has admitted tests have "poor test questions having ambiguous answers". She had the knowledge, but the test was a poor way to assess it. As I've stated before why should we risk are children's education when there are so many better ways to teach and assess knowledge! The luck component was strong because for a multitude of reasons as I've stated throughout the debate. For example : "On the SAT, for example, the test-makers admit that two students' scores must differ by at least 144 points (out of 1600) before they are willing to say the students' measured abilities really differ." [G] Pro it's not my job to sort through your contentions or find them on the net to build your case. If you read the entire article you know what I took out of the article and referenced. "Despite this spending, the United States ranked fifteenth among the thirty-one countries that participated in the OECD's 2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading exam. Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand were among those that outperformed us while spending far less per pupil. " This also refutes the point that they do not test language. Pro claims that we should follow Asian countries,but that is not far of a comparison rather then comparing us to Europe. Not only do they privatize schools , but it's ingrained in their culture that they are hard workers. [3] "I will agree that standardized testing is not the most important element of education." That's the problem thought. When you have standardized test it becomes the most important element of education. We need to let teachers do what they were hired for. Teacher. And we need to let students do what they should. Learn. Standardized testing impedes on this. I think voters should also note all of my 7 contentions stand while my opponent has infused his 3 contention in rebuttals. Sources [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [2] http://www.fairtest.org... [3]http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:6B6W8fx02QEJ:www.iiisci.org/journal/CV%24/sci/pdfs/ZZ531YV.pdf+asian+work+ethic+study&cd;=1&hl;=en&ct;=clnk≷=us <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women don't poop. because First round is acceptance. This is a joke debate, for those of you who were too stupid to tell. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing because I will first start by vehemently disagreeing with my opponent's first point about Bush being ill-informed regarding the iminent al Qaeda threat. This is simply untrue. My opponent and other Bush supporters can claim this all they want, however, there is SOLID EVIDENCE... PROVEN FACTS... that say otherwise. In this instance, I will quote Richard Clarke, a *presidential adviser* who spoke to Bush directly on NUMEROUS occasions regarding al Qaeda and terrorism. "Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject." Thus, if my opponent notes that a Presiden't cabinet is appointed for him to gain insight on things he may not know a great deal about, wouldn't you agree that the President after being warned time and time again (cited and supported by dozens of Presidential Advisers and CIA and FBI intelligent in the Pentagon) would hold a meeting with his Cabinet and discuss the situation at hand? Afterall, that's what Clinton had done. PROOF: "'George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August.' Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House. Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations - meaning they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day." So, from this conspiracy theory-free source, we can see how Bush failed to take proper action against probable threats. Con is foul for trying to put the blame on Rumsfeld and Cheney. They are not and were not Bush's only advisers or even appointed to deal with specific terror threats like Richard Clarke was. Also, the Clinton comparison is a good way to refute my opponent's next invalid claim, "He had no power at all. It would be like someone giving you a note saying 'You might get stabbed by someone sometime'…what are you supposed to do about that? Say prayers…" -- Are you saying the President should rely on prayer to defend this country and protect its citizens? No. The President should be holding meetings left and right with his Cabinet, the FBI, the CIA, and other experts and advisers to come up with the appropriate response to ensure this government does all it can to protect its people. Not go on vacation for an entire month, such as Bush's rendezvous throughout the entire month of August, right before the 9/11 attacks. (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com... ) Leaving the issue of terrorism and 9/11 behind, let us move on to my opponent's next point. "It is not unreasonable to suggest that Bush would have been an excellent economic president if the 911 attacks and the war in Iraq hadn't ever occurred. The economy was, after all, the issue he was elected on. Had he just focused on the economy and never had to deal with tragic foreign issues, he may be going down today as a successful president." To rebut the first two sentences of this claim, I wish to remind the readers that Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative when it comes to the economy as most Republicans are. In fact, Bush's approval rating from members of his own party is extremely low because of his big budget spending. If Bush's policies do not reflect that of the party he is representing, then he is not a good candidate. Furthermore, have you ever heard of multi-tasking? I agree that the President is only one person who cannot be everywhere or know everything at once. Con has pointed out that this is the logic behind a President having a Cabinet and other influential advisers including economists. Now because the President appoints these people, obviously he did a bad job as they have failed the President a great deal. If he is going to rely on these people to help him make decisions, he should select *competent* people who uphold his values - not a guy like Rumsfeld whom my opponent blames for 9/11 and other bad foreign policy decisions. That is not to say that I expect every President to be 100% perfect. However I also do not expect a President to be wrong 99% of the time either. In response to my opponent's claim that a number of the American people supported Bush's decision to go to war, I have two answers for that. First, that was probably Bush's intention all along - to intentionally disregard information regarding al Qaeda; a terrorist attack on American soil would almost guarantee citizen support for going to war. This fits nicely with my second point: fear-mongering. Bush and his administration did and still does use scare tactics to gain support for his unnecessary war. Luckily Americans woke up and saw what Bush had done. I feel I must respond to a huge portion of what my opponent has said in the last round. "I believe these [domestic] blunders are the result of neglect caused by the foreign wars. Also, the increase in spending is equally the responsibility of two parts. First, the Iraqi War, something bush could have handled better. Second, I would argue that most of the spending is the result of domestic issue that are largely unavoidable." He then went on to cite problems such as Baby Boomers and SS and uninsured patients. He notes, "These are issue that could have been handled better had Bush not been distracted by the 911 attacks and the Iraq war." Ok, first I'm glad that my opponent recognizes Bush's mistakes at least in regard to the war in Iraq. Second I would like to point out that Bush did not HAVE to put "all of his attention" into foreign affairs. This could have easily been avoided if 1) He listened to his advisers and prevented 9/11 from occuring in the first place, and 2) He chose not to go to war with Iraq. If going to war meant ignoring domestic issues, I'm sure a lot of Americans would have thought twice. Not to mention Bush should have thought twice and made better attempts at keeping the peace at least here at home. In conclusion, Con attempts to list a number of Bush "successes" - each of wish are comical to say the least. For instance, No Child Left Behind is severely flawed and ineffective (Source: http://www.cod.edu... ). Also, to say that our country is secure is completely fallacious and absurd. OUR BORDERS ARE NOT SECURE (Source: http://www.humanevents.com... )! Plus, how can my opponent have the audacity to proclaim that he responded very well and quickly to the attacks on 9/11? Bush swore to capture Osama bin Ladin dead or alive. Guess what, it's 7 years later and it hasn't happened yet. Just like all of Bush's other broken promises. And to thank Bush for the largest number of military enlistments over the past 30 years is also really ignorant. How about, umm, because we're at war? Fear-mongering, lying about Iraqi pleas for help, and personal feelings of patriotism have spurred military enlistment - not Bush (except the fear-mongering part which is a BAD thing). Plus, since so many people are impoverished in this country, enlisting is a good economic incentive. Bush doesn't care about the lives of his citizens as long as his goals get accomplished. Anyway, I don't know George W. Bush personally and therefore cannot attribute to his character. All I know are the facts about his choices during his tenure as President, and from that I can gather - as well as everyone else - that Bush was a BAD CANDIDATE for the Presidency. He may be an okay guy, but he has failed America. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with School Year Extension because The first round is just Acceptance. I started this from seeing an argument between politicalwiz and spritle. I hated seeing politicalwiz lose 0 to 88. I am reopening this. I hope to show you all why extending it is the right thing to do. I hope to see enthusiasm from my opponent. I want this to be a good debate, or as I shall call it a Battle for Greater Education. I can't wait for it to begin. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pie is Better than Cake because I assert that pie is better than cake. The debate will be 4 rounds. R1 - Acceptance R2 - Opening arguments R3 - Rebuttals/further arguments R4 - Rebuttals/conclusion Burden of proof is shared. Burden of defining 'better' is shared. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should diabetes be allowed to eat peanut butter? because Ok then... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because As there are religious groups and pro-life people who have arguments pertaining to the ethical side, they are missing all the advantages. To help make the groups be more comfortable there is an alternative option which is Natural Cycle IVF. In Natural Cycle IVF, no medication is used so the cycle can only produce one mature egg at a time during menstruation instead of using multiple eggs so no embryos/lives will be "thrown away" ("Stimulated IVF vs Natural Cycle IVF." Stimulated vs Natural Cycle IVF| Shady Grove Fertility. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.). This then won't allow people to clone or pick the traits they want like on a catalog. If someone wants to go through with stimulated IVF, instead of donating the eggs they offer freezing them so they won't be fertilized and technically aren't life then yet ("The advantages and disadvantages of IVF." 27 Apr. 2016). Many people overlook one big advantage IVF displays with genetic screening of embryos with PGS and PGD. Pre-implantation genetic diagnose (PGD) allows scientist to check for certain genetic disorders like Huntington Disease to make sure the child conceived wont suffer. Pre-implantation genetic screening allows scientist to check the chromosomes of the embryo for any chromosomal disorders ("The advantages and disadvantages of IVF." 27 Apr. 2016). This further allows scientist to look at embryos for research to see ways to prevent these genetic and chromosomal disorders if the embryos are donated to research. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with COD is better then Halo because I believe that COD is better then Halo because Halo is just getting boring to be honest all you do through the game is just fight aliens in COD at least they change it up a little and change the setting when you play multi player in COD its amazing going around doing different things in Halo's multi its not as fun either <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Undertaker could defeat spongebob because "He says spongebob can't be on land for long, well the only reason he died in the movie was he was held up to a lamp." Exactly how does this add to the argument at hand? I only used it to justify the reason for my parameters. "choke slam is a move that several wrestlers use by picking their opponent up by the throat and slamming them on the ground. Tombstone argument, spongebob is a soft guy, therefore I almost guarantee that Undertaker will break something." My opponent did not attack my previous attacks on his original statement meaning that he agrees that despite the fact that spongebob is soft, his abilities allows him to absorb the impact of massive forces. "my opponent says Undertaker never fought a cartoon character before, well he is wrong due to the WWE All-Stars he's fought presidents" Lets get this straight, When my opponent started this debate, I assumed he meant the real Undertaker and the cartoon Spongebob. I presume that this was also the voters thoughts through out the course of the debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against communism doesnt work because My dear laissez-faire friend. You failed to refute any of my arguments and thus, I will post them again. Your only argument makes no sense. The government owns a significant portion of the economy in capitalist countries as well, that doesn't mean that everyone has the same salary... Again. I request that you refute my arguments. 1. The definition of communism: 'Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods' [1] 2. Let me explain the natural progression of society, something that Marx called historical determinism. You see; society always moves in the way that is driven by social change and class struggle. Preceding communism is socialism, which is the system that you (although poorly) described above. Everything is put into the collective; however, your assertion that the people will abuse it is preposterous. All holdings are put into the collective on the part of the state, the state collectivizes all means of production, enabling for the workers to access it. This simply means that the workers would own the means of production through the state. This simply means that everyone would own everything together. Communism is a period that is enacted after socialism has done its job (collectivizing the means of production). Communism is the final period of social liberation, the final step of historical development. In communism, the state slowly withers away as class struggles are abolished. There has never been, and there never will be, a communist state, because communism entails the absence of a state as a repressive instrument of the bourgeois. A communist state cannot exist as that is in and of itself a contradiction. There can not be a period of communism so long as there is a state. 3. Now we come to the main argument that the right-wing laissez-faire capitalists like you tend to make: 'Everyone receives the same salary' This is absurd. Communism and socialism both entail that the means of production belong to society, not the wealthy bourgeois. Now, I agree, since private property is abolished so is the chance of making extraordinary amounts of wealth. But those amounts are not needed in communist society: in communist society, there is not currency. What you are referring to is socialism. The resolution is fallacious on its own. Doctors will still make more than sanitation workers; Why? Because they put more into the collective and they get more out of the collective. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, as Marx put it. That's it for the refutation, now let's get into why capitalism doesn't work and why socialism-communism is an ideal solution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The contradictions of exchange and use values. Commodities are produced for their use value and yet distributed for their exchange value. In other (simpler) words, you produce a loaf of bread for someone to buy it and then eat it. You produce it so someone will buy it and they buy it so they can eat it. 2. The law of value creates exploitation. As labour is not inherently worth anything on its own, it must go into the production of commodities, which are worthless without labour. Labour's worth adheres to the worth of commodities and vice versa. Human labour has no value on its own. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists. because I thank my opponent for posting this debate. "If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists." This is the resolution; I argue in contradiction to this. I contend that there is no necessary connection between the extinction of lemons and the rise of aardvark extremism. Just btw, I rather like that phrase; "Aardvark extremism"... It has a bewildering resonance to it; perfect for use in casual conversation. :) "Contention 1: Aardvarks have a mean streak. See the video in the side." I did, and turned it off in disgust. Your point is made; we see an aardvark being evil. But I call my audience's attention to the crucial fact that it is an animated aardvark, not a real one. Some human animated that short, and I suspect that another human edited it to increase the violence shown. The true evil is in the actions of the humans, not in the actions of any aardvark. Here, you may see five videos showing the true nature of aardvarks (Orycteropus afer), a peaceful and timid species that does not condone evil of any kind: http://www.arkive.org... "Contention 2: Lemons are the source of all happiness." His source here seems pretty convincing. It's hard to deny the happiness radiating from that lemon; but I have solid evidence that lemons are not the sole source of happiness. Here are pictures of several other excellent sources of happiness, should lemons become extinct: http://farm4.static.flickr.com... http://farm4.static.flickr.com... http://farm4.static.flickr.com... http://farm4.static.flickr.com... Here's an example of community aiding happiness: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... And here are some sources of happiness that are also excellent sources of water: http://www.preservationnation.org... http://home.fuse.net... "Could you say no to that adorable little face?" I say NO to that ugly little mug. "If you can, you are a NAZI." So? You got something against Nazis, pal? "Contention 3: Nazis hate lemons and aardvarks." Of course. It's in our nature. This has nothing to do with rogue members of the Orycteropus family going over the edge and strapping bombs to themselves. "Contention 4: Textbooks do not provide valid information for nuclear physicists." If we have a nuclear war, it's all your fault. We Nazis have never sought conflict; it's you obstinate folk that refuse to accept our benevolent leadership that cause all the problems... This point too, although uncontested, is irrelevant. -------- Conclusion: None of my opponent's points have any bearing on the possibility of aardvark terrorists. Besides which, my opponent hates Nazis and aardvarks. A vote for Con is a vote against irrational hatred. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership because Silver Eagle Distributors, the largest Anhueser Busch distributor in the world, is located in Texas. Also in Texas are 112 different microbrew companies and brewpubs. Around the nation are 56 here in Florida, 52 in GA, 126 in Colorado, 120 in Oregon, 61 in New York, 156 in Washington (state), and in my opponents backyard, California, there are 112. ( http://brewpubzone.com... ) I suppose they didn’t receive his memo that there was no way to be profitable. “There's a lot of good reasons to legalize pot, some hippy pipedream of everybody making infinite profits off a market traded good, you could grow in your backyard, and magically repel corporate interests in this perpetual profit machine, is not one of those reasons.” I don’t remember ever stating anything remotely close to this comment. What I did say is that legalizing pot is a great way to start small business growth and infuse the economy with taxes to help relieve our deficit spending. My opponent just makes things up to justify his point while never once offering any proof or statistics to verify his opinion. I don’t suppose that he has ever done a Market Analysis, SWOT Analysis , or prepared any Business Plan whatsoever because if he did he would know that Supply and Demand have nothing to do with survivability, that is controlled by marketing. I would say that water is abundant (water covers 71% of the Earth's surface) ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) yet I would be willing to bet that even my opponent has a bottle or two in his fridge while also having a water source somewhere in his house and probably another nearby. Supply and demand does not work in this case and boils down to marketing. Even at the local clubs people hook themselves up to oxygen and pay for it while still being able to breath normally after their jaunt. My opponent talks about hemp diminishing the price of marijuana. He has done absolutely ZERO research and this is clear in the fact that industrial hemp has little THC, the key component that gets you “high” and it is the loosely worded drug laws that keep the product from being grown even though certain cultures rely on it for survival, like the HOPI tribe. Tartarizer uses tomatoes as an example and I go back to the fact that again he apparently knows nothing of marijuana. People do not grow or give up on tomatoes because of the high cost of pesticides you have to buy to keep them alive. Marijuana has THC a natural insect repellent that tomatoes lack though they both grow with relative ease and minimum fertilizer. I have clearly illustrated my point throughout this debate and have provided facts, statistics and examples of business models of the past that would easily transfer to business of “pot” while my opponent has stated opinion and rhetoric the entire time and offering no sources for his argument. My statement was that legalizing marijuana wld be a spark for small business growth and it inevitably would be. In business some succeed and some fail and not every one can be successful but conversely not everyone can fail so long as there is a dream and a plan. I now leave my opponent with the opportunity to close and look forward to the results <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pokeban because Pokeballs: As my opponent provides no actual warrants as to the comfort of Pokeballs, it must be assumed that their small size and rigid casing contribute to discomfort. Thus Pokeballs are not only a prison, but an exceedingly unpleasant one. Disturbed Children: No, we will not assume that the Pok�mon audience is of fit and stable mind. Even if these disturbed children compose a mere 1 percent of the population, this 1 percent will still be inclined to commit cruel acts against animals. Dragon Ball Z: Yes, both are fantasy worlds, but the realism of acts committed in either world is vastly different. As I have said, Dragon Ball Z consists largely of ridiculous, and exceedingly strange battles. Pok�mon presents the real world acts of poaching and animal abuse, and additionally, portrays them in a positive light. My opponent has not refuted the influence which Pok�mon has upon children. Therefore, this argument stands: Exposing young children to a television show which espouses such acts will ultimately lead some of them to commit acts of animal abuse, and hold perverse world views. Finally, my opponent presents little more than defensive arguments, with no actual contentions of his own. Therefore, my impacts vastly outweigh his nonexistent ones. I stand in firm Proposition of this resolution. Thank you for reading. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them. because I thank my opponent for his response and will now make my counterpoints. My response shall be organized as such: 1. Preliminary notes 2. Recap of Epistemology I and response to Epistemology II 3. Recap of Fossil Evidence Interpretation I and response to Fossil Evidence Interpretation II 4. Recap of Transitional Fossils I and response to Transitional Fossils II 5. Conclusion PRELIMINARY NOTES: My opponent's response is lacking in many aspects. 1. My opponent has not responded to the various logical fallacies I have pointed out, nor has he commented on any of the sources that I provided, nor has he commented on the scientific data I have shown to completely contradict what he says. 2. My opponent's last round simply clarified all of his arguments in his opening, without taking into account any of my rebuttals. I will point out that it is not my fault that my opponent decided to waste an entire round by ignoring most if not all of my points, and as this is a three round debate, I reserve the right to make new arguments in the third round if my opponent decides to delay his responses all to the next round. 3. My opponent is trying to move the goalposts. He has stated that the three reasons he provided in the opening are each individually, reasons that Evolution is false. My opponent has conceded the debate with this sentence: "My first reason, if understood will break down evolution into a million pieces, not saying evolution is false but untrustworthy." To say something is false is completely different from saying that something is untrustworthy. RECAP OF EPISTEMOLOGY I AND RESPONSE TO EPISTEMOLOGY II Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument as it stands was about trusting our senses: "how can we trust our eyes, nose, ears, touch and taste?" I have offered the explanation that our senses are fallible. My opponent has responded by changing his argument to say that if we evolved from lower life forms, our knowledge and thus, our theory of evolution itself would be flawed. His alternate explanation is that Intelligence is somehow divine. Logical Fallacies: All the same as the last one, because my opponent's "new" response is just a repackaged version of his older one. The overarching theme is epistemology, whether or not a flawed brain can come up with a "trustworthy" theory, be it existence or evolution itself. In Epistemology I, it was sensory perception. In Epistemology II, it is Evolution itself. My opponent switched arguments but luckily, my response was broad enough to cover both. All my sources and the logical fallacies apply to both of my opponent's Epistemological arguments. Nothing is known with absolute certainty and nothing needs to be known with absolute certainty. One additional point needs to be made: The fact that we evolved from single celled organisms does not show that we are "unworthy of knowledge" as my opponent stated. Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent assumes that knowledge must be separate from matter, thus logically reducing to the presence of a supernatural, when the discussion is about the validity of a purely naturalistic theory. RECAP OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION I AND RESPONSE TO FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION II Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument has become broader. He asserts that we cannot make claims on certain things because they are not direct fact, visible in obtained evidence. In addition, he asserts that scientists seek to disprove God as a preliminary goal, and that Evolutionists should ask "why" we exist instead of "how" to begin with. He then brings up global flooding again as an alternate. He also provides "evidence" showing that man and dinosaur coexisted. Logical Fallacies: 1. Flawed Premise All knowledge comes from interpretation of data, not data itself. The question is the extent of interpretation. This source completely addresses my opponent's point about the connection between fossils (evidence) and the things we infer from it (interpretation). http://www.talkorigins.org... See also this source about bias and prejudice. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. Flawed Premise Scientists do not seek to disprove God, nor will they, nor have they ever. This source explains things very well: http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. Begging the Question My opponent suggests that we ask "Why?" Instead of "How?" Asking "why?" assumes that there is inherent meaning and purpose, which reduces down to the assumption that a God exists. The argument is circular and tautological and I urge the audience to reject it. 4. Argumentum ad Nauseum http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent repeats his argument about Global flood when my response as well as my source show that mounds of data are against his unfounded, uncited, and fantastical assumption. 5. Flawed Premise My opponent's three pieces of evidence are all proven to be flawed, debunked, and widely rejected by people, Creationist or not. Here are three articles covering why they are all lies and misinterpretations. http://talkorigins.org... http://talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... RECAP OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS I AND RESPONSE TO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS II Recap and Motive: My opponent suggests that although he does not have any scientific reason to doubt the existence of transitional forms, he bases his conclusion on the fact that kinds cannot switch. He bases this assumption on the fact that no observed instance of this has happened. Logical Fallacies: The exact same as in Round 1. My opponent's argument is basically a response having not read any of my rebuttal. In my last round rebuttal, I have shown via extensively providing sources and logical arguments that my opponent's argument fails in many regards. 1. Semantics I First, my opponent did not comment on my rebuttal on the use of "kind". This is a designation that has absolutely no scientific basis. Assuming that a "kind" is some arbitrary grouping based on physical appearance, there may be many "kinds" in between two other "kinds" that have gone extinct after evolution took place. This is a very common occurrence as intermediates become out-competed by their descendant and ancestor species. 2. Semantics II Transitional fossils, as I have cited in that rather large list, exist. My opponent's argument was against going from "kind" to "kind". As I am citing scientific sources and using scientific terminology, my opponent should not expect my sources to detail and include such things as his imaginary classification of "kind". Thus, he cannot say that "transitional fossils cannot exist", I have given him a giant list. Playing with words cannot change fact. 3. Argument from Ignorance My opponent argues that because we have never seen the change from one kind to another, we cannot assume that it does. However, there is also no reason to assume that it cannot. If I can walk 10 meters, I should be able to walk across 20 meters, 30 meters, 300 meters, or 3 kilometers, unless there are obstacles like a door, wall, moat, or exhaustion, or SOMETHING that would limit the progression. Microevolution was seen, and now, macroevolution has been too. My opponent's argument would only be valid if he gave a reason why an obstacle exists for going from one kind to another, and Argument from Ignorance does not cut it. CONCLUSION My opponent has ignored almost all of my rebuttals in favor of making excessively wordy and uncontributive posts. I find this to be insulting as I pay attention to everything he says. So far, I have shown that his arguments fail completely and that the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response, and hope he will address my arguments next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. because I would also like to thank Zach for accepting my debate! My opponent states that 800 Palestinians have been killed in this battle while only 8 Israelis have been killed. I fail to see how this means that Israel's invasion is unjustified, especially since most of the Palestinians that were killed were members of the terrorist organization known as Hamas. Throughout the history of this conflict, Israel has done its utmost to limit the number of civilian deaths while the terrorists have done their utmost to maximize civilian deaths on both sides. My opponent claims that Israel violated the ceasefire 185 times, which is false. I would like to know where he is getting this information. The ceasefire was broken by Hamas, who continued to launch rockets into Israel in order to kill civilians. Throughout this conflict, we have seen Israel get attacked by terrorist groups only to find that they are condemned whenever they retaliate. Israel is the ONLY nation on this earth that is expected to not defend itself when attacked. Even countries that have acted the same way in similar situations have criticized Israel ie. Turkey. Israel cannot be expected to have rockets launched into its territory every day and take it with a smile. My opponents assertion that Israel doesn't have the right to do anything in the Middle East just because it is not a Muslim country is absurd. EVERY country has the right to defend itself regardless of what their religion is. The statement that Israel would be gone if it weren't for the US is an ignorant statement. Israel was able to defend itself in 1948, 1967, 1973, and against attacks in between without the help of the US. The Arab states that have attacked Israel were given aid by Russia just like we give Israel aid. My opponent claims that Hamas launches rockets because of Israel's blockade, which is another ignorant argument. If the Palestinians would renounce terrorism and give up violence, they wouldn't have to worry about blockades. Even so, the goal of Hamas is not to get Israel to lift the blockade. Hamas' goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with a Muslim state, so the blockade has nothing to do with Hamas' agenda. The history of this conflict shows that it is the Islamic Terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad that keep the violence going. If they would renounce violence, then there would be peace. Israel is perfectly justified in defending itself just as any other country would be. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law because In response to my opponent... Please note that you and me agreed upon stating our opening statements in the second round. That counts as my introduction. In my intro, I had no contentions and no observations. So in my defense, you are incorrect. LD clearly states an intro, contentions, and resolution + conclusion. Overall, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is supposed to be vigilantism. I sense that this was only a tactic used to forbid me from proving anything else. Anyway, this is not a debate of LD formatting. I will state contentions here... Contention 1: Vigilantism violates the constitution. Through out the years, there have been many cases of vigilantism. After the civil war had ended in the 1800th century, many southerners grouped together and formed the KKK (ku klux klan). They were a vigilante group that caused havoc through out the south. The KKK murdered innocent African American civilians in order to perfect the American way and defend the white race. By doing this, they were held account for multiple cases of murder and for the violation of the civil rights of the people. Many other vigilantes exist today even. For example, the Juarez group is a vigilante group in Mexico who have sworn to kill a criminal a day. They have been doing so for years. Placed in ditches were the heads of their victims. Now, when a police officer kills a criminal, it is because a criminal is armed. Not to mention, they are authorized by law to do so. Vigilantes on the other hand, are not. Most of the Juarez's victims were not armed. The Juarez to have caused multiple cases of murder, violated criminal justice, and also violated the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment clearly states that a criminal has the right for a jury and fair trial. The policy for criminal justice is that you are not guilty until the court says so. Contention 2: Vigilantes cannot be trusted. Vigilantes are anyone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. By mentioning anyone, this is the key factor of how vigilantism endangers citizens. For example, in Tennessee, their was a man by the name of Timothy Chandler. He was already arrested for child pornography. Two of his neighbors, otherwise known as vigilantes, decided a way of scaring him by setting a fire off near his house. The fire began to grow at a serious and dangerous rate. Mr. Chandler escaped safely but his wife (who was innocent) was killed because of it. Clearly these vigilantes were not aware of the dangers and consequences who ended up with being charged for murder. Therefore, they were not able to be trusted upon. This is a perfect example of the dangers vigilantism can cause. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I conclude my argument here. Vigilantism is an unconstitutional way of handling the law. Vigilantes like said before, cannot be trusted upon. They are an unreliable source for enforcing the law. Vigilantes are a threat to the people of society. I and many others have not been able to understand how vigilantism can be justified. If professional and trained law officers have failed to enforce the law, what makes anyone think that a group of civilians would do a better job than that of an officer? My resolution is simple, possible, and absolutely more effective than justifying vigilantism. It is the government's job to protect the people of it's country. If the government has failed to enforce the law, then they should simply act upon it. By this I mean reformatting the law enforcement agencies. Simply cops who are unable to do their job should be replaced with more highly effective officers and agents. Regardless whether vigilantism or reformation is more effective, it is fact that either way, there is always going to be crime out there. It is not up to a civilian to decide to take on the law without being trained or being authorized by the government to do so. I conclude my argument and thank my opponent again for this opportunity.... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself in this debate. because My opponent has made several mistakes. Several rules in this debate are: "1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions." CON has done this, but she has also made a list of ten questions in the fourth round. This goes against the rules and results in a defeat. "3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers." CON has not pointed out a single contradiction in any round. Since she has not pointed out a contradiction in the rounds given by the rules, it shows that I have not contradicted myself and results in a Pro vote. Just to explain rule 6: "If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses." The rules only refer to rounds one through three, and do not include round four, so I do not need to respond to the round 4 questions. I heavily urge a Pro vote. My opponent has broken several rules and has not pointed out a single contradiction. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality because ========== Introduction ========== I'd like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate; I agree with all of the proposed definitions and terms. ========== The Microcosm ========== Copenhagen's interpretation loses ground to other interpretations such as Bohm's Interpretation, which is a hidden variable theory. The Bohm interpretation posits that every particle has a definite position and momentum at all times, but we do not usually know what they are, though we do have limited information about them. The particles are guided by the wave function, which follows the Schr�dinger equation. Like the Copenhagen interpretation, the Bohm interpretation is equally confirmed by experimental results. So, both theories have not been disproved as of yet and therefore my proposition is no less logically valid from a physics point of view than Con's. The incomplete nature of quantum physics at this moment can not give either interpretation soundness, but my opponent should know that the Copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation, nor is it at all a proven interpretation - thus thwarting his negation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. It does NOT state that the position and momentum do not exist - simply that they can not be measured. Just because we can't measure them doesn't mean their positions and momentum don't exist, thereby making Con's argument useless. To conclude this point, there is inconclusive evidence that indeterminism exists at the atomic level. Also, the readers should note that my opponent is trying to enforce a physics view of indeterminism - which, by the way, is also against free will existing! ========== The Macrocosm ========== Con's argument asserts, "We have minds that have the ability to contain, process, and analyze information, and based on the analysis of that information, a person can choose freely how to react." This is wrong for two reasons. First, every single action that we commit is a direct result of our brain and the chemical going-ons for which we are not completely in control. For instance, if I am predisposed to schizophrenia, I can't tell myself NOT to be predisposed to schizophrenia. Our brain tells us what to do, how to feel, what to think, etc. Indeed the only reason I can even type this argument is because my brain is communicating with the rest of the muscles in my body via the nervous system allowing my body to follow its commands. Similarly, when a person makes a decision, it is dependent upon their brain. Environment plus biology necessitate your actions. You're just reacting to stimuli; your brain learns reactions as time goes by thus developing personality. We know that personality is part biology (traits determined by genetics) and part environment (experiences and outside stimuli). Now, if our choices are dictated by genetics and stimuli, clearly we have no control over them. We cannot control the genetics that make us who we are, nor the experiences that we have. "Heredity establishes the limits of one's personality traits that can be developed, while the environment - represented by the cultural, social and situational factors - influence the actual development within the limits... Cultural factors are related to the cultural values earned by someone in the course of his/her life, especially during the period when his/her personality is formed. These cultural values have a great impact upon an individual's behavior... Situational factors emphasize or diminish some aspects of one's personality. For example, a person that has experienced recently one failure after another would not wish to be involved in another project - at least for a period of time - even if this particular one might be successful" [1]. As you can see, Con is completely wrong in asserting that we exercise our will over our experiences. The human being is at the mercy of these forces (behavioral factors and genetics), and is simply the instrument through which they are expressed. Con writes, "If a person is on a strict diet, they have a desire or urge to eat to appease the hunger, but may choose not to eat... The choice could go either way, and no prior action can trigger an inevitable reaction in that case. That person was free to choose." This is completely false. The person's choice to not eat would be based on the fact that they're trying to lose weight, therefore their decision was the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Everything in the universe aligned to put the individual in the position to make that necessary and specific decision. Further, Con is wrong in exclaiming, "A person can clear their mind, disregard previous experiences, and make decisions that are not influenced by past experiences. This will enable free choices to be made, regardless of prior external agents or actions." First of all, if you disregard previous occurrences, memories and experiences, then it wouldn't be YOU making the decision. Those are the very things that make up who you are. Additionally, the decision to clear your mind was pre-determined (the inevitable consequence of an antecedent state of affairs). =========== Other Arguments =========== "You can predict that the next domino in line will fall, but if this were true for reality, we should also be able to predict future outcomes in the same manner." I'm surprised that Geo would put forth this idealistic argument. There is far too much information for human beings to be able to predict every future outcome. The individual factors that make up the entire universe are so minute that the human brain could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. Con also says, "Human beings have made many *illogical and irrational* choices. Therefore, under determinism, irrationality and illogicality do not exist and every action is an inevitable, logical reaction to a prior condition." This is a completely straw manned argument. Determinism says no such thing. Geo, please show me where determinism says that human choices can't be irrational. NAY. Determinism merely states that those choices were determined by factors outside of the individual's control, such as prior occurrences or the laws of nature. While we're on the subject of making random stuff up about determinism, I completely reject Co's point that, "Another point to be made is that something may be probable to occur after a certain action, but it cannot be proven that it will happen." I've already explained that the human brain (at least for now) could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. However, in retrospect, we can observe how determinism is valid. ====== Free Will ====== The only "argument" Con presents here is the idea that Sartre is not a determinist. Well, a lot of people aren't determinist. That isn't proof that determinism is false, therefore this was a completely irrelevant and unnecessary aspect of the debate. ======= Conclusion ======= Con concludes by stating that he has demonstrated determinism is not true for quantum particles; however, you can see from my microism rebuttal that this is certainly not the case. Additionally, Con states, "There can sometimes be multiple external agents and multiple possible reactions that a deterministic framework cannot account for." Since all of Con's proposed examples have failed (I have demonstrated how they were determined), I'd like to invite Con to attempt to try and cite more examples of decisions without predetermined factors. Remember, just because one can Google "arguments against determinism" doesn't make their valid arguments sound. [1] http://news.softpedia.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet. because You are accessing this site, audience, via an internet browser. The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has created his profile, issued his topic declaring what debates he'll take, accepted this debate, and typed his acceptance via use of a similar internet browser. Your computer is receiving this data through the HTTP Internet protocol. In order for my opponent to have taken any action regarding this debate he or she has to have accessed the Internet. This is sufficient to demonstrate the resolution. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Viruses are Living organisms because Your argument of movement involves in and out of the cell. Once the virus is inside the cell why would it move out? All it will do is affect adjacent cells, which is what that reference mentions. Your argument in reproduction is flawed. What the virus does is copies it's DNA and then injects it into the DNA of the cell (nucleus). When that happens the DNA in the nucleus will undergo a mutation which in turn will give rise to other viruses. Your argument on stimulus does not cover or reflect on what i have mentioned. What i said is that a healthy cell responds to stimulus. If the nucleus is being hi-jacket and a foreign DNA (viral DNA) then the cell becomes a virus in turn. Its DNA gets overwritten by the viral DNA. See my logic? Energy is the outcome of nutrition. I said they need energy in order to replicate (DNA replication). That requires energy due to all processes requiring energy. Therefore what the virus does is it harvests the energy from the cell. Look at my reference. Excretion argument can be further developed. If the energy harvested is being used or allocated towards DNA replication, and since not all processes are 100% efficient, some excretion or waste (energy waste such as heat) can be generated. Growth.. i will keep it simple. All animate objects (or capable of creating/multiplying offsprings) must grow. VOTE PRO :) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because You make a remarkable claim, and for this I and the viewers will require a remarkable amount of evidence. Simply claiming that you can does not make it so. I can fly. See, I still can't. If you can in fact hold a whole chicken with your butt, you will need to do more than simply say it to prove your point. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Evolution occurs because "Chickens are descendants of T-Rex's." Evidence? Theory even? "Chimpanzees and Humans have a common ancestor." Evidence, theory even? Then I can offer a rebuttal.. no argument, NO REBUTTAL! "Designer...? I don't understand, who would design the animals? " The Lord God Almighty and Sovereign Creator or ALL! Eternal King, Immortal.. Invisable.. The Alpha and The Omega. I strongly suggest you read Genesis chapters 1-3 and John chapter 1 for how everything REALLY came into being. But, I'm forgetting myself.. it's not MY burden of proof but YOURS. "You misunderstand. Yes, new species arise, but the species from which they evolved to not vanish. MAcroevolution is the branching of lineages, not the replacement of lineages necessarily." So why are there distinct species at all? and not just a gradual, continual lineage of creatures? "I am not advocating that no malign mutations take place. In fact, a vast majority of mutations are detrimental. There are some beneficial mutations though, and those are the ones which are passed on the most, since it helps the carrier live. Give me one reason why, out of all the accidental little changes in genetic code, there would never be a mutation that helps. Accidents do not discriminate." Again, you have spectacuarly FAILED to provide one example of a beneficial mutation.. surely there MUST be many seeing as there is an amazing abundance of life on the planet.. the number of beetles alone is mind boggling. [There has been NO increase in genetic complexity. An increase in genetic complexity is absolutely CRUCIAL for macro evolution to occur.] "Why?" BECAUSE you do NOT get from a single cell amoeba to the most complex known quantity in the universe (namely US!) without an increase in genetic complexity. "Actually, mutations kill individuals, but generally speaking, it does not affect the species as a whole, and here is why. The animals which have harmful mutations tend to die off before they can reproduce, so malign mutations usually phase out of the gene pool." Sure, but without an example of a benefical mutation you still have ALL your work a head of you. "And also, way to completely dodge my question. You have changed the subject. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself by suggesting that species adapt beneficially but never have beneficial mutations. Please address this in your next post. You have made a very clear contradiction of yourself which makes your entire argument moot." Not at all, I claimed (AND provided the example of the blind salamander) that mutations occur but are never benefical for the species as a whole. Here's another, very general example.. many species have become smaller over the millenia.. this has obvious advantages with regards to food and escaping prey etc BUT can in NO way be described as an improvement for the species, no increase in complexity. "Please note: my opponent has advocated that microevolution does in fact occur, and so therefore he must be of the belief that beneficial mutations occur." Not at ALL, for the reasons already stated. "Here again you have implied that some thing created everything perfectly and instantaneously. This idea seems rather absurd to me or at the very least far out there. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this? You have made a pretty bold assertion (that some sort of entity created everything perfectly), with absolutely no backing. I'm afraid I can't consider your point valid without some sort of evidence." Well, without any evidence to the contrary WHATSOEVER (if you're anything to go by) what other conclusion can we arrive at? we, it, came from somewhere! In CONCLUSION my opponent has failed to provide ANY proof whatsoever or even show examples for his arguments. Even though the burden of proof lay with him I have consistently indulged him by rebutting his arguments to the best of my ability. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Skittles are a Deadly Weapon because I told you my case was flawless. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. because Sanctions don't kill people; people kill people! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence because Forfeit . . . ergo drops . . . ergo extend. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Early Term Abortions because Alright then, thank you for starting this debate. Seeing as you are the affirmative, the burden of proof is on you to show why early-term abortions should be permitted. Sir, whenever you are ready. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits