text
stringlengths 50
22.4k
|
|---|
<BOA> I am with It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. because I affirm the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one in order to save others To clarify this case I will use the following definition: Morally permissible: that act of judging in a circumstance to conform the right behavior Kill: To take way one's life; cause death Innocent: free from evil motives or moral wrongs Happiness: absence of pain and up bearings Save: to rescue or prevent harm or injury Society: a highly structured human organization upheld by hierarchy which furbishes protection, security, and national identity for its members. Value: The Welfare of Society My value is the welfare of the society. For the better of the society, which supports people as individuals, it is important to ensure the prosperity of it. Value Criterion: High value of Life My value criterion is the protection of lives. For society to continue, it is important to protect the people. It also ensures the wellbeing of society. Without the high value towards lives, society will disarray and fall apart. A lawless confusion may start. Contential 1: Positive results A. More lives are protected It is highly likely for the negative and positive sides to lose lives. However, on the positive side, only one killed will offer the chance of life to the majority of the people. By not acting immediately, there is a higher chance for lives to be forfeited. Since all lives are equal, saving more will be better than not too. Life comes with rights. Therefore, people's right to life protection is maximized. B. Promotion of happiness The affirmative increases the amount of happiness for others. By happiness, meaning no physical pain. Since the majority people will be saved, their families' sorrow will perish. People have many connections with others, as shown among friends, families, and aquantainces. Therefore, by having the majority survive, sorrow will not increase. C. For the greater good Jeremy Bentham once quoted "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right or wrong" He believes that final results will affect people the most. By protecting the majority, the majority will carry out the society's will. I stand by to hear your debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should the US take military action against syria because Yes, it is very convenient that shooter was classified as "unidentified", very suspicious to say the least. But we do know that Assad's troops did not openly and obviously attack the U.N as you stated. It's interesting that you bring up the American revolution. Yes, we would have undoubtably lost without French aide. But there is a striking difference, the American revolutionaries were not involved in an Intra-state civil war like Syria is. Syrians are going to have to learn to live with each other after this, and somehow build peace. Time and Time again, history shows us that all to often, leaders proclaim freedom and liberty, an revert to authoritarianism. Numerous savage dictators have risen up under the guise of a liberation movement. I don't suggest that the Assad Regime is superior to the FSA, but I do submit that if the United States should play no role in this decision. If we are to militarily intervene, we are subsequently responsible for whatever the outcome of that nation. We assume the responsibility to reconstruct what we destroyed. Building a new nation, and building peace is extraordinarily difficult, and America has seen how difficult this is firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. After nearly an 8 year occupation in Iraq, we have left behind us a failed State (1), that lacks the most basic of services and protections for its occupants. There is still widespread violence and unrest. (1) http://ffp.statesindex.org... It is my main contention that Military Intervention is self defeating and counterproductive. Mass violence and death is no way to show a people how to live in peace. America, with a depleted economy and large scale internal strife, is in no place to fight a war, and assume the responsibilities of post war occupation and reconstruction. The majority of America opposes military intervention, (2) which is yet another reason not to attack. Our government is designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. So if the majority of Americans oppose intervention, we should not intervene. There is too much at stake. We are not world police. (2) http://www.cbsnews.com... Aside from that, you did not really make any clear arguments. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Guys make WAY better friends than girls. because Men and women have different charactaristical traits that are essential to healthy friendships and relationships, thus the comparison is abritrary and cannot be made. Therefore i negate the resolutionon these grounds, and through the perspective that men do not make better friends than females; as men and women are inherently different, and have opposite strengths and weaknesses, ultimatley fufilling different needs of different individuals. Thanks. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum because Okay, so to oversimplify your argument, the basic idea is that progress can be defined as what is beneficial, better than what was used in the past . A little too oversimplified. Two essential components to the political definition of progress are that the means of advancement are technological or scientific and that the result of advancement is widespread human benefit (by one definition "the public", by another "the world"). A radical Islamist may believe a world dominated by Shariah Law is a good thing. To the extent that we are discussing the use of the word in US politics, shariah law has little influence. Shariah refers to the religious law of Islam. A muslim need not qualify as radical to respect shariah, since shariah applies to any observant Muslim. Shariah is overwhelmingly concerned with the minutiae of personal religious conduct and by definition does not apply in the context of national law. Conversely, the First Amendment of the US Constitution forbids Congress from preferring one religion's moral code above another's. Therefore, shariah has as little impact on US politics as the Jewish Halakhah (both bodies of law, in fact, essentially translate as "the way to go" and are more alike than different). Nevertheless, interpretations of s hariah are as various and personal as any other religious belief. There are certainly American muslims who understand and apply a progressive political perspective to shariah . "At the heart of a progressive Muslim interpretation is a simple yet radical idea: every human individual, female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, rich or poor, northerner or southerner, has exactly the same intrinsic worth." [1] Shariah does not inherently exclude progressive politics, however much conservative mullahs might disagree. A Ku Klux Klan guy, though nothing he does would be progress by your standard, would consider almost everything he did beneficial . But not to the benefit of humanity or even all Americans. The Klan would reserve most advantages for anglo-saxons protestants of good moral standing (i.e. member of the Klan). Each iteration of the Klan was a traditionalist, nativist reaction to social and technological change. In fact, the "Birth of the Nation" Klan of the 1920's is viewed by historians as an explicit rejection of Roosevelt and "The Progressive Era." Progressivism, as the word is used in American politics, stands in nearly diametrical opposition to Ku Kluxism. You may consider Conservative policies not to be progress, but a Conservative would, and a Conservative would consider liberal policies not to be progress, while a Liberal would. The conservative/liberal spectrum is not quite the same thing as the Right-Wing/Left-Wing spectrum. Let's check in with Merriam-Webster: con·ser·va·tism noun : belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society [2] lib·er·al·ism noun : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties Belief in progress is a defining characteristic of liberalism. Opposition to change is a defining characteristic of conservatism. In politics, the word progress belongs to liberalism by definition . Who is to say that Social Equality is morally superior to Social Inequality? Me. I will say that. Who is to say that freedom is morally superior to slavery? Me. I will say that. You may believe a woman's right to abort is progress, but others on the other political spectrum may disagree. On this point, I think a Progressive argument may be made on either side. Abortion when expressed as the civil right of women to be free of the shackles of mandatory baby-making is a Progressive argument. Progressive arguments can also be made in favor of the civil rights of the unborn integrated with improved maternal healthcare, a civil right not to be fired for getting pregnant, equal pay for women, cheap availability of prophylactics, etc. Is there's no absolute moral standard (and no, I'm not trying to change the nature of the debate; this is my argument), there is no way of telling who's right when it comes to ethics. I don't ascribe to that philosophy, but be that as it may, moral philosophies have names and definitions. We don't have to agree with a philosophy in order to study it. Pro's argument is that the word "progress" does not particularly belong to Left-Wing or Liberal ideology. My argument is that there is a correct, objective definition of the word "progress" that is so intimately associated with Liberal ideology that it would be difficult to speak of American Liberalism without the word. The word progress has a specific political and philosophical meaning that is used to invoke Liberal, Left-wing, Progressive ideology. You stated in your argument that the Right Wing opposes progress, but is that really true, or do they simply oppose the Left Wing's definition of progress? That's really true. It is not the Left-Wing's definition of progress, it is the objective definition of progress as inherently Left-Wing. Left-Wing means "all men were created equal." That's the objective, historic definition of the word. Right-Wing means "all men were not created equal." That's the definition of the word, irregardless of political perspective. The Oxford English Dictionary notes: "The verb became obsolete in British English use at the end of the 17th century and was readopted from American English in the early 19th century." [4] In American usage, " The intellectual leaders of the American Revolution—such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were immersed in Enlightenment thought and believed the Idea of Progress meant that they could reorganize the political system to the benefit of the human condition—for Americans and also, as Jefferson put it, for an "Empire of Liberty" that would benefit all mankind. Thus was born the idea of inevitable American future progress. What gave the American Revolution its widespread appeal and linked it to all subsequent political revolutions was its association with the Idea of Progress." [5] The word progress came into usage in America as the political expression of Voltaire's enlightenment: science and reason could provide social equality for all humanity. The word progress means leaving monarchs and social hierarchies behind and so progress is by definition Left-Wing. The word progress means the autonomy of individuals and so progress is by definition Liberal. RE: Gay Marriage Same deal. Since support for gay marriage expands the political franchise, reflects new sociological and biological perspectives on homosexuality, and advances civil rights that support is by definition progressive. Arguments against gay marriage invoke traditional hierarchies, shrink the political franchise, and reflect older understandings of homosexuality so those arguments are not progressive. RE: Nazis Same deal. Since Facism by definiton collapsed the political franchise, renounced civil rights for whole sectors of society, embraced authoritarianism and sought to restore the political hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire ( Reich ), Nazism could not be called Progressive. Although American Progressives might be linked to Nazi Germany in so far as both embraced the pseudo-science of eugenics, Progressives were firmly alligned against Hitler after German intervention in the Spanish Civil War doomed the Spanish Republic. Facism, generally considered an extreme Right-Wing movement, found little else to admire in American Progressivism. [6] [1] http://daayieesplaceofinnerpeace.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Man will never know reality unless he's dead. because "I have evidences and I stated them in my last argument. I said "The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.". I got it from books about philosophy of man. Books about philosophy of man contains various philosophers and handpicked three of them. If you want to see my evidence you could either find a philosophy of man book, since it is most likely to contain the ideas of the famous philosophers or research the philosophies of the three philosophers I mentioned." How could I even begin to discuss this? What you provided was a list of three philosophers and then called it evidence, this isn't exactly a very rigorous, detailed, or even clear argument. What you could have actually done is taken their arguments, claims, evidences, etc., and perhaps quoted them here so I could reference them and we could discuss them on their merits. Instead, you've given me what is essentially an open ended wild-goose chase wherein I would have to read dozens of works without knowing what exactly is relevant and what specifically supports your argument. This isn't a very honest way to go about debating. I think it's quite clear that pro has completely failed to make any sort of clear case that I could even begin to argue against. I asked him to present evidence that demonstrated his (often unstated) premises, and instead all I got was three names and the titles to a few books. He started with the claim that " Reality is behind death's door " and then you make some vague assertions about maybe there is a soul and maybe its possible that the mind survives brain death, but you have provided no actual claims or arguments, and not one single piece of supporting evidence to substantiate some of the vague claims you did make. All I can say in response is you have not demonstrated your case clearly, and have not demonstrated that it has any merit at all, and therefore you have failed to meet your burden of proof. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood because When it comes to the term sui generis, I must quote the well loved character Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Sui generis is a term that means unique. It is used in the legal field when referring to things that are unique and therefore particular analysis that might be used for other things is not applicable to the thing which is sui generis. For instance in Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U.S. 405 (2005) the court found that the sniff of a dog (in this case attempting to detect the presence of drugs) is sui generis because the sniff could only detect the presence or absence of drugs which are contraband. In other words it was a type of search that was unique because the search could not have discovered anything in which a person would have a legitimate privacy interest. (e.g. a frisk [and other known methods of searching] could discover drugs and weapons, however, a toothbrush or a set of keys could also be discovered i.e. things in which an individual has a privacy interest.) You have defined the term in your first comment as follows: Sui Generis….indigenous, of its essence; of its essence. However the Oxford dictionaries define the word simply as "unique." See http://oxforddictionaries.com... Having said that I will use my opponents definition to attempt to address his argument. Please have the kindness to overlook the sloppy use of the word fact. Of course I meant to use the term as interchangeable with the word truth i.e. "the truth is that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals and not an innate or inborn personality trait." If the use of the word fact is a distraction from the essence of the argument I apologize. My opponent has appealed to authority in his most recent argument. namely the authority of the American Medical Association, U.S. Law and the Oxford Dictionaries. His argument is essentially these people say it, therefore it is true. Unfortunately the only way the conclusion follows from the premise is if you prove a second premise i.e. what these people say is always true. Since we know that what these people say is certainly not always true (see the history of US Law, the history of beliefs and reversals in medical knowledge and the changing nature of the use of the English language [take a dictionary from the 1800s and look up words from then and now].) My opponents argument: "Sexual orientation is protected as sui generis by Law in the US, UK, Germany, etc. Ergo, when brought before an impartial determiner of fact it was determined in all western nations, that sexual orientation IS SUI GENERIS. I shall cite only one US Supreme Court, a Primary Source. Romer v. Evans 1996" There are several problems with this argument: The primary problem is that even if the statement were true it would not prove that "all western nations" were correct. In other words my conclusion could be correct whether anyone else believed it or not and even if my opponent produced a list of the signatures of every human being on earth, all of whom believed that I was incorrect, we would be no further in determining whether my argument is in fact correct. E.g. if the Supreme court and the AMA and the Oxford Dictionaries all believed that blood letting cured disease (as their intellectual predecessors likely believed) it would not make it true. Another problem with this argument is that all western nations do NOT protect sexual orientation as sui generis (remember my opponents definition -- indigenous, of its essence; of its essence) I will at this point assume, perhaps incorrectly, (my opponent will surely correct my error if I misstate) that my opponent means by sui generis the opposite of my contention in this debate i.e. sui generis means (to my opponent) the essence of a person. Ergo a homosexual is born a homosexual (wired to be attracted only to persons of his or her own gender). Of course I believe I have been clear that my argument is with the definition of the term homosexual, but I will address that issue shortly. The most notable nation in the west that does not recognize sexual orientation as protected is...you guessed it...The United States of America. My opponent has cited a US supreme Court case that does not recognize any federal protection for homosexuals. The case centered on whether the legislature in Colorado could make a law that said that no laws could be passed giving "special rights" to homosexuals. The court found that such a law was intended to discriminate specifically against a group of people and had no other purpose, the law was only passed because of "animus" toward the group singled out. Let me repeat that no legal protections were recognized for homosexuals at the federal level as a result of this decision. Assumedly the group identified could have been the rotary club and, assuming the facts were the same, the Court would have ruled the same way. There are states who have legislated or ruled for protections for homosexuals, however the United States government has not done so and has certainly not recognized that homosexuality is an inborn trait akin to being born into a certain ethnic group. My opponent also says that I claim... "temptation is the source of a behavior not an accepted sui generis determiner. Again fails based on Logic, fallacy of the universal. We call one who steals a thief, it is not sui generis. We call those who commit crimes criminal, it is not sui generis. We call those who drink alcoholics, it is not sui generis it is behavior. Are you arguing it is behavior and not sui generis, making those who enjoy sex ALL heterosexual as reproduction desires are sui generis?" (for all places where the term sui generis is used I am assuming we can substitute the word "inborn") My opponent suggests that homosexual acts are determined by inborn traits therefore they are not temptations like stealing, drinking to excess, and committing crimes. I propose that my opponent has provided no evidence (short of his incorrect argument from authority) that this is the case. If the thief is tempted to steal and does so what is my opponents evidence that this is not a "sui generis" (inborn) determiner. There are certainly seemingly intelligent people who have argued that such traits are inborn. If this is true, according to my opponent, such actions are not temptations but actions that are determined by inborn traits. Based on the evidence he has provided my opponent has no warrant to make a distinction concerning what is inborn and what derives from temptation regarding any of the actions of any individual. If one accepts that homosexuality is inborn, short of proving that claim scientifically, which has definitely not been done ( See the results of the human genome project), one must accept the claim of any group who claims the same about a behavior they share. If all thieves claim they were born thieves who can disprove them. Homosexuals are those who engage in homosexual behavior. Whether or not any individual is born with the desire to engage in those behaviors or has an attraction to those behaviors is irrelevant. We do not, generally speaking, allow for such distinctions with other voluntary behaviors and my opponent has provided no reason to allow for such distinctions in this instance. A thief is a thief when he steals. He is not a thief because he is attracted to stealing. A man is a homosexual when he commits homosexual acts. He is not a homosexual because he is attracted to commit those acts. I do not claim authority to change definitions in the English language. I do however claim the God given right to express my dissatisfaction with the definition of the word homosexual and to argue for a change in that definition which is reasonable and consistent with the rest of the English language. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Killing an animal to eat is wrong! because I would like to thank my opponent for a very thorough response. <> I accept your definition of "animal". < question: Could you kill an animal to eat?>> Yes I can. I have done it many times as I hunt duck, deer, quail, dove, pheasant, hog, and geese. I also fish quite often, both freshwater and saltwater. < (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJfXami4haU)>> That video, unfortunately, is true and it's terrible. However, not all food is grown in conditions like that, as they follow the rules and regulations for raising livestock. Seen at the following link: ( http://www.bffairrodeo.com... ) 10. All exhibitors shall furnish necessary feed, grain, troughs, and water buckets for their animals & arrange for their care. Bedding will be furnished by the fair. 11. Entries limited to space available. 12. For livestock limits, see individual departments. 13. Exhibitors must keep their animals, barn area and grooming area clean or premium monies will be forfeited. 17. Exhibitors found to be using abusive practices and/or drugs on animals will be banned permanently from the fair. The fair will notify all fairs in Washington State of its decision. 5. Fair veterinarians will inspect all classes of livestock and poultry before they are exhibited to determine that the livestock and poultry show no clinical indications of contagious infectious disease and ectoparasites. 6. Fair veterinarians will reject any animal with infectious or contagious disease or ectoparasites. Exhibitors should be made aware that ringworm, warts, pink-eye, strangles, contagious ecthyma, scabies, lice, mites, ticks, and fleas fall into these categories. As you can see, what you saw in those videos was not always legal. Which means that we already are trying to stop atrocities such as that. If everyone followed the law, then those animals wouldn't be in those situations. Farmers and ranchers are required to keep their livestock in good health, well fed, and in sanitary conditions so to say that the majority are (as you seem to be inferring) being maltreated is not true. To save characters I will simply answer my opponent's points on her numbers, not quote them. >The Environment 1. However, the US also has to import agricultural crops as they do not make enough locally. So it takes about 127 calories of aviation fuel to bring 1 calorie of lettuce from the UK to here, 97 calories of aviation fuel to take 1 calorie of asparagus from Chile, and 66 calories of aviation fuel are consumed for every 1 calorie of carrot from South Africa. ( http://www.energybulletin.net... ). Also, plants take up carbon dioxide in the air and reduce greenhouse gases. This means that as a vegetarian, you are destroying what is fixing our planet, while if you eat more animals you will be trimming down the root of the greenhouse gases. 2. Give me a non-biased link for this please. 3. Some of these grains, corn, and beans are grown specifically for livestock purposes. If there was no more livestock, a significant portion of farmers who use to sell food to the livestock would have a hole in their pockets. Efficiency is not an issue here, as humans are the number one priority for making food. This means that if the food amount started to get low then (assuming your statistics are true) livestock would become less profitable and crops would start to be grown instead. 4. If everyone was a vegetarian then more land would have to be cleared for crops. Crops aren't as good as holding soil as the previous vegetation of grasses, shrubs, and trees. The crops will also suck up the nutrients faster and over a couple years the productivity of the land would severely decrease. The farmers would then move on to the next land leaving a bare and desolate area behind. You can see proof of this in Africa with desertification and with the destruction of rain forests in South America. 5. The two major causes of losing the rainforests are poor farmers and corporations. Poor farmers need it to feed their families, but the corporations only for their own greed. These corporations constitute of both ranchers and farmers, depending on what part of the rainforest is being taken. Some areas are best for livestock and are used as such, yet others are used for crops. If either livestock or crops were to suddenly disappear, then the land would just be taken up by the other. This means that getting rid of livestock for crops would not decrease rainforest destruction. >Personal Health 6. I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, I believed a balanced diet is required for the upmost efficiency of one's health. 7. The only fat that is actually bad for you is transfat which is made artificially from humans. All other fats are simply stored calories. So to put it simply, the amount of fat you take in doesn't matter, only the amount of calories. The human body needs cholesterol to survive. "Cholesterol, a waxy substance produced by the liver and found in certain foods, is needed to make vitamin D and some hormones, build cell walls, and create bile salts that help you digest fat." Although your body makes enough of cholesterol on its own having a little extra wont' kill you. It's like dessert, it's good in small quantities and okay to eat as long as you keep it under control. In fact, fats are required to live ( http://www.visionlearning.com... ). 8. Once again, the balanced diet is more efficient for fat and protein intake. 9. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. Should we stop eating ice cream? People should be allowed to eat what they think tastes good as long as it doesn't interfere with the morality of society. Besides, meat contains many other essential vitamins "One way or another your body has to have protein, iron, calcium, enzymes, Vitamin B12 and amino acids every day. " Meat is the only substance that has ALL of these substances readily available for easy digestion ( http://www.powerofmeat.com... ). 10. True, but many types of pesticides and other chemicals are used on plants to protect them that aren't used on animals. 11. Please post a link so I know what you're specifically talking about. I'm not going to look up your information for you. 12. Most bacteria and viruses are destroyed when cooked. So as long as your not eating your meat raw you should be okay. 13. Meat stays fresh for a long time as long as it's kept cool. 14. As do many diseases in animals. They will start to act sick, have diarrhea, and other symptoms of the specific disease. 15. Link please. 16. This is a gross overstatement by the media to sell their stories. It is much more likely for cancer to be caused by genetics, obesity, and physical inactivity. Plus "In fact, he says, the polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health — they actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis, and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as ingredients in paints and varnishes." Soy beans are also believed to make carcinogenic substances when cooked. ( http://www.newtreatments.org... ) 17. Only with improper care and illegal activity such as selling meat taken from a sick animal. >Personal Finances 18. Most vegetarians cook their foods and use vegatable oil to cook it which is extremely unhealthy. They also have a fat deficiency where the only fats they do get are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats. 19. They cost less because the food is smaller in quantity and calories. >Ethics 20. I love animals as well, in fact, I hope to become a veterarinarian. Not enough characters left, I will continue on your list in the next round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with uniforms for kids because fine if it makes you happy ill vote no <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god. because I'm going to ignore The Fool's plethora of allegations regarding my "intentional deception". The voters can judge whether or not I am misrepresenting his position. I'll focus on the charges against my argument instead. What is Logical About God? Fool: If there is a god we don’t understand such power, and so there is no way of deriving if or if not god has any logical relation to the world, for it is beyond our knowledge. So we could never know that for sure. But we do know for sure that the universe is the universe. Fallacy: Question Begging. One can only say that only the universe can be certain if in fact we are certain that anything outside the universe is not certain. But that's what this debate is about. The Fool™ must first win this debate before he can claim this "tautology." The Nature of Language Consider this tidbit from round 2: Fool: The bible has no advantage. We don’t know what if any reality is being symbolized other than somebodies ideas. A definition of god is simply that, a definition of the word god. If any god exists it is independent of what anything defines him as. And combine it with this: Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top? Fallacy: Argumentum ad absurdum If something must be determined to be a reality before it can be defined, then any debate about the very reality of something is impossible. This includes debates on all abstract topics, such as morality, logic itself, and mathematics. How can anyone debate anything if they can't define it first? Live on with the Fool! The Fool™ is certain he exists. Did he define "I" before he was certain he existed, or was he certain he existed before "I"? If his existence is based on his thinking, how could he think about "being" before "I" had meaning? Fallacy: Red Herring This is not a refutation of my original argument. Line The Fool™ is hung up on this notion that the Bible cannot be certain about reality and, therefore, cannot be certain to reflect God. This does not refute my argument. Fallacy: Special Pleading My argument is setting out to prove God exists as defined . The source of that definition is irrelevant. I could define God as a block of cheese on Mars, and it would still be absurd to say that I can't use that definition until after we've proven it's existence. If the definition of God is disallowed, then by the same logic, neither is The Fool's definition of Universe. The universe, according to The Fool™, is synonymous with reality. Thus, this very debate determines the definition of Universe. Here are the possible outcomes: The Fool™ Wins: Universe does not include God. KRFournier Wins: Universe does include God. So, The Fool™ must concede that the Universe is not certain in this debate until the debate if finished or else succumb to begging the question. Stinker P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God, P2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated. C3. Therefor [sic] it is not possible for a logical argument for god. Fallacy: Circular Reasoning P2 is contingent upon the truth of C3. The Universe and Logic Fallacy: Begging the Question Given The Fool's™ definition of Universe, it includes logical laws. He says they are found in the relations within the universe. This, however, begs the question. There are two ways the term Universe can be defined: Consisting of all of reality. Consisting of our cosmos, i.e., this physical universe. If The Fool™ relies on the former, then he commits t he fallacies mentioned already. He's just saying that Logical Laws just exist. That is begging the question because it is the transcendental necessity of those laws that are being challenged. Thus, he must do more than just assert that they "are" because the Universe "is." If The Fool™ relies on the latter, then he is tasked to provide a materialistic account for the necessary preconditions for Laws of Logic. He has not done this, so I he's either relying on the former definition or simply side-stepping this challenge. Conclusion The Fool™ devotes a great deal of his time to paint a picture of my character. He wants the readers to view me as some kind of miscreant looking to distort his every word. He says that he's not engaging in ad hominem when doing this, but I'm not sure what else to call it. The Fool™ is well within his rights to correct me where I am mistaken, but he chooses instead to pass allegations and then demand that I waste precious space answering them in turn. I laid out my argument as plainly as possible in Round 1. I countered his Round 2 single-sentence criticisms. In rounds 3 and 4, I've exposed the serious fallacies of his views on language and definitions and exposed his circular reasoning with regards to his definition of Universe. It is imperative that The Fool™ explain his claims in the last round rather than just repeatedly assert them as de facto true. Specifically, I want him to explain precisely which premises in my argument are false. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against NCIS is the best TV show. because Thanks again for the quick reply. C1: Plotline A crime drama focusing on team dynamics is not innovative [1][2][3], whereas the transformative and unique storytelling of Seinfeld has yet to be attacked by my opponent. Its originality and entertainment value are unquestioned. C2: Running Time This point has been conceded by my opponent. C3: Cinematography Pro reiterates that NCIS employs "neat camera tricks," but does not address similar techniques used on numerous similar shows (e.g. CSI, 24, Cold Case). What was intended to differentiate the show has simply made it more of the same. C4: Characters Pro claims that the characters on NCIS are not stereotypes. Despite the obvious falsehood of this statement (unless rough military vets, computer geeks, and dark-haired goths are original concepts), it also doesn't prove these characters are superior to those on Seinfeld. Frankly, this is an impossible task, as Seinfeld's cast is one of the most celebrated in tv history. ::Pro-Seinfeld Points:: 1. Ratings Pro claims the differences in seasons negate the ratings data. Firstly, these superior Seinfeld ratings were obtained during seasons that were considered weaker than earlier seasons [4]. Secondly, Seinfeld surpassed NCIS in average ratings and viewers for those seasons both shows shared (i.e. seasons 4-6) [5][6]. Also, since the topic asks which show is superior now, not in the future, the astounding ratings and revenue produced by the Seinfeld finale are incredibly relevant. Lastly, Pro's point on technology influencing ratings was confusing and not sourced. I ask him to please clarify and provide sources so I may reply next round. 2. Awards By the end of its 6th season, Seinfeld had already won 20 awards (3x that of NCIS) and been nominated 71 times (7x that of NCIS) [7]. These figures show the utter dominance of Seinfeld over NCIS in terms of critical recognition and acclaim, even in its first 6 seasons. As a side note, Pro's argument that NCIS has a higher ‘win ratio' in ridiculous. Percents may be important on DDO, but nominations alone are proof of a show's quality and regard. 3. Recognition Pro concedes that Seinfeld is considered one of the best shows ever. He only argues that much of this recognition is based on the show's duration. Unfortunately, this complaint is both unintuitive (unpopular shows don't last 9 seasons) and irrelevant. Because the resolution concerns which show is better now, not in the future, Seinfeld's recognition stands as a point of superiority. 4. Influence & Longevity In terms of longevity, memorability, and public influence, Seinfeld greatly exceeds NCIS. The storylines have become a part of pop culture, using humor to break ground on controversial issues [8] and becoming a part of our cultural history [9]. Such popularity and impact have led to its longevity, with Seinfeld reruns still making millions in revenue and producing higher ratings than prime time television [10]. Given that a show's ultimate goal is public recognition and appreciation, these facts solidity Seinfeld as the better show. ::Closing:: Pro argues Seinfeld has gained popularity only because it has been around longer. Unfortunately for him, this does not explain Seinfeld's superior storytelling, characters, and why it received higher ratings and more awards than NCIS during the same time span. Add to this Seinfeld's widespread recognition, influence, longevity, and revenue and there is no contest. ::References:: 1. http://www.cbs.com... 2. http://www.cbs.com... 3. http://www.cbs.com... 4. http://www.time.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... (TV_series) 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.associatedcontent.com... 9. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 10. http://www.iconocast.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable because Extend all arguments. If anyone has any questions on this topic, please ask in the comments section. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against help me with debate because I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for the opportunity. I stand in negation to the resolution, "help me with debate." As The Instigator and Pro for this debate, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution. If I can show otherwise, the resolution shall be negated. I shall not help my opponent with debate. Now that I am currently engaged in a debate with my opponent, if I were to help him with debate, he may be able to create better and stronger arguments that would defeat mine. I would not want to help an opponent in a debate, for my opponent would have a better chance of winning the debate. If I help my opponent with debate, he could eventually become good enough to destroy me in future debates. I would not set myself up for a loss or disadvantage, so logically I would not help my opponent with debate. I thank my opponent and the readers for the experience. I urge a Con vote, being that the resolution is negated. ============================================== If my opponent really did not want to debate the resolution but instead seek advice, I shall present that now. My opponent quoted: "O.K Hello all im going into 9th grade debate and i want to be the best there is so i would love some help from some people. if you could help me any body that would be cool." Here are some tips on becoming a better and stronger debater: 1. Research the topic of the debate well. Research helps you understand the concepts of a debate topic and can provide significant amounts of information that can be utilized for stronger argumentation. a) Make sure the websites/sources you use are credible and are relevant to what the debate is covering. 2. Create logical and consistent arguments. If you are having trouble piecing the arguments together, simply think about the most important arguments you need to include and focus on them. 3. Providing examples and scenarios may be beneficial depending on the topic of the debate. It is greatly appreciated when the readers/an audience can relate to an example or really capture the essence of what is being targeted. 4. Do not come across as spiteful or arrogant. You need to appear intelligent, respectful, and appreciative. It can be a huge turn-off for a debater if he/she is looked down upon because of faults in personality. 5. Relax and enjoy yourself. Debate is about learning and creating different viewpoints and different issues. Stressing out only makes it harder to debate effectively. *I would like to note that if my opponent really did want to debate the resolution, then forget the advice and only look at my argument. If my opponent only wanted to use this debate for pointers, then my advice should be taken into consideration.* ========================================== <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes. because Thank you for the tip I assume you will summarize your arguments too. I believe that if boys and girls were separated by ability to perform instead of gender they would be more self-confident. I can see what you mean when you say it would be degrading, but how much more degrading is it to bunch everyone together? In my personal experience, those that are obese/out of shape do not want to participate in activities with these muscular, competitive kids that would mock and laugh at them should they even try. I think these special gym classes would solve the problem of girls doing less exercise than boys. Thank you so much for competing with me jp1999. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only. because Thank you for your reply. I find it a wholesome distraction to debate the nature of God. 1. It does not take infinite power to do any of those. Creating the universe in seven days in an incredible feat, but not infinite. This would mean God existed before creation, but we are talking infinity, not eternity. All of the things listed can be measured, and thus are not infinite. 2. God, eternal and infinite. Only through eternity can infinity be shown. Since eternity is provable but infinity is not, paradox 3. Infinity cannot be explained by our laws of physics. In this reality, only measurable things are real. So even if God was omnipotent, He would not be omnipotent in our reality, and thus his omnipotence is not real. Thanks for the chance to debate the nature of the Lord. -The God Hand <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated because BACKGROUND: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 (also known as MLDA21) was passed by the US Congress on 17 July 1984. It requires states to create laws setting the minimum age to purchase or publicly posses alcoholic beverages to twenty-one. States that do not comply lose 10% of their federal highway funds. Some states also ban the private consumption of alcohol by those under the age of twenty-one, though this is not required by the Act. ARGUMENTS: MLDA21 should be repealed for the following reasons: 1) It creates a 'forbidden fruit' effect. 2) It forces drinking by those under twenty-one to move to more dangerous 'underground' venues. 3) It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 4) It is not possible to reasonably enforce. 5) Other nations have much lower drinking ages, and yet lower rates of alcohol problems 6) Such a high age creates problems such as '21 for 21', in which someone recently of drinking age drinks twenty-one shots of hard liquor, occasionally causing alcohol poisoning. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate because My rhymes have that effect, but I don't like to boast, I'll break it down, like a proper noun, while you nosh on the host, This rap will continue, tough like a sinew, even if you don't post, So let's get in this groove as I disprove the son and holy ghost. Let's get cliche and check it, inspect it, in each way we can, Let's go through the verses, reverse this, I'll draw up the plan, I'll shine enough light, if that is alright, so much we both will get tan, You saying it's Jesus, that's how you read this? from "Let us make man"? Connect the dots, we sure have lots, to whatever is your conclusion, I know it's not Judah, so maybe it's Buddha? Just pick your allusion, So what is the source, it's anything of course, to match the illusion, Do as you want, but no reasons to flaunt, this theological transfusion. I want to reiterate, before I obliterate, the problem perceived, The logical problems inherent, apparent, to connect it to what is believed, The after-the-fact notion to this promotion, that's not preconceived, It's a false source of divinity, and even the trinity, so nothings achieved. The commentator Rashi: He's inclined to opine, that it's humility that is key, To teach us this, even if easy to miss, by being humble like god's decree, Nachmanides explains: It's us, the ground, earth or plains, can't you see? He formed man of dust from the ground, thus this is it, and more likely to be. But it's not what you stated, ever so how elated, so let's keep this going, "Let US make man", I see you're a fan, but my arguments keep flowing, It's not in the bible, it's practically libel, and it's that I am showing, The logic is lacking, and I'll keep on tracking, as the flaws keep on growing. Let's keep this moving, before we're concluding, and then we're departed, "In the Zohar it says..." What?, that's not three names, don't get me started. "Hear oh Israel, "Gods name" is your god, "God's name" is one" is a better translation, "How can three names be one?" you ask, well that's already faced total negation. It's easy to rebuild, make it fulfilled, if the scripture faces this type of mutilation, But that is not what it means, however it seems, in any single OT location. "Hear oh Israel, Hashem (the name) is your god, Hashem is ONE" That's what it's saying, to only one we are praying, no matter how it is spun, How many gods are there, just look you know where, aside him there are none, I'll continue this, as there are things I did miss, but this round is done. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against 1 does not = 2 because The out of context absolute that we have for our resolution is, as an absolute, false. 1 pair of shoes equals 2 shoes. 1 pint equals 2 cups in United States fluid volume measurement. If units were predefined in the resolution, it could probably be fixed, but 1 of a given unit can occasionally equal 2 of another given unit. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. because It's all good <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate because I accept. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should hats be allowed in school? because ok... so the reason I win this argument, con told us that hats shouldn't be worn in school because it's disrespectful. He at no point explained to us -why- wearing a hat is disrespectful in any way. Basically, he gave us no explanation what so ever that explains why it is specifically not ok to wear hats inside a school. We can understand from his that we must respect authority, which I agreed to, he just failed to show why this was in any way disrespectful to authority. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because Once again, extend all arguments. Vote pro! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Politifact is biased because C1) Large sample size and comprehensive coverage The large sample size from Politifact prevents intentionally or unintentionally checking only facts where Republicans have told the truth. Pro misunderstands this to mean that a larger number is more unbiased because larger organizations are more to be trusted. This is not the case. A larger sample size increases the chances of checking a better selection of facts. Checking 827 of 1000 coins to find twice as many heads as tails is more accurate than checking 260 of them and finding an equal number of heads and tails. A larger sample gives a more accurate representation of the population than a smaller sample. This is where the WP fails. With a small number of facts checked, their numbers are skewed. Pro says that unless the FactChecker checks important facts, readership will suffer. It has - Politifact is much more popular. A large organization size (more staff per fact) increases competency. Politifact has a staff of 100 [3]. They come from different fields and different areas of expertise. Pro has conceded my point that Glenn Kessler needs to be a Jack of all Trades and that occasional favors from other reporters do not compare with a full time staff. His example of the Chinese newspaper tries to argue that a large staff size doesn't mean less bias. I haven't argued this. My argument here is for competency, not bias. C2) The Washington Post isn't Unbiased or Liberal With regard to the bias for any publication, I can see 4 possibilites: conservative, liberal, unbiased, or undertermined. I don't have to prove that the Washington Post is conservative. All I need to prove is that they are neither unbiased nor liberal. This is because if there is enough doubt about the bias of the WP for it to be undetermined given all available information, we can simply extend my point about competency. Politifact is more competent than WP which accounts for any discrepancies of facts. Nevertheless, I have shown with enough examples how the WP has a conservative slant. The independent Consortium News show evidence of WP's conservative bias towards Obama. Pro responded by arguing that it has been 4 years since Obama took office but I have shown that there are articles as far back as 2009 that blame Obama for the recession a mere two months after he took office. Pro drops it. I have shown how Deborah Howell despite voting for Obama wrote articles slanted against Democrats and covered up concerns of readers. Native American tribes represented by Abramoff's firm gave money 2/3 to Republicans and 1/3 to Democrats. Abramoff himself gave money only to Republicans and no money to Democrats according to the FEC [10] [11] [Pro Rd 3 12]. Howell misrepresents this and claims that Republicans and Democrats received equal money from Abramoff. Furthermore, she and WP management shut down the blog and removed comments which was uncontested by Pro. Based on this coverup, Howell's credibility counts for little. She is also an employee of the WP, not an objective outsider like Consortium news. Weigh this against Consortium news whose credibility is uncontested. Pro jumps from “some journalists claim that the media is biased” to saying that “liberals acknowledge there is a liberal bias.” Pro made no attempt to justify the jump. Googling “conservative media bias in the United States” yields similar results. Pro's contention is dependent on the argument that liberals “acknowledge” media bias. Since he hasn't contested that the journalists claiming media bias aren't liberals, this nullifies the point. I agree with the ADA conclusions; they simply show how congresspeople were rated and doesn't address my rebuttal. The validity of the UCLA study is dependent on there being liberal media bias. They mark off the separation between liberal and conservative publications at 18-2 rather than 10-10. Without external proof that there is liberal media bias, the WP falling on the liberal side has little merit because I am arguing that their demarcation is off. It could just as well be that liberals merely cite journalistic quality sources resulting in the study having circular reasoning. Pro merely points out that the study was peer-reviewed appealing to authority. This is a debate and it is essential to argue the merits of the study regardless of peer-review since I have contested it. Pro hasn't attempted to do so thus concedes the point. C3) Examples 1) Rand Paul : Let's try out Pro's Warren Buffet example. “I would maybe reduce Warren Buffet's wages by 10%. He makes $63 million.” Now as you can see, my statements imply that his wages themselves are $63 million. The context in Rand Paul's case clearly shows that he is intentionally or unintentionally leading the audience to believe that he is referring to wages. Pro says at the beginning of Round 2 that all errors are lies. Rand Paul did not get his numbers from the BEA but from a libertarian think tank, CATO [14]. The numbers are erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, as I showed, CATO's original research and opinions are biased because they have an agenda to limit the power of the government which Pro conceded. Secondly, the actual number provided by CATO was $123,000 but it included benefits paid to retirees without accounting for them. If you eliminate the retirees the figure is between $109,268 and $116,168 [14], not $120,000 making the term “several thousand” misleading. This is a triple-bind for Paul; he not only used total compensation instead of wages but inflated that number while getting analysis from a source whose credibility Pro couldn't defend. 2) Rob Cornilles : The statement checked by Politifact was a compound statement where Paul also implies that voting with your party 98% of the time was partisan while omitting the fact that both parties voted together on many issues. The claim of partisanship was false and omitted vital information. Pro later claims that the real number is 90%, yet this is not the number mentioned by Paul. A half-true rating is justified when Pro needs to change the numbers to make it fit. 3) Apology tour : Pro claims that we should assign a “common dictionary definition” to the word apology. I ask which dictionary definition is appropriate? The best choice of term depends on the context. In this case, the president was accused of beginning his term with an apology tour. It is reasonable to assume that the GOP were accusing Obama of apologizing on behalf of the USA, as opposed to personally. The GOP never specified that Obama had given an “informal” apology. In the absence of such clarifications, formal definitions trump informal ones. Further, Pro has not given a single statement which he claims is an apology despite being asked twice. 4) Affordable Care Act : It is standard procedure for taxes to be counted before benefits and nothing unexpected. It is not the job of fact-checking organizations to provide the details of the internal workings of a Health Care plan. More importantly, the setup of taxes/benefits is the same from 2010 to 2012 so it is irrelevant to the claim saying that costs have doubled. Pro has now dropped that the ad compared a 10 year period to an 11 year period. He also dropped that net costs must be considered over gross costs. Conclusion Politifact's numbers being different from WP is accounted for by competence. The WP is not a liberal or unbiased publication. They have been criticized of having conservative bias by independent publications. They are known to coverup unpleasant issues. Pro has been unable to defend the validity of the UCLA study when faced with a rebuttal. He appeals to a peer-review as opposed to debate the issue with me. All the examples given by Pro shows republicans fudging the numbers or making misleading claims. Pro has gone so far as to change the numbers in an attempt to make them fit. Fact-checking websites check the validity of facts and do not allow for this. Pro has been unable to prove any instance of Politifact bias. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against should we be allowed to use ipods durind school for music because Pro attempts to bring in the fact that the internet and texting are cut off suggesting that this limits distractions on the iPod. While this may be the case to a point, it still doesn't speak to the several abilities inherent to the iPod previously discussed, such as videos, games, and pictures. Neither has Pro even approached my other arguments and as such, they stand. The iPod is a distraction in school. It (and all electronics) should be banned in schools because they degrade the learning experience and provide minimal benefit. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids) because In this round, I am going to construct a negative case as to why teens should no be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements. Negative Case Premise: Peer pressure It is no secret that teenagers are quite susceptible to peer pressure. Often this peer pressure can lead teenagers to make dangerous choices about important things like [3]: - Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes - Sex - Stealing or shoplifting - Driving without a license or speeding So, when it comes to big decisions that can potentially cause a lot of harm, teenagers can often not even make the decisions themselves, but can choose purely by what other people pressure them into. A1: Lax governmental regulation According to Consumerreport.org, bodybuilding supplments are largely unrestrained by governmental policy. A report completed by JAMA Internal Medicine, some supplements have been found to cause "serious adverse health consequences or death" [1]. This is largely due to the fact that manifacturers are not required to put much information about the ingredients on their products, leading to unsafe ingredients being used in some supplements without the knowledge of the consumer. A similar kind of story can be found with Craze, a bodybuilding supplement brought to the consumer by Matt Cahill. The supplement became quite popular among bodybuilders, of which includes teenagers. However, a USA Today report into the consumer product found that there were many unlisted products in this supplement that were dangerous. Again, as the industry is not held to high enough standards, there are many undetected, toxic substances that are not required to be registered by these companies [2]. Due to the risks involved in a largely unregulated consumer market, and due to the relatively inexperienced age of the teenager in regards to consumer consumption, teens should not be allowed to consume bodybuilding supplements. Conclusion Due to (Premise) teenagers being sometimes wholly unable to make decisions based on rationality, and instead making these decisions via peer pressure or inexperience, the potentially life-changing decision of choosing to take body-building substances, especially when the industry is not held to a high enough standard (A1), is going to have teenagers take unreasonable risks and potentially greatly harm themselves. Therefore, teenagers should not be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements. The resolution is negated. References [1] http://consumerreports.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.kidshelp.com.au... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Pink Unicorn (Pro) Vs Flying Spaghetti Monster (Con) because I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the next round. What constitutes a monster is subjective. A monster can be " something that is extremely or unusually large . " [1] When we say "exist," we mean that something c an exist in some possible world - and Mikal himself has agreed to it. [2] So the question that arises is what is "unusually large?" Well, what is usual? This is entirely subjective, and thus we can say that, in some conceivable world, a "monster" may exist. Now, I"d like to draw your attention to a "Red! Recipe" blog for what they call a "giant spaghetti bomb" -- and I don"t know about you, but "bomb" sounds pretty darn monstrous. Here is a picture of it [3]: Now, that looks pretty darn large and is certainly more spaghetti than I've ever seen before in my life -- and I"m Italian, so I know about spaghetti. Is it a monster? Well, let's consider the logic: P1: If the definition of "monster" mandates subjectivity, the fact that subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster," means that we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world. P2: Subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster." C1: Therefore, we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world. Since this is the case, we have our monster and our spaghetti. But can it fly? What does "fly" mean? Let"s consult the text of a dictionary. "Fly" can take on many definitions, including the following [4]: (1) To rise in or be carried through the air by the wind (2) To travel by air (3) To move with great speed; rush or dart (4) To be dissipated; vanish (5) To undergo an explosion; burst I'm going to show how this "spaghetti bomb" thing-a-ma-bob can fulfill all 5 of these definitions. For it to "rise" in the air, it could be picked up. Someone of exceptional strength, perhaps the incredible hulk or Airmax1227, could pick this spaghetti bomb thing up. I mean, it"s about the size of a cake, so clearly it can be picked up, right? Someone had to make it, transport it, serve it, etc. Could it travel by air? Of course it could. If you placed the cake on a plane, then of course it would travel by air in the same way as a person. Could it move with great speed? Note that this definition does not mandate autonomy . Of course it could. The plane could move at an exceptional speed. And what is "great?" "Great" is subjective, so this is the same appeal as my last argument regarding a "monster." Can it be dissipated? Of course. If the CIA (or now the Pentagon) dropped a drone hellfire missile on it, it would blow up. It is prima facie that things that get hit by drones blow up. Ask a civilian in Pakistan and they will tell you. And the same logic applies to the last definition: it can indeed explode. So I have proven to you that, in this world, we can have a contraption made of spaghetti, which some consider a monster, which can fly. My end of the burden of proof is fulfilled. Now, to address a pink unicorn: Note that my adversary has NOT addressed comparatively why he believes a pink unicorn is more likely than a spaghetti bomb, whereas I am providing my own case providing a pink unicorn. He has not fulfilled his end of the BOP. Again, this will not be a rebuttal. First, what on God's green earth is a unicorn? [5]: "an imaginary animal that looks like a horse and has a straight horn growing from the middle of its forehead." Well, Merriam-Webster says that it's imaginary, and everyone knows that Merriam-Webster is omniscient, so because it's imaginary, it doesn't exist in any possible world, meaning that it is a concept, meaning that it is less likely to actually exist than a spaghetti bomb doo-hickey thing-a-magig, which I have already proven to you can exist IN THIS WORLD . But let's take this a bit further. On an episode of The Suite Life on Deck that aired a while ago, Heiress London Tipton had this to say [6]: "Oh. Please! Everybody knows Unicorns live in Australia." Now, why should we trust London? It"s simple: she's an heiress, her father owns the ship, she clearly has ins with the DDO Elite, and she's so darn cute. And, as a red-hearted conservative AMERICAN, I"ve been taught to trust rich people because they are the smartest, most enlightened, most productive members of society who would never ever ever ever ever do something stupid like, say, crash the global economy by bundling together toxic subprime mortgages and then betting against them on the derivatives markets. Never. That was CLEARLY the workings of the [Censored by DDO lluminati]. So here is the argument: P1: If London Tipton says it is so, it is so. P2: London Tipton says it is so. C1: So, it is so. P3: If London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia, it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. P4: London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. C2: It is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. But what or where is Australia? Let's ask MassiveDump, another expert on this subject. I caught up with MassiveDump earlier today [6]: ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter : So, Massive, what are your thoughts on London Tipton"s comments? MassiveDump : AUSTRALIA DOESN'T EXIST! Also, thett3 isn"t gorgeous. And it is prima facie that Mikal is a meanie bovenie slovenie who set the character limit at 8,000 instead of 10,000. Heck, I bet he made a disgusting assertion about a very prominent member doing naughty things to kittens. ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter : Thank you for your thoughts, Massive. When will the next Weekly Stupid be up? MassiveDump : Watch yourself, or you"ll be on it. Yes, I know what you"re thinking: "Progressive, you idiot, why didn't you find out when the Weekly Stupid is coming on?" Sorry, I panicked. He's much hotter in person. Anyway, let's put this argument into another polysyllogism! Cuber would be proud! P1: If MassiveDump says it is so, it is so. P2: MassiveDump says it is so. C1: So, it is so. P3: If MassiveDump says that Australia doesn't exist, it is prima facie that Australia doesn"t exist. P4: MassiveDump says that Australia doesn"t exist. C2: It is prima facie that Australia doesn't exist. So if Australia doesn't exist, it doesn't exist in any possible world. It is merely a figment of our imagination. Let's examine the final syllogism: P1: If unicorns live in Australia, they live in the imagination. P2: Unicorns live in Australia. C1: Unicorns live in the imagination. P3: If unicorns live in the imagination, they do not exist in any possible world. P4: Unicorns live in the imagination. C2: Unicorns do not exist in any possible world. I have disproven my opponent's case. And I shouldn't even need to address pink! For goodness' sake, why would they be pink? What an abnormally repugnant color that would completely redefine gender roles and threaten the NATURAL, TRADITIONAL FAMILY. How you could ever think that these morally depraved creatures could ever exist is beyond logic. Next you"ll be telling me that the bloody things engage in coitus for pleasure -- or that airmax and bladerunner AREN'T the same person. Or that Kim Kardashian harvested an IQ point. Let's ask Jesus H. Christ what he thinks about the color "pink" [7]: ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter : Jesus, what do you think about pink? Jesus : Pfft, can a camel enter into the eye of a needle? ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporte r: Camels don't exist. They're the spawn of unicorns which means they have their roots in Australia. Jesus : Well done, my son. Now, about your sins-- ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter : AND we're out of time. Thank you, Jesus! Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. Mikal in a Google+ chat 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. Interview with MassiveDump 8. Interview with Jesus <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors because Thanks blackvoid. I'll be re-grouping all the arguments into a more convenient order and internally, I'll extend my arguments and address the main voting issues. 1. Brain Drain My opponent hangs most of his case on this argument. His own source says that the brain drain is unique to specialized workers, like Navy SEALS, not the average soldier. And without PMC's willing to pay them more, for all we know these SEALS would retire, and we'd lose them anyway. Remember, 50% of our military is composed of contractors, according to the CRS, and most of them do base support and logistics, not soldier duty. When a PMC needs someone to do laundry, they hire unskilled labor. When a PMC needs a construction worker, they hire a construction worker. If they need a translator, they hire someone that speaks English and Pashto. This is much more efficient than what the military used to do: take regular soldiers and have them to laundry, teach them to do construction, and make some of them learn Pashto to become translators. Most of what PMC's do is noncombat, so the argument that PMC's are poaching a few soldiers who would have re-enlisted does not prove that without PMC's there would be enough personnel. Replacing laundry workers with troops is a bad use of resources, no matter how you look at it. Also, the fact we achieve huge cost savings with PMC's proves that most PMC's pay less than the military, except for particular specialized personnel like Navy SEALS. Without contracting with civilian translators, the military would have to train their own, which is costly and would take many years. Extend my turn that this empirically damages relations between local civilians and our troops, since if they can't communicate, when our troops do search missions they have to adopt more brutal tactics when they can't ask nicely to search a home. My opponent is advocating a huge change from the status quo and never explains how the military would replace one out of every two essential personnel. Congress would be so desperate next time we needed to fight a war that they would have to implement a draft, something that no one wants. 2. Civilian casualties turn people against us If my opponent loses brain drain, he loses this argument since it's his only response to the Senlis Afghanistan evidence, that when we have fewer boots on the ground, we have to rely more on air support, which kills many times more civilians. And General McChrystal was fond of saying that every dead civilian means 10 more insurgents join the cause. Getting rid of the maintenance workers and communications specialists on the bases will mean the military will have to shift more soldiers to base support, which means more reliance on air support in the field. The Wikileaks evidence does say that our military was responsible for the 15,000 civilian casualties that they had failed to disclose; why else try to hide these deaths? So I've provided evidence that our military killed 15,000 people in Iraq, and my opponent provides evidence that PMC's killed maybe 100 civilians. Obviously, PMC's are no worse, and are in fact better than our military. Lastly, remember the CRS evidence that the new Armed Contractor Oversight Division decreased the number of times that PMC's fired weapons by 67%, getting them to obey clear rules of engagement. My opponent makes a big deal that I "dropped" his argument, which was just a quote from the report that the CRS had some concerns that the army might not sustain the oversight. No evidence is provided that the DOD didn't sustain this division. 3. PMC's work both sides My opponent never provides evidence that PMC's have started WORKING FOR the Taliban. He provides evidence that we fund local warlords (whose affiliation is unknown), but remember my argument that in the world's second most corrupt country, we have to tolerate some things that we prefer not to. Warlords set up checkpoints along roads and demand money. It's easier for a PMC that we pay for logistics (to transport supplies) to just pay the extortion fee than to hire a huge security detail to fight off the warlords. My opponent claims his evidence says that PMC's pay the Taliban to attack them. First, this makes no sense; they are putting their own lives and supplies in danger if they do so. Second, the part of the sentence he cuts out says that this is one of many "allegations" and the source provides no evidence to back this allegation. Lastly, we wouldn't hire a contractor that worked with our enemies, and just like we have agreements with procurement companies that they can't sell US military technology abroad without our approval, we can also limit who PMC's work with. 4. Other disads My opponent doesn't extend his impacts here. It's just one example of a contractor building something badly and the army doing a terrible job of being accountable and reporting electrocution incidents to the contractor through proper channels. Once they were reported, KBR did country-wide inspections and repairs. That covers my opponent's case, now moving back to my own. 5. Better oversight than the regular military The DOD now has an Armed Contractor Oversight Division, which appears to have been effective in getting contractors to obey clear rules of engagement, decreasing the amount of times contractors resorted to using weapons by 67%. The army has no such oversight division if a soldier misfires a weapon; in fact, Wikileaks proves that empirically the military tries to cover up such incidents rather than holding soldiers accountable. I also made the argument that the new Status of Force agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan have clauses that the two countries cannot prosecute our soldiers (who have immunity), but for the first time, may prosecute our PMC's. [1] The source I provided last round showed a case where a contractor was jailed under Afghan law. As far as money, at least there is a division to oversee contractor expenses. No such division exists for the regular military, and we should assume there is widespread waste there as well, but unfortunately, the military refuses to publish a breakdown of its expenditures. Chalmers Johnson in "Dismantling the Empire" talks about a secret golf course the military set up in Kuwait for officers to take vacations from Iraq. Even with some abuse, contractors are still much cheaper. It costs 90% less to hire a contractor for logistical support than for the military to do this itself, according to the CBO. If PMC's waste some money that just means it could actually be 95% or 99% cheaper, with more oversight. My opponent claims my source says soldiers are cheaper than PMC's in war time, but this is simply not the case. The source says PMC's are $15,000 cheaper in peace time. It says nothing about war. 6. Humanitarian assistance Remember my argument that PMC's can do a lot of good in the world because they allow presidents to intervene to stop genocides, when they don't have the political cover to send in the regular military. MPRI stopped the Balkans from breaking down into a protracted civil war when Yugoslavia split into different nations. My opponent claims that his Sierra Leone evidence is about peacekeeping, but it isn't. It said that when the government hired (African) contractors to fight the rebels, they also gave guns to rebels. The U.S. could use PMC's to save hundreds of thousands of lives, stopping genocides like in Rwanda. Blackwater says that they would welcome the opportunity to do peacekeeping. 7. Guard Duty The Iraqi Army does not do guard duty; they have other things to worry about. Extend my turn that local police are viewed as thousands of times more corrupt than contractors. Without contractors, our State Dept officials would have no protection in Iraq. Voting Aff and getting rid of the PMC's that guard them signs their death certificates. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with That we have become slaves to conformity because k <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best dirty rap songs because For my next song I'm gonna go with Kill You by Eminem, as it's content contains a sex, drugs and especially violence. This is one of my top 5 favorite Eminem songs to boot :P They said I can't rap about being broke no more They didn't say I can't rap about COKE no more Slut, what you think I won't choke no whore Til the vocal cords don't work in her throat no more?! (AH!) These motherfvckers are thinking I'm playing Thinking I'm saying this sh!t cause I'm thinking it just to be saying it (AH!) Put your hands down bi+ch, I ain't gonna shoot you I'ma pull YOU to this bullet and put it through you (AH!) Shut up slut, you're causing too much chaos Just bend over and take it like a slut - OK Ma? "Oh, now he's raping his own mother, abusing a whore, Worse - snorting coke, and we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!" You god damn right BI+CH and now it's too late I'm triple platinum and tragedies happened in two states I invented violence, you vile venomous volatile bi+ches Vain, Vicodin, vrinnn Vrinnn, VRINNN! Texas Chainsaw, left his brains all Dangling from his neck while his head barely hangs on Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts (Chorus) Bi+ch I'ma kill you! You don't wanna fvck with me Girls neither - you ain't nothing but a slut to me Bi+ch I'ma kill you! You ain't got the balls to beef We ain't gonna never stop beefing - I don't squash the beef You better kill me! I'ma be another rapper dead For popping off at the mouth with sh!t I shouldnt've said But when they kill me - I'm bringing the world with me Bi+ches too! You ain't nothing but a girl to me I said you don't... wanna fvck with Shady (cuz why?) Cuz Shady... will fvcking kill you (a-ha-ha) I said you don't... wanna fvck with Shady (why?) Cuz Shady... will fvcking kill you Bi+ch I'ma kill you! Like a murder weapon I'ma conceal you In a closet with mildew, sheets, pillows and film you Buck with me, I been through hell, shut the hell up! I'm trying to develop these pictures of the Devil to sell 'em I ain't "acid rap" but I rap on acid Got a new blow-up doll and just had a strap-on added WHOOPS! Is that a subliminal hint? NO! Just criminal intent to sodomize women again Eminem offend? NO! Eminem will insult And if you ever give in to him you give him an impulse To do it again, THEN, if he does it again You'll probably end up jumping out of something up on the 10th (Ah!) Bi+ch I'ma kill you! I ain't done, this ain't the chorus I ain't even drug you in the woods yet to paint the forest A bloodstain is orange after you wash it three or four times In a tub but that's normal ain't it Norman? Serial killer hiding murder material In a cereal box on top of your stereo Here we go again, we're out of our medicine Out of our minds, and we want in yours, let us in (Repeat Chorus) Eh-heh, know why I say these things? Cause lady's screams keep creeping in Shady's dreams And the way things seem, I shouldn't have to pay these shrinks These eighty G's a week to say the same things TWEECE! TWICE? Whatever, I hate these things Fvck shots! I hope the weed'll outweigh these drinks Motherfvckers want me to come on their radio shows Just to argue with 'em cause their ratings stink? FVCK THAT! I'll choke radio announcer to bouncer From fat bi+ch to all seventy-thousand pounds of her From principal to the student body and counselor From in-school to before school to out of school I don't even believe in breathing - I'm leaving air in your lungs Just to hear you keep screaming for me to seep it OK, I'M READY TO GO PLAY I GOT THE MACHETE FROM O.J. I'M READY TO MAKE EVERYONE'S THROAT ACHE You fagg0ts keep egging me on Til I have you at knifepoint then you beg me to stop? SHUT UP! Give me your hands and feet I said SHUT UP when I'm talking to you YOU HEAR ME? ANSWER ME! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Crowley could beat up castel because While Sam would admittedly be hesitant about consuming demons blood it wouldn't be the first time that he has compromised his values to save an ally. He didn't want to consume the blood to stop Lucifer but he realized it was necessary (though admittedly inefficient but that was the devil). They did not always fight one at a time, they took down nests of vampires, hives of demons, croatoan packs and many others completely on their own or with at most usually only 2 or 3 more people. If we are not talking about killing what in the world counts as beating? We both know that neither Castiel or the Winchesters would simply give up. They have all risked death, and many times actually died, before the give up so yes, we are talking about killing. Because thats what it would take to beat them. However Crowley, being the coward that he is and has proved to be in multiple situations, would likely give up if it meant preserving his well-being. Following this line of logic Crowley would give in before Castiel ever would and therefore all they would have to do is trap him in a demon's trap (again) and threaten him with burning of his bones, torture by dean, death by Sam, or simple exorcism (which I believe would qualify as beating). Following that line of thought lets think about all the times Crowley has been captured by the boys and Castiel (trapped by bobby, dean, sam by demon's traps multiple times and dragged around like a dog when they had him in the chain). Lucifer said after he was shot that he was one of the five beings that gun couldn't kill. Now I count at the very least five beings stronger and more powerful than Crowley. Lets just take it down to God, Death, Lucifer, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel. Archangels beat demons every time. "In theory" being the key words here. How would he release him from the cage again? There is currently no evidence that they could do it again. The rings appeared to be a way to get in, not out. The last seal was lilith, already dead. It may be possible but certainly not simple and I doubt that Crowley would have time to figure it out in a fight, and their is no saying who's side Michael would be on. Now how simple would it be for him to get the colt. The last known whereabouts of the colt was with Lucifer. Lucifer is in the cage. The cage is currently inaccessible. So now in hindsight neither of us should really be using the colt as a pro in either of our argument. Castiel is very good at finding things. He can search a whole town in less time then it takes to blink so I would like you to think what would happen he bent his will on finding among other things Lot's Salt. This weapon was used by Balthazar to destroy the vessel of an Archangel. It could most definitely destroy the vessel of a lowly demon which, and I am still confused on this, I would believe would fall under the category of "beating" him. I would like to look at another ally of the boys and Castiel and that is Death. Death has helped them multiple times at first simply for his own gain but when he brought Sam's soul back he did something that has little or no gain for him. Even if he isn't an ally its already been proven that he can be fairly easily bound and if they did this they could obtain another very important weapon and that is Death's scythe. Said by Bobby that it could kill Death himself, and if it could kill Death it could definitely kill Crowley. On the note of allies lets not forget that Hell is pretty torn up between him and Abbadon right now. Not all demons would be on his side and Abbadon would no doubt work with anybody to kill him... Maybe even Castiel, why not? He's not vying for control of Hell. Lets look purely at a few of the powers of Castiel now. Castiel's Powers: Pyrokinesis Healing and Resurrection Teleportation (Space AND Time) Invisibility Destructive White light (Which Crowley ran from insinuating that it can indeed severely hurt him) Smiting For more see: http://www.supernaturalwiki.com... And lets not forget this scene where Crowley flees from Castiel and a VERY weakened state. https://www.youtube.com... This is another video suggesting that Castiel has the power to destroy Crowley and his fear shows it. https://www.youtube.com... Showing yet another situation where Crowley runs from the destructive white light suggesting his fear of it. https://www.youtube.com... To you my dear fellow. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Xbox 360 is better than PS3 because Round 1: Accept my challenge Round 2: Debate Round 3: Cry Round 4: Forfeit <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am unintelligent because Well, thanks for such a, ummmmmmmm... Humorous debate. First of all, I would like to first state that since your pro, you bear the burden of proof. In order to win, you have to prove why you are unintelligent. For me to win, I have to explain why you are "not" unintelligent Definition of Unintellegent via msn encarta: not having ability to think: not having a mind or the ability to think and reason So you have to prove to me that you haven't the ability to think. Is that possible, considering the fact that you were able to surf this website and post this debate? Good Luck :) Everyone else, please vote CON <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with If the government were to take our guns, the US military has the right to fight against it. because While my opponent points out a section of the US constitution against treason, I also have to point out that the constitution states that if the government ever did behave tyrannically , that we as the citizens of the US have the right to act against it. Also, "to provide for the common defense" is mentioned in the preamble. Common would me the average people like you and I. How are we as citizens supposed to protect ourselves without weapons? Namely for the purpose of this debate, guns. Also, the second amendment, which is counted part of the Constitution, clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In modern days, a militia would be counted as the military. If nothing else, these weapons are needed to regulate our military. And if these weapons are taken away, how would we be able to stop our military from fighting against our government in the first place? We simply can't. http://www.usconstitution.net... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Pen is bigger than yours. because Here's your average hard, black Bic pen: http://fineestateliquidation.com... My pen can be seen in the embedded video. My pen is clearly far larger than my opponent's. Please vote CON. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. because Photos do not need a subject. Instead they may have multiple items of interest, a pattern, or just a sense of place. Pro's photo of the building on the lake is an idyllic setting. The photo would be improved if more of the lake were included in the foreground, and there was less sky. That would raise the horizon to make a better composition. As it is, the reflection is cut off. Large expanses of blank white sky are best avoided. For this round I offer a recent photo http://quickshotartist.com... taken at Point Lobos, near Carmel, California. Point Lobos http://www.pointlobos.org... is hopelessly scenic. The yellow flowers with red stems are, oddly, called "bluff lettuce." The frame with the kids is spliced with a frame of the waves. That allows timing the position of the kids and of the breaking wave separately. The kids provide scale and draw attention to the cliff edge. It's best viewed full screen to get the detail. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women don't poop. because In 1859, Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers discovered a serum in human females' bodies that prevented them from producing fecal matter. This serum is today colloquially known as "cooties", but then it was known as "Serum No. 109". Now, of course, this produced a major backlash from the scientific community, who claimed that the experiment was flawed based on the fact that the experiment only tested a small test group of individuals. Scientists maintained this flawed mindset until the invention of the radio. When the radio was invented in the late 19th century, Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers was proven to be correct. You see, the frequency of the waves that females who used the device emitted actually decreased after two seconds after they started speaking, and by 5 seconds the frequency was so low that a man speaking would be practically inaudible. It was an extremely uncommon phenomenon, and it was barely recorded. This is why it is not known by many. Now, if the frequency was so low after 5 seconds, why were the women who used the device just as loud as men? The answer was discovered to be Serum No. 109 in 1987. This is the formula of Serum No. 109: g7*7^(r65)Hydrogen|x|+ 924Carbon g7*7 is a compound that is completely unknown to scientists. The only thing they know is that the unknown elements in the compound do two things: Prevent the production of fecal matter, and produce sound without increasing frequency. Further investigation is required by scientists, but they are almost ready to determine the identity of g7*7. Until then, all we can do is wait. Vote Pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned because Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I apologize for letting this trial get side-tracked into debates about zombies. I'll try to keep this brief for your convenience. == Rebuttal == R1) Izbo says that most people on this board are Christians DDO user statistics are useless. They are measuring thousands of people of who signed up, posted once, and then left the site. The user statistics should generally reflect the averages for the English speaking world. However, among *active current members*, there are definitely more atheists than theists. Izbo claims that Cerebral is a closet theist because of some of the arguments he has advanced against izbo. Apparently izbo has never heard of the term "devil's advocate." Cerebral is most definitely an atheist. R2) Izbo says that I don't understand the word "or" Semantics debates aren't all that fun, even when you're engaging in them. I don't care to start a spontaneous semantics debate here. I merely was showing you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that JustCallMeTarzan is anything but stupid. If izbo wanted to have a semantics debate with him, he should have done so in a civilized manner. R3) Zombies Izbo purports that his genius will be a great loss to this site. Yet somehow he fails to grasp the argument that not all people who come back to life are zombies because a necessary condition for being a zombie is possessing diminished mental faculties. For example, on the television program "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Buffy dies and is brought back to life by her friend (played by Alyson Hannigan) who is a witch. The resurrection spell succeeds, and Buffy is *not* a zombie. Only spells gone *wrong* produce zombies. If all undead are zombies, then is a vampire a zombie? Izbo's unwillingness to address the above argument is typical. Many of his opponents are frustrated that he refuses to answer rebuttals to his arguments. If he is truly here to teach and engage with people, he would attempt to address the arguments against him rather than resorting to insults and cussing.* *It is worth noting that izbo cusses so often, he has found just about every conceivable way to thwart the curse filter. It is further worth noting that I have had zero interactions with izbo prior to this debate and have done nothing to provoke him, besides accepting the prosecutor's position at innomen's urging. Yet izbo still finds it necessary to call me "fucktarded." This is clear and convincing evidence that he does not actually *want* people to engage his arguments. R4) Is this a morality debate? I suppose izbo could make it one, if he wanted to argue for moral nihilism as a justification for why he shouldn't be banned. But he refuses to endorse this ethical position, merely attributing it to a "prosecutor" who has since stepped down. This is the definition of a straw man argument: izbo is building a straw man of moral nihilism, which I never argued for, and then is beating this poor straw man half-to-death. I never argued for moral nihilism in this debate. Izbo has even complimented me on the ethical system I seem to endorse by arguing that he has harmed the site. Izbo said to me, via a recent PM, "Though I do have to give you credit, you are almost down the path of moral objectivism through facts about harm and benefit to society." Izbo, as a moral objectivist, thus clearly agrees that if I prove that he is harming the site, then I prove that he ought to be banned. R5) Forum Activity Izbo says it's not his fault that people are too stupid to "understand" his points. However, to izbo, "understanding" seems to mean posting merely, "yes izbo, you're so right." Questioning izbo's assertions would count as "not understanding," and thus stupidity. Yet, the whole point of a debate site is to engage with people who disagree with you and try to convince them. The point of a debate site is *not* to help you find people of differing opinions so you can insult them and their beliefs. R6) Vote bombing Izbo claims he has only vote bombed once without reading. The copious evidence I presented in Round 1 says otherwise. I presented 12 individual cases of vote bombing in Round 1, although there are many more cases if you care to browse izbo's voting record. For example, he vote bombed InquireTruth, one of the most respected theists on this site, at the last second resulting in InquireTruth losing. InquireTruth got quite upset and has not been very active on the site since then. R7) Conversation with innomen All I see in the PM's that izbo has presented is more trolling and semantics by izbo, as well as a refusal to actually engage in a debate, which is the whole point of this site. This clearly shows that izbo no longer cares to use this site for its intended purpose but would rather troll the forums and harass people via PM. I'll present my closing arguments in the last round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Paramedics disposal of deceased patients because No need for Rebuttals nor extensions.. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with drugs because they can be used to cure diseases and MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN they make you feel gooooood <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Three Philosophical Topics - 1C because "Are you saying that the person commiting suicide isn't exercising control over their actions?" ----> No. I finally see what the point of your argument is, and all I have to say is that if you were attempting to catch me in a semantical trap it was unsuccessful. If you read it carefully, it refers to free will as the ability rational agents *HAVE WHEN* they exercise control over their actions. This definition already assumes people are exercising control (a better term is intentionality), because free will is this supposed element of decision making. The point of this debate was an attempt to figure out what free will is, and then figure out if it exists. Since you haven't even touched upon either part, I will supply a short argument against free will as you have wasted our rounds. The argument I am presenting is the famous consequence argument by Carl Ginet[1][2]. P1. If determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. P2. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. C. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. Furthermore, I will remind my opponent that as stated in my profile, I am a Source Incompatibilist. I deny the existence of free will, and conceive of the notion of control in the framework of the Source model. In contrast to the Leeway model, the Source model conceives of control as being the source of which one's actions originate. Here is a breakdown of how the Source model views free will: Any agent, x, performs an any act, a, of his own free will iff x has control over a. x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a. As you can see, put in conjunction with the consequence argument the Source model can easily reject free will. I will be ready to defend either claim. ---References--- 1. http://www2.drury.edu... 2. http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com... 3. http://plato.stanford.edu... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing because This debate comes from the following Opinion. http://www.debate.org... The terms "make money" and "paid" refer to monetary or any highly liquidable asset (meaning something that can be turned into cash pretty easily and quickly) for compensation, beyond just scholarships that cover the cost of the schooling and housing. I will be arguing for a structured compensation with limits and regulations, but it will allow players to be paid and collect cash. My opponent will be arguing that players not be paid in anything highly liquidable. He does not have to argue that they need to abolish scholarships or anything of the sort. The intent of this debate should be clear. Any attempt to use semantics to corrupt or argue something outside the spirit of the debate shall not count towards arguments and count against conduct. My opponent may start their arguments their R1, or accept and pass for me to start R2. Thank you, <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack because I thank my opponent for his timely response. I would like to state that my opponent merely argued how it is MORE LIKELY that I use crack. It was not proved to be 100% fact. All the symptoms listed could just as easily be symptoms for something completely different. For instance, generalized anxiety and social phobia both fit these symptoms. Symptoms of generalized anxiety and panic attacks include: -Irrational fear or dread, elevated heart rate, palpitations -Muscle tension, headache, chest pain -Insomnia -Diarrhea, GI distress, IBS, nausea -Chest pressure, shortness of breath, tearfulness -Jumpiness, irritability, shakiness, sudden changes in body temperature, hot flashes -Depression When anxious, you usually don't feel tired or hungry ( http://www.womentowomen.com... ). Many people with social phobia are preoccupied with concerns hat other people will see their anxiety symptoms (i.e., trembling, sweating, or blushing); or notice their halting or rapid speech; or judge them to be weak, stupid, or "crazy". Having one's mind going blank are also not uncommon ( http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... ). I will now argue every point made by my opponent in terms of generalized anxiety, social phobia, or the validity of his information. Argument against Contention 1: Denial - "My opponent denies that she uses cocaine and is thus in denial." By saying this, my opponent is claiming that everyone who denies using crack is in denial and is therefore a drug abuser. This is clearly not the case. Argument against Contention 2: Symptoms - Denial: my opponent claims I am "a very anxious person". This characteristic is a MAJOR part in both generalized anxiety and social phobia. In concern to the interview I had the previous week, Social Phobia describes a marked and persistent fear of social or performance situations in which embarrassment might occur ( http://counsellingresource.com... ). I was this way because I was afraid of being rejected from the position. - Insomnia: see symptoms of generalized anxiety. My opponent states "The two major causes of Insomnia are Anxiety or Depression." Anxiety being a major cause leads me to believe that there is an even greater chance of either generalized anxiety disorder or social phobia, which is also known as social anxiety disorder. -Loss of appetite leading to malnutrition and weight loss: It was stated that I am skinny from the effects of crack. Once again, this is also a symptom of generalized anxiety disorder. See symptoms of generalized anxiety list. -Cold sweats and shivers: In concern to my cold sweats, see symptoms of generalized anxiety to find sudden changes in body temperature as a symptom. - Restlessness and anxiety: see Anxiety. Argument against Contention 3: Divorced Parents - I do have divorced parents. It has been this way since I was 5 years old. The divorce of my parents is a normal way of life rather than a stressor to me because that is just the way I grew up. The divorce of my parents has never been a problem that would lead me into a drug-filled life. If my opponent chooses to argue that it has been stressful to my life, I could just as easily tie it to generalized anxiety. People with generalized anxiety anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about health issues, money, FAMILY PROBLEMS, or difficulties at work ( http://www.nimh.nih.gov... ). Argument against Contention 4: No Money - I would like to point out that my parents pay for all things to do with my cell phone (including texting). I do not run out of money. I would also like to point out that I currently have $380 saved up in cash. I do not like wasting money, rather I am one who believes in saving. Argument against Contention 5: Grades - My opponent has greatly mislead you in his statements concerning my grades. Firstly, I will begin with saying in the beginning of the year, I DID have all As (forget the "almost"). This, according to my opponent's own argument, strikes any claims that I was once on crack. Secondly, my grades have only occasionally been higher than my opponent's. Thirdly, my grades have certainly NOT been slipping. On my last report card, my lowest grade was a 96. My opponent knew this fact. Argument against Contention 6: Hispanic - Although I am in fact Hispanic, I am only half-Hispanic. I am also half-Hungarian. -I would also like to use this section to reveal that both generalized anxiety and social phobia are more likely to affect me. - Social phobia typically has an onset in the mid-teens ( http://www.mentalhealth.com... ). I am in fact 15 years old. - Generalized anxiety often hits people in childhood or adolescence. It is more common in women than in men ( http://psychcentral.com... ). I am also a female. I would like to suggest that because neither one of us is able to produce sufficient proof that we change the direction of this argument and go about it in a way as to who makes a more likely argument. My opponent is unable to solidly prove that I am on crack. By doing it this way, both my opponent and I then have the possibility of gaining points where points would otherwise not be given. I am eager to hear my opponent's argument. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Model Debate : Hot Girls because He got my model lol. So I'll go to my second one Melanie Iglesias 5'7 114 pounds Hotness factors : Curves, Dark hair, Tan, Cut, 32 C Bra size <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Halo Or Call of Duty. because Let me start off by saying Halo and Call of Duty are both good games, but Call of Duty has the upper hand on Halo. This is because more players prefer the Cod expeirence, then Halo. I played all the Halo games through over many times, the Halo series is a good series for story, when you enter the realm of multiplayer though... it starts off as a rush and something new but then slowly dwindles into the same linear gameplay from Halo 3. Big maps, small maps, vehicles, team slayer. Not to mention when 343 took over the Halo franchise they really destroyed the Halo Reach multiplayer by allowing the players to move so fast they basically floated above ground and made it almost impossible to move swiftly in buildings because you would always over shoot the next corner. Not much has changed in Halo 4 either. Call of Duty offers an actiony story line in each game even if its the same over and over but the action continues in multiplayer. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs because I will offer a counter plan to the resolution. Instead of proposing them with total costs, I will advocate we should claim they cost 3545467.5 times as much as they do now. This is mutually exclusive with affirming as clearly you cannot propose it with total costs and propose it with 3545467.5 times as much costs at the same time. This is beneficial because prices this high will mean people will continue to rely on fossil fuels and thus contribute to global warming. Global warming is good because: A) Warming is good in that warming promotes peace and stability: Warmer is better- history proves it facilitates peace. Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 11/16/05 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, "War and Social Unrest- Summary" http://www.co2science.org... 7/20/08) Craig Idso 1 writes "What is the connection between rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations and social stability? Zhang et al. (2005) note that historians typically identify political, economic, cultural and ethnic unrest as the chief causes of war and civil strife. However, the five Chinese scientists argue that climate plays a key role as well; and to examine their thesis, they compared proxy climate records with historical data on wars, social unrest and dynastic transitions in China from the late Tang to Qing Dynasties (mid-9th century to early 20th century). This work revealed that war frequencies, peak war clusters, nationwide periods of social unrest and dynastic transitions were all significantly associated with cold phases of China's oscillating climate. More specifically, all three distinctive peak war clusters (defined as more than 50 wars in a 10-year period) occurred during cold climatic phases, as did all seven periods of nationwide social unrest and nearly 90 percent of all dynastic changes that decimated this largely agrarian society. As a result, they concluded that climate change was "one of the most important factors in determining the dynastic cycle and alternation of war and peace in ancient China," with warmer climates having been immensely more effective than cooler climates in terms of helping to "keep the peace."" End quote. War and disrupting society must be stopped at all costs due to the fact that in todays world people don't just go stab each other with pitch forks we have nuclear weapons. This is important because: 1) We have already several times come close to nuclear war and there are many countries that keep their fingers on the trigger, and who knows what this extra crises could do? 2) This isn't just a few more wars, the statistics show that almost 90% of all major wars and zones of dynastic change happened during cold periods. Furthermore this outweighs on magnitude as nuclear war would destroy all possible life on the planet as it is toxic to everything and is not limited or prevented by factors like height and is not survivable. T.E. Bearden affirms: T.E. Bearden LTC U.S. Army (ret) Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists and Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly, 6-24-2k, http://www.seaspower.com... History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions." As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China, whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States, attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs." Thus nuclear war on any level results in an infinite chain of escalation till extinction occurs. B) Without increases global warming the world will lapse into famine. Keith and creig idso write Idso, Craig and Keith (Ex-Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, and Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. "Biofuels as religious fodder" http://www.co2science.org... ) 1/30/2008 "Borlaug notes, for example, that "for the foreseeable future, plants - especially the cereals - will continue to supply much of our increased food demand, both for direct human consumption and as livestock feed to satisfy the rapidly growing demand for meat in the newly industrializing countries." In fact, he states that "the demand for cereals will probably grow by 50% over the next 20 years and even larger harvests will be needed if more grain is diverted to produce biofuels." Noting that most food increases of the future "will have to come from lands already in productio]," and that "70% of global water withdrawals are for irrigating agricultural lands," Borlaug's facts suggest that crop water use efficiency (biomass produced per unit of water used) will have to be increased dramatically if we are to meet humanity's food needs of the future without creating the disastrous consequences he outlines above; and it should be evident to all but those most blinded to the truth that this requirement can only be met if biofuels are not a part of the picture, while the aerial fertilization and anti-transpiration effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment are. Although Borlaug notes that conventional plant breeding, improvements in crop management, tillage, fertilization, and weed and pest control, as well as genetic engineering, will help significantly in this regard, we will in all likelihood need the beneficial biological byproducts of concomitant increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration in addition. Without them, to borrow a chilling phrase from Borlaug, "efforts to halt global poverty will grind to a halt," and much of the world of nature will be no longer." End quote. Thus famines are an inventible outcome since grain is a staple food of most of the world and so the amount of grain feeding the world would be so far behind the need that there would be millions of starving people. This outweighs on probability as global warming has no exact known effects while poverty while idso explains that the grain production MUST increase by 50% over the next 20 years if it wants to remain anywhere near the demand, and this is unrealistic in our situation now. Therefore the sole workable solution that can possibly be effective and possible to afford is to increase CO2 levels. I would like to thank my opponent for letting me test insane cards I found during off-season. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against God Failed in his Duty as a Protector because I thank my opponent. "all these facts from the bible show reasons that might infer that Jesus was not crucified, but under no circumstances do they state that Jesus was never crucified." This makes absolutely no sense. If Jesus was not crucified, then he was never crucified. Furthermore, the facts deal with a lot more than what my opponent seems to think. Moving on, my opponent said, "My opponent may have proved that Jesus was resurrected in a form other than that of a spirit but this goes a long way from proving that Jesus was never crucified." This is not true. There is a lot more than that. The fact that Jesus did not arise as a spirit and desired food tells us that he was not crucified. I will, however, get deeper into the facts soon. -- Content -- • 1. Matthew 27:35-39 • 2. Passages proving alleged crucifixion wrong -- Elaboration -- • 1. Matthew 27:35-39 I agree that this passage says that Jesus was crucified. However, this does in no way make it obvious that the crucifixion took place. We must analyze why this was said, who said it, and so forth. I will prove that Matthew did, in fact, not always speak in first person, which is a very important point. [Matthew 9:9] "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. 'Follow me,' he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him." Now, what do we see here? Matthew is talking about himself in third person. It is as if Mirza said to you that he has never debated with you, although he is writing a response to your debate right now. As you can see, I would probably never write that for real. I ask, why did Matthew write it that way? Why did he say, "... he saw a man named Matthew"? Would God inspire Matthew to ever do such a thing? He would not. This is a perfect explanation of why we cannot say that every verse of the Bible is a fact. This passage is clearly an alteration. Matthew was referred to as another person, yet there is no reason for that. Therefore, we have to question different verses and find out why they are not valid, while others are. • 2. Passages proving alleged crucifixion wrong [Matthew 12:40] "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Jesus will be at a hidden place for three days and three nights. What does this refer to? If Jesus was supposed to be on the cross publicly, why was he at a hidden place instead? [Luke 24:4-5] "While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. (5)In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, 'Why do you look for the living among the dead?'" Why did those people look for a dead Jesus, when he was alive? Two men came to testify that Jesus was alive, not dead. That is why they asked the women looked for a living person among the dead ones. The men did not talk about a resurrected person, but a living person [Matthew 27:64] "... This last deception will be worse than the first." If read in context, we can see that the Jews actually doubted the crucifixion of Jesus, as they clearly knew that they committed a mistake by not assuring that Jesus died. [John 20:17] "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him. Why? Because he did not want to be harmed. Moreover, Jesus said that he has not yet returned to the Father, in an idiomatic way, which also means "I have not yet died" or "I am not dead yet." If he was not dead, how could he have been crucified? This was at a point where people believed he was dead! Luke 24:20-24] "'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. (20)The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; (21)but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. (22)In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning (23)but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. (24)Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.'" As we can read here, Jesus could not be found in the tomb. However, according to these people, the angels said that Jesus was alive. Notice the word "alive." Jesus was not "resurrected" but alive. If he was resurrected, there is no doubt that angels, who are entirely pure, would ever hesitate to say that. What they ultimately did was to say that Jesus was alive, meaning that he was not dead nor resurrected. No matter which disciple said what, he can not be more right than the angels who are pure and sinless. [John 19:34] "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." Had Jesus died on the cross instead of escaping death, his blood would not be able to flow freely at all. Without the heart pumping the blood, it eventually clots. When it clots, it hardly gushes out. Only gravity can help with that, but impossibly as much as what happened with Jesus as we see in the verse above. Even with gravity, the amount of blood that would come would be minimal. It would never turn into a flow of blood and water. I have lots of other arguments that invalidate the alleged crucifixion, but since my opponent cannot reply, I will not post more. Also, it is kind of disappointing that there was no refutation of the point that I made in earlier rounds. We could have gone deeper into the arguments. As for now, I will say that if my opponent wishes, he may challenge me to another debate on this topic and we will debate further. I have more arguments, but there is no need to post more when there will be no refutations. All in all, I let you readers judge. How could Jesus have been crucified when many passages say the contrary? How could witnesses be any more reliable than angels who said that he was alive? How can we know the authenticity level of the alleged crucifixion, when Mark - who was the first to record the crucifixion - was not even an eye witness? Where are the authentic prophecies of the crucifixion? My opponent does not make good arguments with a verse saying something. Even the disciples had different views, and also different records. Therefore, we cannot say that just because one passage in the NT says something then it is a fact. No, we cannot do that truthfully. I thank my opponent and I hope that the debate has been interesting to follow. -- References -- The Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com... Further reading: http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Freedom of expression should not be supressed by accusations of sexism. because Pro, Your suspicion that you would be debating a male was incorrect. I am indeed a female, despite constantly being referred to as "he" on this site. In fact the assumption that I am a male on this site is not proof that women do not wish to debate, but rather enforces the notion that debating is generally perceived as a "man's sport," and therefore non-inclusive to women. Further, history shows us that women have been punished and/or discriminated against either blatantly or socially for vehemently expressing their views. For instance, you not-so-humorously portrayed feminists in a negative light in your round, while at the same time non-directly critisized women who were NOT feminists and who enjoy reading frivolous magazines instead of taking a stand in politics. I would like to state for the record that your insecurity with your manhood and/or sexuality in patronizing women should not be a deciding factor in this debate. That said, your contribution regarding a mock meeting between Condoleeza Rice and a foreign minister has absolutely no merit in this debate. For one, you completely negate its value of contributing to your point when you said, "Now that would be properly sexist, but I'm not condoning that sort of prediluvian attitude towards women, far from it." So if this waste of space example has absolutely nothing to do with your point, then why include it in this debate? It has clearly taken up your time and mine, as well as the readers/judges who have unfortunately been subjected to your attempt at being funny (Making fun of Condoleeza's race and role in government with blatant disregard for women?! How clever! You're about as original and genuine as Carlos "Ned Holness" Mencia, mate. Gee I've honestly never heard that before :| ). So what exactly are you advocating? Well you have asked a fellow debater to prove "that the controversial comments [you] may make in the course of [your] arguments should be kept to [your]self." You also state that "men should not feel ashamed to express their admiration for attractive women for fear of being accused of sexism." So alright... a few things. First, I hope that in pointing out your less than amusing/original sense of humor, I have demonstrated why you should keep those "controversial" a.k.a. trying-too-hard-to-be-witty-and-shocking comments to yourself, for the simple fact that they do not contribute to your argument, and instead just take up space and waste time (put it this way - we're not laughing WITH you...). Second, there is a difference between saying things that can be CONSIDERED sexist, and saying things that are downright offensive. Men CAN express their admiration for attractive women without being sexist, therefore one should find more intelligent and socially acceptable ways to vocalize their views (especially during a debate on debate.org, where one would almost certainly get called out for being "abusive" if they did not comply with traditional debate etiquette). Now since you are Pro, the burden is on you to prove the resolution to be true. Even if I agree with you, you have offered no acceptable evidence that would compel anyone to vote Pro. You mentioned chanting songs that repeat phrases like "Get your t~ts out" are acceptable because most women oblige, however you cannot prove that to be true (personal experience doesn't count, because I can say that in MY personal experience, that is not the case). I don't think men are too restricted in what they can say; they can say anything they want, and unless it's unlawful, they will not be penalized other than MAYBE having a few people call them sexist. To that I say quit whining and grow a pair of balls! You're saying that women shouldn't bit <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters because Well before we begin I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I'd like to challenge the idea that people are affected by Political actions. To the perspective of the average non-voter, the two main reasons why they do not vote are either because they are too busy or they just aren't interested.( https://www.washingtonpost.com... ) If they aren't interested then chances are that politics doesn't affect their daily lives. Voting is a right in the United States and when you say you do not want to vote that is your decision but that means you don't want to be counted in Politics either because you think Politics are boring or you're too busy to either get an absentee ballot or take the time to go to the nearest voting booth and do it.Another reason why a lot of Americans do not vote is because they believe their vote is way too minuscule to even count.( http://www.livescience.com... ) In the end though if we do make the electoral college based on voters then they will have a lot more of a reason to vote. Another thing I would like to point out is that, this is a bipartisan idea. States like Oregon,Maine and Minnesota can have their voices heard much louder.( http://www.csmonitor.com... ) The best reason why people in these states vote is because they know that it really does matter, these people all have a busy 9-5 pm schedule as well and they still come out to vote. Clearly they need their voices heard a lot more then these large states like California or Texas who clearly don't really care.These small states are taking time to addressing what is really a problem in their communities and looking to fix the issue besides sitting around and smoking dope all day or shooting pheasants. If you take the time to actually sit down and listen to debates and vote with a well informed opinion, shouldn't you be allowed to express it more then someone who really doesn't care. It's a lot like the idea of working, shouldn't someone who is working be looked at more favorably then someone who is on Facebook while at their job all day? ( http://www.forbes.com... ) This is actually true and I would like to make my point by comparing apathetic non voters to people who don't really do their job. When it comes to efficiency in a company the one universal thing that drives employers crazy is the fact people are too bored so they sit around and surf on Facebook or look on Amazon for random stuff. In my field of work as an Electrician, I have taken many OSHA who have said that being distracted on Facebook on the Job can not only cause an explosion in a refinery but also can ban you from ever being in the Union again. Not only that but good luck ever getting a job in the electrical field ever again. My point is this, if we wish to be a more efficient nation that understands the problems of people who care then we should be addressing people's votes a lot more seriously. Let's stop saying they are too minuscule to ever count and actually show that their votes do count by changing the size of the electoral college every election based on voter turn out. Not only that but then the local governments of these states will begin trying to get their people to vote more.They may put out incentives and create a much better atmosphere. So now my question to my opponent is this, how do you convince someone who is not interested in voting that politics affects their everyday lives? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate because Originally I considered having you change the premise because the debate was about morality. However I realized that in the end it did boil down to a case for God. All I had to do according to your premise was prove that he made a case for God, there was nothing about how compelling or valid it had to be. You didn’t even say I had to show how he proved the Christian God. Once again by bringing up maricacons to explain the 5 senses you are creating a strawman to avoid addressing the issue directly as you don’t actually believe in them. If you did believe in them then you would be debating whether they created the senses or the God of the Bible did, but that is not what was going on. Kerrigan’s case for not being able to trust the five senses is not self refuting because it only applies to atheists. He can trust his senses because God has allowed him to whereas an atheist can’t know. I urge the voters to vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid because This debate is being created because my opponent has yet another argument for the existence of God that I find to be logically invalid. To avoid complications that arose in the original debate, I am sending this challenge specifically to deal with GodSands' argument regarding DNA as a code. The main gist of the argument is that since DNA is a code, and codes are developed via Intelligence, then an Intelligence must have been responsible for the designing of DNA. In this debate, I will show that this argument is logically invalid for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: 1. This argument relies heavily on semantics and deliberate interpretation of terms to forge a specific conclusion 2. There are hidden premises that are false or faulty, leading to an invalid conclusion. 3. My opponents argument commits an Equivalence Fallacy in its logical presentation and thus, it is logically invalid. On top of the logical fallacies, I shall also address the issue from a scientific point of view. I now invite my opponent to repost his argument in a different form, but I will include the following as a source in case anyone wants to see the original. Please see my opponent's first response of this debate: http://www.debate.org... Thank you and good luck to my opponent. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with School Year Extension because I am not saying that with more days of school kids will have the same knowledge, I am not saying that the kids will be on the same page I am saying that teachers will be able to teach the students with that extra time. That is irrefutable evidence because with more time that automatically means for teaching time, or will I need to provide more evidence for that as well because that is what you are saying. Everything needs evidence even when most of this information is common knowledge. Let's take this analogy, I am running one mile. I get 5 minutes to do it. How many people can run a mile in 5 minutes? I would have to say the physically fit students and adults only. If you aren't physically fit you will be struggling to get there, just like in school. If you were to have 15 or 30 minutes this will be an easy task. If you have more time to cover parts you just don't get, for instance me at math, I am not terrible but I can do bad but if I had extra time I could easily get these subjects down and move on to the next section with ease. Now don't take this as, HE IS ONLY WANTING EXTRA TIME FOR HIMSELF! That is not true. I know several students just in my class who are the smartest and average students who would like extra time in school to get those tough subjects down. And I want you to tell me what teacher, whose job it is to get these students ready for life, who wants a student to now know something. Even if it is evil history such as the racism of the 1800's and 1900's or even the dreadful holocaust which can make people sick to their stomachs at the facts and pictures that may go along with it. It is a major part of history and if a teacher has to graze over any subject is bad. You say students learn their favorite subjects on their own time? This is true like I knew a lot about ancient history such as mythology and ancient Greece but I learned more than I even knew about them both this year in school than my entire 3-5 years of studying it. I even made new questions about them as well so even though a student may want to learn about something that isn't in the school program for that year they can learn more about them with the help of maybe 15+ students in a class who already know about that subject and will help you narrow down your research by helping you learn something you want. The metaphor 2 heads is better than 1 is right in this case and with 15+ heads all pooling in on 1 subject a few of them may know by heart is very good. It is good to do at home research but having the help of an adult who may have gone through the even such as the Vietnam War would be better than just reading up on it. Now not all teachers are war veterans but in case they are that can be a help. All right you seem to not be getting my point on DROPPING OUT. As we all should know without a HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA you can't go to college. It is a simple fact! I already know you can take college courses in high school. I know if you drop out you can get a GED but in Russia at age 16 you can study for a university and go to learn trade skills. In America you need 4 English courses, 2 science and 3 maths. If this checks out you need at least 4 years of High School to get 4 English courses. You are saying I am forcing my ways on this debate with saying sports camps are useless but isn't it you who said they should learn on their own time! It is called Physical Education so learning sports is just like learning Math. The can get together with their friends and play baseball, basketball, football, ect. This is much easier than getting together and learn a new language. This is again a fact. I can learn basketball and how to shoot in a day than learn how to speak for 5 minutes with someone in France and sound smart or at least mediocre for them. We can afford this and if you are calling this a recession well you are wrong. The recession was over early last year. We just thought it was still on because we were still "low". We were considered growing over the last 3 years in 2010 and growing higher than before. The only thing that could have been considered a recession would be the house market. Now I will give more reasons why we can afford this. Again the main reason about how we spend almost all of our money, not just government, TAX PAYER money of our military. I don't know about you but how would you like to have 27 percent of our tax payer money on this miltary, 21 percent on our health(which is good), but a measly 5 percent on our Education. We have 9 percent on Military debt for crying out loud. Our military debt is more important than our EDUCATION. How is that reflecting out ways of life! Not blaming Obama on this but it is his budget that is doing this. He increased our education budget by 7.5 percent. YAH, this is amazing. Sure, it is only 3.5 billion dollars. We are still spending 708 billion on military. Now here is something not military related. Our prisons are secure right. I wonder why? In California they spend 15.7 billion on their prisons. Lets see their Education spending. 15.3 billion. Yeah, this is again showing our great support for our education! Why are we doing this too our country! You say I haven't been proving while longer school years are better but I have. I have said this in almost every round. Longer school years are better for teachers and student. They help them learn more. If we learn more we are better suited for life. I will give you a video about how stupid an American woman is. She was on a game show and she knew it. She had multiple choice answers and she actually completed High School and she got this question wrong, what animal shoots ink when threatened. She said owl and octopus was the correct answer. I am giving multiple videos so we know it isn't a one time incident. The last one truly shows how stupid some people are. I agree standardized tests don't show the overall I.Q. of a person because they don't ask you how to fix a car or how to make a plane but they do see how smart you are in major subjects that are used in almost every field of work, especially Math and English. If someone doesn't know Math or English they aren't making it far in life. I know that for a fact. You are saying that again we can't pay for it, and I said it was Obama who put the little 7.5 percent in the Education budget but it is he who wants to extend the school year and says it is money well spent. If the president wants it done that is a good reason. I mean people voted for him so they must like his ideas right? I guess so because he is still a good candidate for 2012. It is just that people hate him for what the Bush Administration did to put us in the hole we were in. Now for free time, unless the students truly try to learn during the summer they will retain all their knowledge which is what maybe 10 or a little more of the students actually do. In Sylvan commercials students lose too much during the summer. I have little room left so this is it. If summer vacation was a month or two shorter kids would be able to do better on No Child Left Behind and all Standardized tests since they will REMEMBER ALMOST EVERYTHING. That is my case in a nutshell. With less vacation time in the summer will equal more time to retain the knowledge so that is the best point in this entire round for me. It is a proven fact as shown in other nations and they have out of school programs for this so it must be true. I hope you will all see reason and vote for education. http://www.thedailybeast.com... http://www.wsws.org... http://education-portal.com... http://www.economist.com... http://www.pactinc.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage because Thank you for starting this debate. I agree with all of my opponent's definitions, as proper conduct dictates. I will now write my own constitution: mongeese's Constitution: {Preamble: I am mongeese, and I write this constitution. This constitution governs mongeese. Article I In any case in which mongeese wishes to amend this Constitution, mongeese may amend this Constitution in any way that he so desires, so long as he has approval from himself. Amendments: 1. mongeese is part of Debate.org. 2. Gay marriage is banned.} There should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because mongeese desires such an amendment, and has approval from himself. The resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage because I never said I was a corporation. I said that I am like a corporation. This still fits with the definition of constitution, which says, "nation, state, corporation, or the like..." "Corporation: 1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members" I am an association of cells, created by science, having a continuous existence even as individual cells die, only able to run with cooperation of said cells. I am like a corporation. Therefore, I can have a constitution. My constitution allows me to have whatever amendment I want. There should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because mongeese desires such an amendment, and has approval from himself. The resolution remains affirmed. Vote PRO. That was great. I advise that you re-instate this debate again, but specify which constitution you want to debate about next time. Such a detail is of great importance to the debate! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against (If it was medically available) Should it be legal to choose the sex of your child? because Sure, I accept. I look forward to a nice debate. Just some terms I would like to set: The resolution is: Resolved: Being able to choose the sex of your child should be legally available. As PRO, my opponent will be affirming the resolution. As CON, I will be negating the resolution. No semantics, the resolution will be taken as is. No double meanings of words, etc. Okay, you first, PRO. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Funnier Jokes Wins. because A man escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns and finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair, while tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom. While he's in there, the husband tells his wife: "Listen, this guy's an escaped convict, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck." If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain, do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you." To which his wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He wwas whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked me if we had any vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you too!!" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Should the US take military action against syria because Yes. I'm passionately opposed to intervening in Syria. **As a disclaimer, I will use my exact arguments from my other debate for my first entry, as I spent a good amount of time crafting them, and my other opponent forfeited.** As for your claim that Assad's troops fired on U.N inspectors, I would appreciate it if you would cite a source. I cannot find anything to evidence that, and this is the first I am hearing about it. No offense but I seriously doubt that statement is accurate. The reasons why we should stay out of Syria are numerous. ----Syrian Rebels (FSA)----- Arming/Supporting the rebels is dangerous ground to say the least. It has been reported that the rebel faction is affiliated with militant Islamic Extremists, not people that we want to arm. We already made that mistake when we armed militants in Afghanistan so they could fight the Russians. Then they fought us. http://www.cbsnews.com... ... There are multiple allegations of war crimes, civilian kidnappings, murders thefts from Turkish merchants, prisoner executions, body mutilation and torture committed by the FSA. Much of this has been confirmed by HRW (Human Rights Watch) http://www.hrw.org... ... So do we have any sort of confidence that FSA(Free Syrian Army) will provide a regime superior to the current one? And who is the U.S to choose one Human Rights abuser over another? The FSA is NOT a credible force worthy of American support. -----Iran and Russia------ This entire situation is reminiscent of the Cold War, although it isn't as blatant as the proxy wars between the U.S.S.R, and America, the correlation exists. Iran openly supplies and backs the Assad regime, and have recently deployed 4,000 soldiers to support the Assad Regime. It is not in American interests to increase tensions with a budding nuclear power that is already at odds with the west. http://www.independent.co.uk... ... Putin and Obama are now butting heads again thanks to Syria. Russia has come out in support of the Assad regime and has supplied them in the past, and now opposes intervention . Russia is locking out the Security Council and blocking the U.S"s request for the use of force in Syria. The use of force in Syria would be a breach of international law and protocol. I find it ironic that America breaks international law and protocol in order to enforce it. http://www.slate.com... ... Breaching international law does nothing but devalue the U.N and proliferate the colloquial idea of America as World Police. Straining already tense international relations is not something that we need either. Much of the world opposes military intervention, including a very large part of the American population. ----Post Conflict----- If America intervenes in the Syrian conflict, we are partly culpable for whatever the outcome may be. If the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria is presented with the monumental task of state building. Although the FSA proclaims it has ideals of equality and democracy at heart, there is no guarantee that the following regime will be any different. The same cycle of liberator to dictator to civil war has been happening in Africa for decades. If America intervenes, we assume some responsibility for the product of our intervention, we cannot(shouldn"t) simply hit and run. Peace-building and state-building are some of the most complex and difficult processes in the political spectrum. Are we really ready to assume another one of those responsibilities? Especially after seeing how miserably unsuccessful our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. I don"t believe that our incursions into those communities have bettered those countries. I don"t think many people do. A Syrian intervention would produce a very similar situation, likely much worse. How do we now that the instigation of liberal state building would be beneficial or even realistically possible in Syria? The placement of liberal institutions in Iraq/Afghanistan has been largely unsuccessful. ----Conclusion---- In the last 10 years, America has already gone through grueling, and largely unsuccessful democratization efforts. We do not need the financial responsibility of upholding a mock democracy while being forced to rule a post-conflict society with martial law. Why here? Why now? Genocide, murder and other mass human rights violations have been and are taking place in Somalia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Mali, and Korea, many of which are comparable or worse than the Syrian Civil war. Where is the standard for Intervention? How can we justify saving Syrians over Kenyans? How can we afford another war? The national deficit is still skyrocketing. Does being world police supersede our duties to our own country? Finally, being the pacifist that I am, I believe that violence begets violence. The use of force to pacify a nation has many secondary and tertiary consequences. I will leave you with the words of our own President, Barack Obama. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 2007 <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against I am right, and you can't prove me wrong because I would like to thank my opponent for his quick response. == Parameters == My opponent contends not my definitions. == Arguments == 1) Self-Contradictory Statement The statement was, "The only rule is that there are no rules." This is self-contradictory and therefore false because it not only declares the existence of a rule ("the only rule") and the non-existence of rules ("there are no rules.") The statement would not have been self-contradictory had my opponent instead stated "There only rule is that there are no OTHER rules"; however, he did not, and his statement is self-contradictory, therefore necessarily false. 2) The Existence of Other Rules My opponent dismisses his statements not as rules, but as comments and descriptions, but they are clearly parameters of the debate. - In declaring the topic, my opponent has made the rule regarding what the topic is. - In declaring his side, my opponent has made a rule regarding which side I may take. - In declaring the win condition, my opponent has made a rule regarding the burden of proof. Next, my opponent has denied that he has agreed to the Terms of Use; however, he has an account, and account creation requires agreement with said Terms. Therefore, my "assumption" that my opponent has agreed to said rules is entirely valid. Lastly, because my opponent has declared that there are no rules, identifying that there are rules that exist negates my opponent's statement. 3. Context and Reference My opponent drops, and therefore concedes this contention. == Conclusion == I have identified my opponent's false statements; therefore, I can prove and have proven my opponent wrong. The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious. because That pig is so sickeningly cute, that I would put it through a blender while it's still alive. The reason people eat bacon has nothing to do with how it tastes. People eat bacon because they are anti-Semitic and want to distance themselves from the Jews. Putting bacon in your cheeseburger is the way fellow Holocaust deniers identify each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... Eggs are the chicken equivalent of menstruation. Nobody would eat a chick who's on the rag. Therefore, only weirdos eat eggs. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because However, IVF can also have a lot of serious side effects such as ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy happens in an abnormal location rather than in the uterus. According to quora.com this can cause pain in the pelvis, abdomen, side of body, gastrointestinal bloating, nausea, and vomiting. And can bring about abnormal vaginal bleeding and cramping. On top of this, ectopic pregnancy is the highest cause of pregnancy related deaths according to obgyn.net, causing more then 40 deaths per year in the US and accounting for about 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with D.A.D.T Policy because What anyone chooses to do in private, as civilians and citizens, is not the issue of this debate. We must first recognize that joining the US military places one under the jurisdiction of the military and Congress. You are no longer a civilian and any rights you have are at the sole discretion of Congress. I put forth a logical reason for the Congress to ban the act of sodomy by military personnel. I do not believe the military should adopt my logic on the basis that it seems right to me. I have no military experience and my opponents age would restrict her experience to J.R.O.T.C. at best. I don't believe our military policies should be determined by the collective wisdom of 17 year old girls and 33 year old landscapers. More importantly, neither did the founders. Although civilian control of the military is important, it is more important to protect the military from the breezes and winds of the latest civil movement. My opponent may be entirely correct in her assertions in this debate, but we would not ask her to run the military, nor I. Our goal should be to elect the representatives that will bring wisdom, fact and practicality to the table and have faith that they will make the best decisions for implementing military affairs. What may be fair in civilian life could be counter productive or detrimental to military affairs. My opponent has not yet made this distinction. The law does not apply, Congress has full authority over the military. We do not want military policy based on what the legislators deem "safe" to implement in accordance to public opinion. Neither I nor my opponent truly knows what would "improve national security", and my opponent has not demonstrated the the military has weakened itself due to the D.A.D.T. policy. For theses reasons, I ask you vote pro. Not because you believe one way or the other. Because you know it is not our decision. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Who would win in a nuclear war? Russia or the United States of america because My opponent took the Russian side. I will be saying neither side would win. A limited nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder. Imagine the events if two of the worlds largest arms dealers exchanged? massive dead Neither side would win because everyone one would die <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Schools distributing condoms to students because REBUTTALS 1. One of Con’s major pillars of argument is that improper condom use is extremely ineffective and therefore condom use should wholly be removed. Unfortunately, Con fails to realize the implications. Do you know what is even more ineffective in preventing unplanned pregnancies and STI transmission than improper condom usage? No condom usage at all. Con’s entire contention hinges on emphasizing the percentage of inefficiency when condoms are used improperly, while utterly failing to mention the case when condoms were not used at all. “ A sexually active teen who does not use a contraceptive has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.”[1] The 72% efficiency difference between using condoms and not using them is monolithic . Furthermore, d ata from several studies demonstrated that sexual activity has increased in 15-19 year old adolescent females from 37% in the 1970s to a high of 53% in 1999.[2] This shows a clear increasing trend in sexual activity in adolescents in a time period where programs involving condom distribution were virtually non-existent . As sexual activity increases among youth, the 72% difference in efficient prevention becomes exponentially more significant than it already is. It is undeniable that the condom availability programs significantly increase the usage of condoms during intercourse[2], however, Con claims the very same programs also increase sexual activity. From the very same source Con obtains his facts (the Alan Guttmacher Institute), I have already shown in my previous round that in studies of several high schools in Philadelphia and Massachusetts that absolutely no study has conclusively shown the making of contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity.[3] As further evidence, another study on a Los Angeles County high school involving 1,945 students showed “ [t]here was no significant change over time in the percentage of males or females who had ever had vaginal intercourse or who had had vaginal intercourse during the year prior to the survey. ”[4] Con on the other hand, has a single study wherein “ The number of students having sex doubled [after the instatement of the condom distribution program]… The schools overall pregnancy rate increased by one fourth”. This drastic difference in numbers and results in comparison to the numerous studies I have presented from a verifiable source common to both Pro and Con indicates an extreme likelihood of the aforementioned study being an outlier and/or having other significant factors apart from the condom availability program. Therefore, it has been clearly shown once again that making condoms available does not lead to a total increase in sexual activity; rather it leads only to an increase in protected sexual activity, which is the end goal of sexual education programs. I must also bring to light the fact that this debate is focused on making condoms available to students, not on the other elements present in these programs in which the topic of condom availability is only present. As such, Con’s arguments vis-à-vis the misrepresentation of condom effectiveness and other unrelated program aspects are completely irrelevant . However, Con will probably disagree, and thus I will respond. One must also consider the sources from which these arguments are based. Con cites www.abstinenceworks.org for its take on the US Department of Health and Human Services HHS report on sexual education curricula. Upon further inspection and reading the HHS report itself, it is clear the website in question is not immune to bias. The site conveniently reports only portions of the program that, when taken out of context, seem to promote sexual activity. The site also fails to address the numerous programs such as “BART = Becoming a Responsible Teen” where “the findings of the curriculum effectiveness evaluations include: delayed sexual initiation, decreased number of sex partners, increased condom used for males having vaginal intercourse, increased overall condom use for all intercourse, etc.”[6:pg 27] I urge the readers to consult the HHS report itself [6] rather than the website filtering sections of said source. 2. Con states “ Schools are certainly not just displaying condoms on trays like pulled pork sandwiches in the lunch line ”, while in fact, that is exactly what condom availability programs do. I have already addressed this argument in my original post when redefining “distribution”, which Con has accepted. Advocacy is recommending an opinion, not forcing it down the audience’s throat as Con seems to think these programs do. Examples include schools that made condoms available in baskets and vending machines[5], wherein there is absolutely no compelling of students, rather, the schools are simply providing an option. However, in the event that a student is interested, 98% of schools with condom availability programs make counselling available[5] (again, making available does not equate to any amount of force). Con argues these programs infringe on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children as they see fit, however, a large majority of said programs provide an ample solution: “ there are two common requirements for receiving condoms: parental consent and counselling. The first requirement is designed to reduce concerns about infringement of parental rights ; the second is intended to defuse both potential objections that condom availability programs might be seen as sanctioning sexual activity ”[5] From Table 2. Percentage of schools, by program characteristics [5], 81% of 431 schools in the USA with condom availability programs require parental consent before students are allowed to obtain a condom. In addition, 95% of said schools have health centres, wherein a blanket consent is required before the student can receive any health services[4]. These facts completely nullify Con’s case of infringement on parental rights to rear their children along with his citation of the Alfonso v. Fernandez case as it is clearly shown that a large majority of schools allow parents to deny and opt their child out of the program. 3. The objective of this section was to indicate that Con commits the fallacy of false dichotomy when only considering abstaining from sexual intercourse and using a condom during sexual intercourse. There is a third option that is prevalent in many high schools: students engaging in sex without contraceptives. I was simply stating that schools with sexual education programs do not make the same mistake of committing this fallacy and realize that students, no matter how few, will engage in sexual activity regardless of what anybody, let alone the school, does. Many programs involving condom availability programs also advocate abstinence as the only absolute method of prevention, as shown by the evaluation of several programs in the HHS Review of Comprehensive Sex Education Criteria[6]. The two methods of prevention are absolutely not mutually exclusive nor detrimental to one another; schools simply have the wisdom and experience to predict the behaviour of students and realize abstinence will never be the choice of all students and wisely present another option: safe -sex. CONCLUSION I have therefore once again refuted Con’s contentions against condom availability and urge a Pro vote. The real goal and issue the resolution addresses is simply a matter of reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing STI transmission. Abstinence is undoubtedly the most effective, and making condoms available for students simply provides another line of defence. Thank you, and I look forward to Con’s response. _________ SOURCES 1. http://www.guttmacher.org... 2. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://www.guttmacher.org... 6. http://www.abstinenceworks.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Conspiracy IV: WTC 7 because Larry Silverstein's background is in real estate and development. He won a bid to construct WTC 7. He has obviously worked with construction crews in the past and would likely know the lingo. Now in his quote on the documentary he said "pull it" not "pull them". Why would he refer to human beings as it? The quote where he said they decided to pull the building is not part of the same quote as the "pull it" line. He could have easily been referring to someone else, a construction crew that worked with his company perhaps. Now when a building falls on it's own it does not fall straight down in it's own footprint or even close to it. When a building collapses from the top down the top part of the buiding must pass over the footprint of the building in order to be affected by gravity. This did not happen with WTC 7 as is clearly evident in the videos. WTC 7 fell nearly straight within it's own footprint, something does not unless it is a controlled demolition. Here is a video of building's been imploded: Now you'll notice that the damage to the building you showed was at the bottom, however, you'll notice that the building collapsed from the top down, within its own footprint. There was nothing evil going on, just a building owner that decided that it would be better for the workers to destroy his empty building. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Pie is Better than Cake because I also appreciate my opponent's arguments and speedy reply. Notice that my opponent doesn't provide any support for his claim that there are more types of cake than pie. Pies can contain any filling, have crusts or no crust, different styles of crust, nuts, no nuts, etc... I object to Con's usage of personal opinions as to which is better, as there is no end of personal opinions on both types. Again, Con uses a personal opinion about cake tasting better than pie. I propose that pie actually uses larger quantities of healthy, natural flavors, rather than relying on frosting and sugar. Baking time is irrelevant to texture. A flaky, crispy crust, moistened by the pie filling, is a wonderful texture to taste. I even argue that a shorter baking time makes pie better as it is more accessible. Cake is very cultural, but pie has deeper roots in culture. Cake is used to celebrate individual events(weddings and birthdays), but pie celebrates much more. Pie celebrates community. Family reunions. Thanksgiving. A comforting meal. Pie is also used in pie-eating contests, showing it is a better competition dessert. Some pie is actually quite firm. We have pumpkin pie, meringues, and hard creams. We also have soft fillings, such as cherry. The soft filling goes down smooth and coats your tongue in deliciousness. From personal experience, I assert that most people earth the crust of a pie, especially a warm, flaky crust that wasn't dried out. I would present a further argument for the amazing 'better'-ness of pie. Pie charts. So many businesses are able to utilize pie-charts to quickly and effectively present ideas, increase effectiveness, and earn more money for employees and investors, who can then buy more pie. Lastly, pie rhymes with more cool words. Go buy some pie, It will be so good you could die. Every day I try, To visit grandma, for a slice of pie. My, oh my, I feel I could fly, Every time I eat pie! I think I have clearly presented just how amazing pie is. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against My Opponent Does Not Exist because Almost forgot about this debate . . . First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and shall already congratulate him on winning the votes that shall no doubt be provided by the "not saying" population. With that said, let us proceed carefully. ====================== Burden of Proof | ====================== My opponent seems to believe that I hold the burden of proof for some reason, thus, I shall first clarify on why he is incorrect regarding this matter. We must keep in mind that the burden of proof belongs to the side that INITIATES a claim. EXAMPLE: Lets say that a man walks into a bar and claims that gravity does not exist. Let us further say that individuals in the bar turn around and question the man and ask that he provide evidence to show that gravity does not exist. Now, by my opponent's logic (or lack of rather), it would be most reasonable for the man to say something along the lines of "Ha ha. I don't have to prove anything. It's your job to prove it exist and I am right until you show otherwise." Hence, I believe my point has been made. Indeed . . . for as far as debating goes, the one who "smelt it dealt it." In other words: If you're going to make a claim, back it up. ======================= Evidence to support my existence | ======================= Given what I've stated above, I could very well end this round immediately and insist that it be my opponent to make the first move rather than walk into whatever trap he feels overly confident about having set. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall go the extra mile and support my stance immediately. My argument is simple: All ideas exist. At the very least, Logical-Master can be regarded as an idea. Therefore, Logical-Master exist. Clarification on Premise #1: As V said in V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bullet proof." This is relatively simple ladies and gentlemen. Whether or not we live in the "Matrix" or we are simple part of a "dream", ideas remain unaffected in terms of existence; nothing can harm an idea. Indeed as ideas transcend across all plains of "reality". For example, let us take into consideration the fictional character known as Huckle Berry Finn. Whereas he would usually be argued as physically non existent, he still exist as a concept/idea. An idea merely needs to have been imagined to exist. Even if the source of the idea is possible false, the idea itself remains unaffected. This above premise may need some clarification depending on what PRO states in the following round. Clarification on Premise #2: Given that I have already entered my opponent's imagination (he already acknowledged me as we an see from the title of this debate), I no doubt have a cause even if I were to have been spawned into existence when this debate had been started. Nevertheless, I have no idea what PRO intends to argue, thus, I shall say no more on this one for the time being and shall wait for an objection. Thus, it is most reasonable to conclude that due to both of these premises, I exist at very least as an idea. ====================== Alternate approach on the topic | ====================== Of course, looking at the topic a bit differently, we must note that my opponent is advocating that I DO NOT exist. Hence, what is to stop me from augmenting his burden an arguing from the position that I MIGHT NOT exist? Indeed as it would seem rather reasonable to conclude that there's a means of determining that I do not exist. Clearly, insisting mere possibility (i.e . "might not") is more reasonable. And that'll do it for now . . . <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill because It is true, Brendan is far more liberal than both my opponent (hereafter wrath) and I. However it is this very juxtaposition of our philosophies that grants Brendan his "buzz" effect. Indeed, not only is Brendan not a "buzz kill" but rather he is a buzz provider. Contention 1: Brendan provides an enthusiasm for social reforms that sceptics such as wrath and myself have forgotten. I personally have read and supported wrath's arguments in the past which proposed that Brendan needed to tone down his enthusiasm and fall in line with the party establishment. While I agree that this is good politics and more likely to produce results, it is without a doubt a blatant murder of the buzz which Brendan created. Brendan's enthusiasm provides new buzz to every argument he encounters. Contention 2: Brendan is a steady supply of reliable, buzz enhancing information. There is no more active poster on facebook than Brendan and every one of his posts incites further conversation, debate, excitement and especially buzz. The mere fact that sometimes, in order to pursue what he perceives as truth and justice Brendan must call an unpleasant news does not in anyway negate the buzz which he produces in providing that information. Wrath's contentions basically amount to the single contention that Brendan has a history of being a downer when people are excited. Wrath has also conceded that these incidents arose out of Brendan's fidelity to virtues which Brendan holds as uncompromisable. Therefore I will treat as granted the fact that Brendan is acting in a sincere and productive manner in the given instances and rather focus on the buzz killing nature of those events. In both situations, the announcing of debate.org and the passing of health reform, Brendan acted to point out weaknesses and areas where improvement was needed. His objective was not to ruin anyone's day, nor to kill anyone's buzz. Rather, Brendan sought to demonstrate how debate could be better forummed and how health care could be better provided. His objective and indeed what was produced by the ensuing debates was an increase in buzz. After all, this very debate would not be taking place without Brendan's objections, nor would the many health care related debates we have had in the past. All of which have been great suppliers of Buzz. As a final point of history, I might add that even in the arena of enthusiasm Brendan supplies a great deal of buzz. The day after Barrack Obama, as we naively celebrated what was then believed to be a true turning point for our nation, and what in some respects has been, it was Brendan who showed the greatest buzz of all. Brendan sent me pictures of children dancing in the streets of Seattle and people lighting off fireworks in an attempt to demonstrate the buzz that then existed and that he hoped for the future. I urge a vote against this resolution not only for the fact that Brendan certainly is not a buzz kill, but further because he has consistently enhanced the buzz. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Short Story Challenge (2) because removed <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Civil Unions should be legal in the United States because Unlike what my opponent seems to think, I am not trying to stay safe, but stay American. Let me summarize my opponent's argument. I am an elitist because I support civil unions and not gay marriage. He ignores, though, one key part of the Bill of Rights. That the United States Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." With this in mind, Congress CAN NOT force churches and religious institutions to recognize homosexual marriage. The only way to ensure that homosexuals receive the same benefits, same perks, same status in the government's eyes, while NOT destroying religious freedom, is to allow civil unions. Anyone is eligible for a civil union. It is the government's version of marriage. The only difference is that marriage is recognized by the church. I am not, as you put it, sitting on a throne and telling gays what to do. We are giving them an option to get 'married' without the name 'marriage.' If we do not establish civil unions, homosexuals will STILL be denied the benefits they deserve. If we force all churches to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, we completely destroy the separation between church and state. For these reason, please vote pro. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. because Value: My opponent claims that his value of morality does not contradict. However, when he provided the definition of the term morality he is going to use, he used "conforming to a standard of right behavior". My opponent did not clearly mention moralality of being a social standard of right or wrong because according to his definition, it states "conform". My opponent did not refute this matter. "Contention 1: He advocates killing, an immoral act, to save others. So therefore, my opponent should indeed be judged on this, since if he's not judged on this, there is nothing for him to be judged on, since that is the crux of the affirmative case." Killing is the last solution to a matter where all the rest of the solutions are thought of. Therefore, if killing was the last solution to a problem it can not be immoral because then many more would die from it. Killing without justice is wrong; however, in this situation killing one will lead to the saving of many more lives, giving justice. My opponent states that killing is immoral, reasoning that killing is "always" murder, then my opponent is justifying that war is immoral as well. For example if a person was to go out in war to defend his or her country and an opposing side shoots at that person who is trying to defend his or her country, and kills the opposing person, then it is a good sacrifice, but definitely not a murder or immoral act. As of this example, "moral" act is on behalf of the country. On the other hand, robbing a bank and getting killed by the bank security guard would be considered immoral and murder. It proves that on the Affirmative side, killing is not immoral. "I agree, the intention should be judged. However, it should not override the actual action itself. In this case, the intention would most likely be a good one. However, that does not eclipse the fact that he is still killing. Killing is an immoral act." My opponent still does not clearly define immoral. Killing is thought of when other solutions can not act. Therefore, it is the lesser of the evils. The choice of the lesser evil must be acceptable, or the greater evil will occur. For example, we want peace, but in order to do so, we must maintain an army (just in case). We desire mutual responsibility and respect, but still a police force is needed. Therefore, if greater evil exists, then the law must allow room for choosing the lesser evil. "So in other words, you advocate killing an INNOCENT PERSON! Let me make this clear. The victim has not done anything wrong. The victim has done nothing to deserve this fate. It is not a noble act because you are killing. You are devaluing one person's life, in favor of other lives. You are saying that we can kill an innocent person, just because we have good intentions. That is not noble. It is wrong to think that we can justify killing." My opponent believes that killing is not justified. During World War II, there were a group of men who tried to assassinate Hitler with the goal of preventing the spread of the deaths of the other MILLIONS DEATHS of people. If the group of men were to have succeeded then the people would not have had to suffer the holocaust. Killing is justified because it is for the lesser evil. The choice of the lesser evil is justified as long as one can do nothing to prevent the greater evil. If we were to follow my opponent's beliefs, then the more people would have died for the sake of not killing just one person. Many more people would have to suffer and die. One death CAN NOT REPLACE the deaths of many others. In other words, the negative side kills more people by justifying that no one would die. Thus, the affirmative is better since it is trying to save more people rather than refusing to. "Contention 1:However, even if we have a duty to protect humanity, you have not shown why doing so is a morally correct action. You have just shown that that is what most people would do. Just because the majority of people do it does not make it right." A human being has the duty to protect humanity because then it will protect society. By protecting society will prevent any "road of destruction". Society contains the laws to govern people and maintain a steady and regulated environment where people can live. Thus by protecting humanity, we are protecting society which prevents a downfall in to anarchy. "No, that is your opinion of what makes something right and wrong. I happen to think that morality exists beyond humans. Morality is there, and humans do not effect it. Because you have not warrant to this claim, it must be disregarded. You cannot prove this claim, so it should be thrown out from the debate." The word, "conform" has no alternative definitions other than to act in accordance or be in harmony or even to bring about agreement of a society. Unfortunately, my opponent believes that I am merely stating my opinions. (Please search it up in a dictionary) However, I am not since conform means to be in agreement and in harmony. Therefore, by acting in harmony or agreement by society, it basically supports the majority. My opponent believes that morality is there and that humans do not effect it. If humans do not affect it, what is morality. My opponent contradicts himself here too since he just said that humans do not effect morality which means goes against his definition he provided himself stating morality is "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment". If humans do not affect morals, morals can not exist. Morals are ethical beliefs that for centauries humans based their experiences on in deciding the right from the wrong. Isn't that why deontology and utilitarism exist as of now? By saying that humans do not effect morality clearly means that my opponent proves himself wrong. He himself believes that killing is immoral. Saying that morals are not affected by humans mean that there lies a strict protocol of what is wrong or right. "I do not think it is immoral to save more lives. I think that it is immoral to kill one innocent person, to save more lives." Here my opponent contradicts himself since he believes it not be to immoral to save more lives but immoral to kill one person. In all the cases I presented to you, I clearly stated "life or death matter", meaning that killing is the last resort to a situation. Since you have not refuted about the type of scenario I presented, my opponent agrees to my examples. Therefore, it is impossible to think that killing one is immoral yet saving more is not because it would be impossible to not kill one person and to save more in the cases I presented. "You are saying that we would save more people, but does that really justify killing an innocent person?" The affirmative side is saving more people while the negative side decides not to. In a life or death situation, the affirmative side would be saving while the negative side would ultimately be killing. (In this situation where all other alternative solutions are carefully thought over but can not solve the life or death matter). If this is so, then the negative side would be killing more people, refusing the chance to save more lives. Two parts of justice are as known: punishment and the violation of another's right. Punishment is a result from combinations of revenge and collective social sympathy. Revenege has no moral function, and collective social symphathy is equivalent to social utilitary, Also, violations of rights are derived from utility. Therefore, rights are claims that one has on society to protect us. Therefore, society protects "Contention 2: We could justify killing all sorts of innocent people by saying that it would save many more people. My argument is that this mentality of justifying killing is wrong." Why would it be a ripple effect? The affirmative side will kill one only to save more. That is not bad mentality. Again, in a situation of life or death matter, saving more i <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Shari'a Law because 1. I'm not sure I understand the aim of Pro's rant against libertarianism; it's either a gross misunderstanding or an intentional caricature of my position. Pro claims that "[without a] government to guide people it has no sense of morality whatsoever." First, I'm advocating voluntaryist minarchy, not anarchy -- I support the existence of a night watchman state. Second, voluntaryism is itself a normative code based on the non-aggression principle: assuming ceteris parabus, no person or organization (government included) is justified in using initiatory violence against another person or his property. The murder example clearly violates this. Regarding racism, it's impossible to read an individual's mind, ergo it is impossible to punish racism qua racism, however, racists will still be held accountable for any outward rights-violating actions they take regardless of their motivation. The child abandonment issue is a point of contention among libertarians, however, I hold that since parents voluntarily initiate the causal sequence leading to conception and child birth, they are responsible (to a point) for raising the child. I'll expand on this in the next section. Limiting free speech as my proponent proposes is despotic. Pro has claimed in the forums that teenagers should be put to death if verbal bullying leads to suicide. How could this possibly be enforced? How would you determine which act it was that pushed a person over the edge? How do you take account the psychological factors that may have made a victim more prone to suicidal thoughts? Moreover, if you punish any form of expression that might lead to depression or suicide, that would mean outlawing things like unfavorable book reviews and satire. http://mises.org... Clearly, we cannot curtail the rights of libelers, slanderers, and bullies without placing free speech on insecure ground. Finally, if we take a private property based approach to rights, the issue is far less problematic. The right to free speech does not mean that one is free to follow someone into her house and harangue her at length. Property owners would be able to set their own laws governing conduct. b. There is a clear distinction between "guiding" and "oppressing." Guiding implies passive influence and voluntary compliance or non-compliance; oppressing involve the active imposition of one's will upon another person. Anyone who does not *want* to wear Hijab, or be an at home mother cannot be forced to. The underlying ethical framework is akin to Aristotle's attempt to justify slavery on the grounds that it is better for the slave -- of course, neither Aristotle nor my opponent bother to ask the slave for his opinion on the matter! Moreover, if, as my opponent claims, women are converting to Islam in droves, then mandating the wearing of Hijab becomes superfluous; why require what people already do voluntarily? Finally, if women are treated with equal respect in predominantly Muslim nations, how does my opponent account for the massive gap in literacy rates between men and women? https://www.cia.gov... Young children are endowed with the de jure right self-ownership, thus they cannot be abused, mistreated, or killed. However, parents act as de facto stewards. Children, while living in their parents house, are subject to the rules set for them. As they grow older and achieve greater levels of autonomy, their privileges are expanded accordingly. Children are free to leave their parents house and try to make it on their own as soon as they acquire the means to do so. Children who *like* living under Shari'a law may indeed choose to stay within the community as adults. c. My contention here is not "Saudi Arabia doesn't release crime statistics, therefore Shari'a is bad" -- I tagged my argument "[d]rug and alcohol prohibition are ineffective" in the first round, so there should be no confusion on this point. Prohibition fails, create bad incentives, and violate the right to personal autonomy. Pro's response is a red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... The empirical evidence in Portugal and the Netherlands vindicate my line of reasoning. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized almost all intoxicants, including "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Usage rights have markedly declined, especially among young people. HIV infection rates are down and twice as many people are now voluntarily seeking rehabilitation. http://tinyurl.com... d. Pro's claim that Islamic nations are among the most prosperous in the world is frankly laughable. Moreover, my contention is rooted in the a priori science of praxeology. http://mises.org... Without a proper interpretive understanding of human action, it is impossible to ascribe a definite cause to a given effect. Even if Pro's claim is true (it's not), he has fallen victim to the epistemological problem of economics. http://mises.org... Money has a time value. This is not arguable; if my opponent (or anyone else for that matter) disagrees, I invite him to transfer to my bank account whatever funds he's not presently making use of. I'll be sure to return it, sans interest, thirty years hence! Any hypothetical prosperity a Muslim nation might achieve would be *in spite* of ridiculous financial policies, not *because* of them. 2. Pro claims that my position on punishment is based purely on emotion, which I find absurd. I explained myself quite clearly: the focus should be on restitution to the victim; Pro has not explained why the emphasis should instead be on inflicting retribution. Moreover, if, as Pro stated, the goal of punishment is to deter would-be criminals, why stop with an eye for an eye? If all crimes were made punishable by death, it would do a great deal more to deter. Surely, if we punished petty theft, illegal downloading, and the tearing off of mattress labels by boiling the offender in hot oil, people would be far less apt to do so! If Pro wishes to be morally consistent, there is no reason to limit punishment with proportionality. 3 & 3b. Although Pro's response was vague, it appears he's taken the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma -- that God gives normative commands because they are *intrinsically* good in and of themselves. From a metaethical standpoint, this is problematic for the theist as it essentially makes God irrelevant and limits his sovereignty by binding him to an external code over which he has no control. Additionally, if it is the case that moral facts exist independent of God's character, then we can reasonably assume that these values supervene at least partially on human well being, fairness, justice, etc. and that we possess some ability to discover and understand them. If I can show that Shari'a does not accomplish these ends, or fit these criteria that is powerful evidence that it is not revealed by God. Certain Shari'a statutes -- like the ban on pork products and the regulation of beard length -- clearly reflect amoral cultural norms. It's absurd to believe that having too much or too little stubble could be *intrinsically* wrong. I can't conceive of what amoral property facial hair possesses that might lead us to such an ethical conclusion. The ban on pork is similarly nonsensical. Pork meat actually contains less uric acid than chicken breast, salmon, herring, tuna, and lamb. http://www.goutpal.com... Even if pork was more unhealthy than other foods, that doesn't justify a ban. Donuts, cookies, cake, ice cream, potato chips, and hamburgers contain much more sugar and saturated fat than pork. This relate to the paternalism theme: if people feel that the pleasure they get from consuming unhealthy food outweighs the risk of obesity, heart disease, or diabetes, what right does anyone else have to prevent them from doing so? The resolution is negated. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Religion is, in general, beneficial for society because Clarifications: Con begins by stating, "The supernatural is by DEFINITION what religious people believe in." My argument here is that atheists sometimes believe in the supernatural. An atheist by definition merely lacks a belief in God; however, the supernatural encompasses the ideas of ghosts, an after life, reincarnation, a collective unconscious, etc. An atheist can believe in all of these supernatural things, so my argument stands. Moreover, Con implies that I have contradicted myself, but this so-called contradiction doesn't exist. Just because I said that religious people believe in the supernatural, and that science is based on the natural, does not mean that religious people cannot also believe in science or that scientists cannot believe in religion. Con has failed to make any sufficient argument in this regard :) Arguments: 1) Con says that just because certain societies are based on religion or worship, that this isn't an argument for benefits or impact on said society. On the contrary, I'd argue that societies such as the Christian Legal Society, the Christian Sociological Society, the Christian Philosophy Society, etc. all used Christian-based ideologies to further their individual mission statements, and further, their ideologies are also often the basis for their morality, meaning every time they act in a moral way or do something good in the name of their religion, that they are benefiting society as a direct result of their faith. 2A) Con's statement that yoga is a form of exercise is completely ignorant and FALSE. While it has indeed been commercialized in the west as a popular form of exercise, the reality is that yoga is RELIGIOUS; it's meant for meditation and the alteration of the conscious. Additionally, you'll notice that Con simply failed to counter my point that there are direct correlations between the physical health and religion :) 2B/C) I find it interesting that Con states one needs to make their arguments clear in the first round and not the rebuttal; meanwhile, Con was the INSTIGATOR of this debate and did not even bother to provide a first round argument. Even if he were Con in this debate, he should have restructured the resolution to suit his position as Pro and argue from there. Nevertheless, Con merely tries to distract you here from the fact that he did not refute my POINT, which stated: while sometimes religion can make people "devalue their lives" as Con said, it can very easily be noted that religion can also SAVE people's lives let alone bring an incredible amount of value to it. As such, it is Con's burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects than positive on one's mental and emotional health. Notice that he did not fulfill this burden either :) 3) The third argument I provided had to do with TRADITION. You'll notice that once again Con dodges this argument, and instead tries to provide a distraction by stating that *I* have dodged his argument that people aren't benefiting from religion unless they meet up with other people in a church or group setting. I don't recall that argument ever having been presented; however, I can answer that at any point in the debate and I will now -- People still benefit from religion even if they don't meet up with others, because the other benefits I've mentioned still apply (health, physical, etc.). 4A) Con next says that my point about religion not being the only reason for war is pointless, because wars based on politics and not religion are rational. First of all, these wars are absolutely rational to believers, so this point is moot. Second, what about Hitler's war? Was his motivation to invade Poland and persecute all the Jews because they were Jewish RATIONAL? No. 4B) Con continues to try and use religious extremists to represent all religious individuals. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sure there are extreme religious groups that cause harm, the same way there are other groups that cause harm but are NOT a good representation of all people. For instance, the Black Panthers did a lot of harm, but that is not a reason to denounce all black people. Similarly, PETA commits a lot of crimes and does a lot of bad things in the name of fighting for animal rights, but, they are not a good representation or even a norm for all of those who believe in upholding animal rights. Also, you'll note that Con says these extreme groups are responsible for a lot of death, but doesn't provide any facts about this issue. I'd argue that there are other groups - i.e. politicians - who cause the same amount of harm and death each year. 4C) Religion provides answers to many ethical questions. Without ethics applied to science, science can become a danger to humanity. Example: The atomic bomb was tested the U.S. without asking people (New Mexicans) their permission. It could have backfired and led to the death of all of these people... or even all of humanity. Was that ethical? Regardless of your opinion, the point here is that ethics needs to be applied to science somehow. Even if you disagree with religious ethics, it is still one example of an ethical guide the same as Kantian, Utilitarianism, etc. You don't have to agree with them, but they are still ideologies that deserve recognition for what they are. On that note, religious people are not the only people who are against stem cell research. Con is using religious people as a scapegoat, but in truth, many people feel that this research is unethical for reasons other than religion. 5) Con ignorantly claims, "We cannot have Islamic extremists without religion." Lol. Once again, he is scapegoating religion as the only thing that people can be "extreme" about. I've already refuted this point noting politics, extremists who value animal and nature rights, etc. Yes, we can be moral without religion, but we can also be immoral without religion. Con is grasping at straws here :) Maybe the Islamic extremists in particular would not exist had it not been for religion, but others would. 6) Con, I encourage you to refrain from trying to sound smart by making retarded comments and unnecessary capitalization to emphasize your weak arguments, because really, you're failing miserably. If you read my R1 argument AT ALL (or looked at my cited source), you'll see exactly how scientists can and do apply religion to Evolution. Moreover, just because science measures the natural and religion measures the supernatural does. not. mean. that. they. cannot. mix. As *I've already said* there are theologians who use logic proofs to back up their claims (which you did not refute), and, religion and science can exist separately and seek to answer different things. Sometimes they can mix, but where they don't seem to right now (we're not scientifically advanced enough to DISPROVE God, just as theists cannot prove God), science measures the physical laws whereas religion measures the spiritual laws. These are different aims and as such I don't even know why Con is trying to compare the two. 7/8) I've already discussed religion in a social regard, and we discussed atheism in the opening clarification. - - - - Con begins by stating that the U.S. isn't politically oppressed. First of all, that's a matter of opinion (I don't have the character space to discuss it, but Con can feel free to challenge me on this if he wants). Second, I mentioned that the EXAMPLES CON GAVE (i.e. Islamic extremists) existed in politically oppressed countries. Point negated. Second, I never said that the Crusades had ANYTHING to do with a minority. Con, PLEASE CITE WHERE I SAID THAT. I'm lol'ing already because you won't be able to. Nevertheless, you'll note that Con ignored my point about Puerto Rico. Also, he is completely straw manning my argument. I never said that all religious wars are a result of politics. I'm out of characters for now, but will respond to everything in my final round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against That dinosaurs became extinct by a meteorite is by far the likeliest theory because There are quite a few theories on how the dinosaurs became extinct, some with just as much evidence yet this theory seems to be almost accepted as fact. There is just as much evidence of a meteorite hitting the earth, lifting dust up, blocking the sun and killing dinosaurs as a super volcano which were active around the time of the dinosaurs and could create the same effect. Some other theories include the cooling of the planet which the dinosaurs couldn't cope with and new plants evolved which the plant eaters couldn't eat so therefore the dinosaurs that ate the plant eaters died too. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against 1 does not = 2 because Kentucky fried? <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened. because Being Pro, I believe that Noah's Ark did happen as biblical literalists claim to be. My only requests for this debate is that my opponent prove to me the following: (A) A worldwide flood did Not ever happened. (B) Noah and his family did NOT create an Ark filled with animals and survive such a massive disaster. Remember, everything must be proven scientifically without having at any time resorting to the tired "God did it". Please make your arguments clear and orderly, and let's have fun debating :D <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Vote-Bombing Contest! because Ready! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format) because I apologize for not posting in video/audio form, but i don't have access to a camera at the moment and I promise that my AC is in time. I affirm. I offer the following definitions to clarify the round: Felon: a person who has committed an act deemed illegal by that person's government Democratic Society: Society governed by all citizens using the system of voting Democratic: the ability to have a say in what action is occurring Right: an ability or state you can maintain because a government enforces that ability or state Equality: the quality of being the same in measure, value or status Observation: The resolution states "felons ought to retain the right...in a democratic society" This does NOT mean any society we currently are residing in or know of today. The resolution does NOT state that United States felons ought to retain the right to vote, nor that any other specific members of specific societies are relevant to this debate. The value for the round is Human Rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations released said declaration, setting a standard for all democratic and non-democratic nations everywhere. It has 30 total articles, but for this debate I will focus on the following: "Article 21, Sub Point 3: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures" To put it simply, all people should have the right to vote in any governmental election. This also has been clearly acknowledged as a human right. The Criterion is Equality. Democracy is founded upon the principle of equality, since equality shows that all people are of the same value. Democratic acts allow all people to have an EQUAL say in what is occurring. This proves a direct relation to the resolution and therefore is the clear, best choice for today's criterion. Contention 1: "Felons are still citizens" Therefore, we cannot rightfully discredit a felon's input on government simply because they have committed a crime. The basic purpose of voting is to gather input from citizens on the issues of their society, and if even one member of that society is a felon, they should still have the right to vote because they are still a citizen, they still are counted in the population and they still experience the results of the election. Furthermore, the commission of a felony does not render a felon incapable of having opinions on other social issues, thus a felon's opinion is still relevant to the society and therefore the felon should retain the right to vote. Because of this, equality is better upheld on the affirmative. Contention 2: "The Prison system is a punishment system" All people that are convicted of a felony are given a proper punishment based on the severity of the crime committed. If we were to add a separate and additional punishment to a punishment that they already have served, we are destroying the very system used to judge felons. Adding an addition punishment is destructive of a democratic society because it is neither equal nor democratic, as not all felons have committed the same crime. If we were to negate the resolution, we might as well stick all felons in prison for the rest of their lives because we aren't trusting them to do anything after they have been labeled a felon. Because negating is NOT proportional, equality is better upheld by affirming the resolution. Contention 3: "Rational Choice Theory" Rational Choice Theory is the basic process that a person does all the time. It basically shows that citizens only do something that is more beneficial to them than not. In this case, Rational Choice Theory can be applied in the way citizens vote. There is the intense (primary) benefit that each citizen has in an election, (like gay marriage for a homosexual voter or banning abortion for a pro-life voter,) an intrinsic (secondary) benefit, (meaning an issue that the voter has a stance on, but is not high priority) and a voting cost. (Like taking the time to register, standing in line or even filling out the ballot.) Citizens will only vote when the benefits outweigh the costs. The warrants and impacts for this are as follows; affirming allows all voters who have the moral and social standards to suffer the costs of voting in order to cast their vote. Negating however decreases the number of good voters (felon or not) by not retaining their right to vote. Equality is better upheld by the affirmative because all voters are given the ability to cast an equal vote if they choose to. (Meaning any non-voters are creating by choice, not force) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Distance Track is Better than Cross Country because EFFICIENCY My opponent says in his response that since you get to see less splits in Cross Country, you're more likely to run faster, because you're less sure of your pace. "For me, when I have a set pace i simply try and match that pace. If I do not have a set pace, I simply push myself and try for the best possible time." Here my opponent cites a personal example of his running, which does violate the universal rule. Aside from that though, he has omitted to mention the downside to what he considers to be his better running style, one which he associates with Cross. Simply pushing yourself and trying for the best time, without using a pace whatsoever (which my opponent insinuates here), can easily lead to you pushing yourself at a pace that causes you to tire out majorly, and then leads to an overall slower time than what you could've had if you had chosen a pace that you could hold all the way through, but just barely. Additionally, my opponent is omitting the fact that just because one has more splits taken while running on a track, that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to push yourself less. Runners know their bodies. If they set out at a pace and realize they're feeling great, they can go ahead and try to go faster than their predicted pace. Also omitted is the fact that in Track you aren't necessarily using your splits to run a pace, you could be using your splits to stay ahead of a pace. If you know what your splits are from a previous race, you can try to be ahead of them in your next race in order to improve your finishing time. This involves pushing oneself, just like in CC. Bottom line, the fact that there are more splits and precision in Track does not mean that you'll be pushing yourself less. Splits are often a guideline to success. Splits are used the same way in both sports, but in Track you can use them more, thus benefiting you as a runner. 400 METER OVAL "There are more distance that you run, but once you strip Track down to the bare bones, the only difference between races is how many times you run around the same oval." I can't believe that my opponent actually believes this, as he runs Track. While it is true that ONE of the differences between the different events is the distance, there is another factor, and that is speed. If you're running less laps, you'll be running way faster. It creates a different dynamic to each race, and gives each racer of the different events a specific respectability. 800 meter runners don't want to do the 2 mile because of its distance, and 2 mile runners don't want to do the 800 meter because of the sheer speed and guts it takes to run that race. COURSES I concede the point that the Cross Country courses have more variety, I would like to provide Cons that outweigh the Pro. First , Cross Country courses are easily affected by weather, and in a negative way. If it rains, the courses get muddy, and when the courses get muddy, you get less traction, and thus run slower, through no fault of your own. You could be having the best race of your career, but thanks to a crappy course, you could end up with a non-PR day. How would that be fair? Second , Cross Country courses are inconsistent. Again, you could be having the best race of your career, but you could be on an extremely hilly course, and just like that, what could have been a new personal record is now just a par for the course finish time. Third , there can be errors in course marking and length. Unlike the universally sized track, a Cross Country course is usually mapped by a guy with a tape measurer. He can be off by only .03 miles, but that still affects peoples' times by several seconds. One can falsely be led to believe they're faster than they are, or slower than they are, depending on the errors in course-making. EXCITEMENT "I had a track meet once where I didn't get home until 9:30 (The meet started at 3:30). Some people are finished all of their races before 6:00, but they still have to sit around waiting while the rest of the team runs." They can do more than that. They can talk with their friends. Anyone who has ran a race before knows that after a race, one usually feels a little more giddy than usual. So if you've run your race, and you're hanging with your friends, you'll be having a great time. Not only that, but you can cheer on other runners as they do their events. As I mentioned earlier (and this went un-refuted by my opponent too), in Track there's a running tally kept of the score, and so each race you watch bears more and more importance as the time dwindles for your team to secure the winning spot. Additionally, if you really don't want to hang with your friends or support them as they run, you can just leave, usually. Most teams let their runners go after their events are done, as long as a parent signs a sign-out sheet (or they're 18+). "I'll usually run with my one friend during Cross.." This isn't necessarily exclusive to CC. Thanks for reading. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t because I will basically to signpost, just go down my opponents previous post. The MLK quote was merely serving as an introduction to my case, so it is fine that you say it does not apply in this debate. However, going over the crimes against humanity definition, you seemed to have misinterpreted this. It specifically says "against any civilian population". Civilian is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". Therefore, those soldiers that die during the war are not part of the civilian population. The United States during war does not intentionally target the civilian population, so this definition is in fact unbiased and does not hurt me. My opponent merely misunderstood the definition. Next, my opponent agrees with my value and value criterion, so there is no issue here. Onto my first contention. My opponent drops the point that the United States have done a horrible job punishing crimes against humanity in the past. Instead, they have decided to violate freedoms and liberties of people without due process. This is seen through the example of Japanese internment and in recent history with waterboarding. Since my opponent has dropped this point, we must extend the fact the United States is not an effective prosecutor in cases of crimes against humanity. Therefore, the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties and achieve justice in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent cannot achieve the value structure in this debate since he dropped this point. Therefore, this is one reason you must vote aff. The only attack he did make against my first contention is that the United States would dictate policy in the international court since it is a hegemony. However, my opponent fails to realize two major facts. First of all, the fact that the international court cannot make laws, instead it can only merely perform prosecution, so no policies can be set by the international court. Second, that in the international court no country can "lead" the court. Every country has an equal say in this court. He failed to read the quote by Madeline Morris (J.D.) in my constructive. This states that the international court is controlled by a large number of states, and this prevents abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states. This quote is from a specialist in international law and completely refutes this point. It was already made available in my constructive. Therefore, no abuses can occur in favor of the United States, or any country for that matter. This completely refutes the argument he makes against this contention. Therefore, this international court, by not having abuses, will better protect freedoms and liberties than the United States. Therefore, affirmative again better upholds the value structure. Moving on to my contention two you can see he makes a similar argument. He states again that the United States will push its' policies in favor of the United States, and that the countries in it currently have no pull. However, cross apply my counter arguments I made in response to his first contention attacks. This shows that each country has equal pull in making decisions in this court, which prevents abuses. Second, that this court cannot create laws, merely prosecute, so it can't create U.S. favorable policies. Therefore, my opponents attack is again refuted. Continuing on with my second contention, my opponent fails to attack the fact that the international court has sufficient legal safeguards. Therefore, you can flow that through for the round, and accept the fact it has these safeguards. Since it provides this safeguards, it will protect freedoms and liberties and in turn achieve justice. Now moving on to my opponents case. His contention one stated that the ICC is horrible. He says that they fail to act with the situation in Rwanda, and are failing in punishing the United States. He goes on and says they are a bunch of random countries that mean nothing. However, this can easily be refuted. First of all, the ICC has no military, nor does it have the power to perform actions of the military. The ICC and the idea of an international court is a judicial power. This means that it can only serve as a forum of prosecution of these crimes. For example, if the United States signed onto the ICC before the Iraq invasion, and when the U.S. invaded and eventually found Saddam Hussein, he would prosecuted in the international court. They would not be prosecuted by the United States. So, this means that they prosecute those who have been suspected of committing crimes against humanity. They are not an executive branch, and cannot perform military engagements to invade countries and prosecute those who they suspect. They merely serve as a forum of prosecution. Next, with his United States argument that they should in jail, has already been refuted. You must cross apply my definition argument, and that a C.A.H classifies as a mass civilian murder that was intentional. Therefore, this refutes his first contention. The ICC and other international courts serve as a place where impartial and non-biased prosecution is supposed to be found. This is good, because many countries felt after the Saddam Hussein trials, that it was very biased against him. Instead, if they submitted to an international court, all the nations would have a stake, and would provide impartial prosecution. This impacts to the fact that this would better protect freedoms and liberties, and in turn produce Justice. Next, moving onto my opponents contention 2, he says it would mold the status-quo of the USA. However, I have already disproved this earlier. This is because the United States cannot mold it. Each country has an equal stake in the prosecution of these offenders. Next, no policies can be made by this court, only prosecutions can take place. You can cross-apply the Madeline Norris quote, which shows that it will in fact prevent abuses in the favor of one country, or a group of countries. Therefore, the United States would not be able to mold the court. If the United States joined the court, they would be more accountable to provide for non-biased prosecutions. In fact, the court would mold the United States for the better. This impacts to the standards, because an international court would better protect freedoms and liberties as shown through my contention 1 subpoint b. This would in turn lead to Justice. I would like to wish my opponent good luck, and thank them for a good debate. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus because 1) Contrary to what my opponent would have you believe, we know exactly what was eaten at the last supper. Simply look at Da Vinci's painting ( http://upload.wikimedia.org... (1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg) The table is laden with bread, wine, what appear to be potatoes, and some kind of vegetable. NO PASTA. Unless my opponent wishes to defame Da Vinci and claim that his brush was not directed by God, we must accept the picture of the last supper as being our best representation of what was served. Furthermore, breadsticks and wine are a terrible combination. Bread must be combined with oil to serve with wine. And if Jesus was the son of the FSM, the Bible surely would have mentioned pasta being served at the last supper, because pasta is the holiest of all foods. 2) If Peter could climb out of the boat and walk to Jesus, the situation must not have been THAT grim. Thus, it stands to reason that they would have been able to keep a level head seeing Jesus fly, especially if they kept it together seeing Peter walking on water AND drowning. >> "Being the son of God then he would be able to consume enough alcohol to kill two men before feeling the effects of intoxication." It is of no importance - any true son of the FSM would be able to consume as much as he wanted. Drunkenness is not an attribute of God. 3) Well now we have some quibbling about the noodlyness of Jesus' appendage. Even if it was his "divinity" that kept his appendage noodly, he still would not have been able to harden it, for according to God, such lustful thoughts are sins, and Jesus was sinless. 4) I have refuted the silly notion that there was pasta served at the last supper. Furthermore, as I have already stated, for Jesus to go against God's will would be a sin, and Jesus was sinless. And no son of the FSM would EVER refuse to serve pasta. 5/6) Marriage is an institution created by God. The FSM has no need for marriage. Thus, his child born out of wedlock would be legitimate, as there is no proscription against such action in the most Holy Book of the FSM. 7) How the writers of the Bible would have "forgotten" to include the noodly attributes of Jesus' appendage when they remember exactly what he said when he put mud in a blind man's eye is beyond me. Such an important part of the character of the son of the FSM as his NOODLY APPENDAGE would have NEVER been left out of the bible. NEGATED. Ramen. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against racial discrimination sucks because Sucks: draw into the mouth by contracting the muscles of the lip and mouth to make a partial vacuum. discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Source:Google Pro has Burden of proof in proving that racial discrimination draws into the mouth. Since discrimination is prejudice, I argue that it has nothing to do with drawing into the mouth. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Women in the Kitchen because Just because you know exceptions to the norm doesn't justify banning women from the kitchen. You are con to "Women in the kitchen" you are not con to "Women not being allowed out of the kitchen" <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This house would not ban smoking #3 because I thank my opponent for his argument. I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Hunting should NOT be illegal. because NOTE:This argument is picking up where argument 2 left off starting with the my last sentence in argument 2. If anything refers to definitions or previous statements, look back at my 2nd argument. Thank you. NOTE:I forgot to define excise tax, so here it is. 9.Excise tax -Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good I'd also like to point out that this "alarming rate" at which we are taking up land occurs in mostly third world countries because industrialized countries such as America, England, Germany etc. are starting to conserve land. Some of this conservation occurs in places like Yosemite National Park in Canada, and Yellowstone National Park here in America. Maybe you've all heard of one or both of these parks. I'd like to point out that the conservation doesn't stop there. Currently land is being bought by the government solely for conservation, and the money for these purchases needs to come from somewhere. Anyone who has taken a hunter trapper education course would know where this place is, but for those of you who haven't taken the class, the money comes from an excise tax. This particular excise tax is on products for hunting, fishing, camping etc. Therefore, without hunters and fisher, there would be more land getting developed than there already is. My opponent has also stated that hunters seem to think that they have more of a right to this planet than other animals do. I love telling my opponent this, but that belief of theirs is not at all true. I know that I have the same right to this planet as other animals, and all I'm doing is interacting in the way that I was meant to. My opponent also states that hunters deny the problems caused by development, and that is not true. I know that as a member of the human race I have helped to cause this problem, but there aren't any ways to fix it without lethal force, and if there are I'd love to hear them because I don't think anyone wants wolves and/or mountain lions running through their backyard, and that is basically the only way to handle animal populations without humans killing them. In response to my opponents voting slogan, I have already proven that hunting is not a genocide or slaughter, and you can check the definitions if you want to be sure. I have also proven that hunters are not denying that we helped humanity cause the problems that are currently being faced with animal population. Now, for some new arguments of mine. -Argument One- First of all, hunting is a much better way to get meat than most of the world gets it. This is true because when an animals is acquired through hunting it has grown free and wild, not in a cage and swimming in its own filth, and it hasn't been pumped full of steroids. Plus, animals that are hunted have a chance at survival whereas the domestic animals raised for food are born to die. -Argument Two- I'm sure that my opponent believes that animals have the God given rights that humans do. Those rights would be to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd like to point out that by guaranteeing game species' right to life permanently, my opponent is denying hunting dogs and birds that right to happiness. I'm sure my opponent has never seen a hunting dog in the field, but I have. One dog I saw was literally crying to get out of the car and go hunt. A dog owner who I hunted pheasant with last Saturday said that his dogs were driving him insane from the moment he drove onto the rode that the field we hunted was on. These hunting dogs literally live to hunt. -Argument Three- My opponent acts as if they are better than me by trying to force their views and beliefs onto my fellow hunters and me. This is wrong especially since I am not trying to make my opponent hunt or even approve of it, just tolerate it. In conclusion, My opponent has failed to prove anything while I have strengthened my argument. Here are the sites I got my info from: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://hunting.about.com... http://www.scienceblog.com... http://www.irs.gov... *Some of the information I used isn't on these pages, it can be found at a hunter trapper education course. -END ROUND 2- To start off, I'd like to point out that I do have sources for my definitions. One of them being the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I'd like to start off with a comment posted by tornshoe92. "'He goes on and says there is a fair chase rule ; That an animal has an equal chance of being shot as not. This is a flat out lie. A man sitting in a deer stand with a hunting rifle has a significantly higher chance of killing a deer than a deer even knowing that he is there.'" You're assuming that there is a deer there to be shot at all. I've been hunting for 5-6 years and have exactly 1 big game kill and my dad who has been hunting 7-8 years has a grand total of 3. The idea that animals are more likely to be shot than not is BS." This is an excellent point, and the same one I was going to make my self. My dad has also hunted for years, and only made two big game kills. Just because you sit and wait for a deer does NOT mean that it will EVER show up. You could sit and freeze all day and never see a darn thing. Next, assuming that one accepts my opponent's definition of genocide over mine, it still does not apply to hunting since there is no intent on wiping out an entire species. In my opponent's rebuttal to my first rebuttal, they state that emotional appeals hold no merit. This is not true. Death is a highly emotional event, and has no fact surrounding it except for the fact that the deceased are no longer on this planet. Therefore,my argument still reigns true. I would personally like to know the readers thoughts on this, so if you would comment on your opinion I would appreciate it. For his second rebuttal,as I've shown,I do offer a source for my definitions, and mine is one of the most widely used sources. My opponents definition of tradition holds true to Webster's dictionary,so I will accept that point, but i'd also like to point out that he was not able to name a tradition that has been around since man first became capable of the action, his traditions were ideas someone came up with, and then someone else decided to drop. Hunting has been around for centuries. In my opponents third contention,he once again states that the matters that I've spoken about with emotion are not true, and i have shown how this view is incorrect. I'd like to point out that rhetoric is a way of writing or speaking effectively,and therefore our legal system can't be based on this. I also want to point out that our government, the parent of our legal system,is based off of The Elements by Euclid. I would like to say that the hunter trapper education is not biased because it is run by the government as a whole. I have already addressed fair chase. I also want to point out that a hunter will not fire at a bolting deer, the risk of injury to the deer rather than instant death is too high. Where my opponent lives does in fact hold nothing in this debate, but how old the house is does since my opponent commented on taking up land, and a newer house was developed sooner, and therefore we knew of the problems of development before the house was made. I'd also like to point out that biopower is "the way in which capitalist states exerted control over people to better promote life." Therefore, I don NOT agree with it since it doesn't apply to a right to life. My second rebuttal is not an ad hominem attack since my statement was not fallacy. My opponent has not shown why we have no moral right to hunt, and has not proven that we are not superior to animals. Finally, some humans must hunt to survive. Ex(s):Native Americans; people in 3rd world countries A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance. A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against why you should vote for FREEDO in his debates because i doo knot dreenk kech-up. now shutt up an goe rape yur own face ===sources=== http://pastehtml.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Social deference is an anachronism that should be actively discouraged because First of all, here's my inspiration for this debate: I am writing this from one of my local bar / restaurants where a fellow customer - an older gentleman who I know only to say "hello" to, greeted me and addressed me as "Sir" as I walked in. This was just seconds after I had given directions to a stranger, who was, again, older than me, who also addressed me as "Sir". Just to let you know, due to a scandalous oversight in this year's Queen's Honours List, my considerable contributions to British society have yet again failed to be formally recognised and, as a result, I am still waiting for the knighthood I so richly deserve! Until this outrageous injustice has been resolved, there is, therefore, no reason to address me as "Sir" – plain "Mister" will do just fine. The fact is, British people have the concept of social deference installed in them at an early age. So, because I am usually quite smartly-dressed and well-spoken, I am called "Sir", which I am very uncomfortable with as I consider myself working class (even if nobody else does) and also because I refuse to address anybody, except the ennobled or officially titled people as "Sir" or "Madam", and even then I do so reluctantly. It is similar in America, even more prolific, especially in hotels and restaurants, though the distinction between the social classes there is much more blurred and a big difference is that the staff only call customers "Sir" and "Madam" because it is part of their job description. In conclusion, I affirm that we should actively discourage the forelock-tugging, class-ridden practice of calling fellow members of society "Sir" and "Madam" and stick to "Mister" and "Missus" in a similar way to the way French people refer to strangers as "Monsieur" and "Madame" or "Mademoiselle". Thank you. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Rap Battle Rematch: Lannan13 vs. Truth_seeker because Are you really serious? being a U.S Marine? Co-op? Please, the only time you bang is in your tank top! I'll disrespect you and your honor, i'll do it bluntly! With racists like you, i'd be ashamed of my country! I'll disrespect your idolatrous religion and break your Mary statute How can you not see that your being blasphemous and have no virtue? If i smashed your idols, Mother Mary won't do anything about it! That's how superficial your religion is, you of all should just quit! It's no wonder you enlisted as a Marine to get blasted by C4 With this garbage, your a disgrace to what your homies died for! The difference between us is that I'm a real warrior, your morals are downward! The reason being is because you play it safe and scope from afar cuz your a coward! You talk about being a soldier, but your a disgrace to the human race! Learn when you talking to a real warrior and have dignity to look in his face! I bring intimidation through the nation like Revelation with my rap army in the wave equation! Let your interpretation be the implication of degeneration in the militant minds of dictation! I pour out my indignation, my inclination to eradication of all weak delinquents of creation! Let your own desecration be a persuasion, an obligation to abandon hope for this invasion! You think you can talk about science? You about to get murked I'm spitting on your grave site while I'm simply digging up dirt You necrotizing, realizing i been jeopardizing, you disgusing fearing this televising I'm brutalizing, advising you to be exercising the self-enticing arm you been emphasizing You messin' with a mechanically enhanced entity rhythmically entranced by this insanity The one that i made erratically balanced, weaponry chemically advanced to kill ya identity This is a cybernetic destruction, an alphabetic corruption, the arithmetic, synergetic, kinesthetic obstruction! I'm not the sympathetic production, homiletic instruction, the bionetic, aesthetic, diuretic fiend of deduction! Look at this wanna be amateur tryna rap using scientific terms, but can't explain crap! It's such a shame that this self-proclaimed soldier came unprepared for this rap attack! This is the Standford prison experiment where you'd be subjected to psychological torture Good vs. evil metaphysically collide like atoms crashing into each other, only you the mourner I'm stripping you away from your rights as a human being, in this battle, your being controlled! I'm in authority so you better recognize, disrespect me and i will end this right now head cold! In this battle you mentioned black holes in the cosmos, but that's fully harmless! Your not heartless because next round, i will show you Darkness' true essence! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Man will never know reality unless he's dead. because Knowledge, using any of it's colloquial definitions, requires some form of active consciousness: a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts , information , d escriptions , or skills acquired through experience or education . (1) awareness of something : the state of being aware of something (1) justified true belief (2) As far as we know, knowledge involves consciousness, and death, more specifically brain death, entails that the ' mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist'. (3) In other words, when you die, your mind no longer exists to do any experiencing, believing, reasoning, or to have any awareness, and thus has no capability of obtaining knowledge in any sense I'm familiar with. It seems as though being alive with a functioning brain seems to be a necessary condition for having knowledge, which means that having knowledge after one is dead seems rather nonsensical. In order to demonstrate that any human could 'know reality after they died', as you claim, you would have to demonstrate that any function of the mind could exist after death. The burden of proof falls upon you to demonstrate that a mind could do anything at all after death, before you can even begin to argue that knowledge is somehow only attainable post mortem. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (science) <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with My opponent will try to win this debate because Not very much though. Trying to win debates is what my opponent does. He did not attain the one hundredth percentile without trying. When my opponent clicked "accept this challenge" he was already putting into effect his plan to win the debate. At that point he was trying to win the debate, whatever his actions after that point, even if he attained http://en.wikipedia.org... at some later time. So when he declared "I will not try," it was already too late. He tried. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation because It seems my opponent has resorted to rhetoric. I showed that Sharia has two sources, the Quran and the Sunnah and fiqh. I preferred to restrict this debate only to the primary sources because the secondary sources have resulted in different versions. My opponent has said he means the "original" sharia, this is a vague statement. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the violation of principles in examples stated by me. I suggested an easy to understand format to ensure accuracy in the previous round, my opponent has failed to answer in the suggested format(or any other for that matter). I have never claimed that having a muslim namae makes a muslim person. I am saying they are islamic because they have been called "Islamic" scholars. My opponent has failed to prove violation of islamic principles. It is reasonable to assume that an islamic caliphate would try to follow islamic principles. More importantly, it was an observatory established by the third islamic caliphate, what is the significance of being the third caliphate? The precise meaning of Khalifa is "representative". The first four Caliphs : Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib are commonly known by Sunnis, mainly, as the Khulafā’ur-Rāshideen ( "rightly guided successors" ) Caliphs. Each Caliph was a close companion of Muhammad during his prophethood. Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa ( خليفة ḫ alīfah/khalīfah) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[2] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Minimal Driving Age because Thank you for posting this debate. As you are pro, I will allow you to post first. Whenever you are ready, take it away. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Is homosexuality wrong? because As an Atheist I will dismiss all religion-based arguments. Rebuttals "A blatant attempt to imitate unique roles or lifestyles that is only featured in each sexes- this is probably one of the main reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong because it is the propagation and provocation of one person of a different sex to imitate and "live" like the other sex. That is ranging from clothing, speech, thinking and attitude. This is what homosexuality really is- trying to be like the other gender. But such feigning of identity is to be not excused. Homosexuality is like trying to put a mask in front of your own face- pretending to be someone that you really aren't. Homosexuality disregards for the appreciation of your own uniqueness and a kind of body you're really made with and suited in. It encourages feigning your own identity by wearing a mask instead of affirming the uniquely built-in trait for each sexes." The first flaw in this reasoning is that it claims gender is something unique. Given that everyone shares their gender with roughly half the human race, this is a false assumption. Secondly, it is not necessarily wrong to try to be like someone else. For instance, if one wants to be a good musician, they may try to imitate or take inspiration from other artists whose work they admire, without necessarily being sinful. " if homosexuality is "normal", then on what basis then should we base our genders in as well as morality?" Gender is based on biological organs (though some consider it to be based on self-identification). Morality does not define genders. "Surely we fail not to see that we apparently judge genders by their biological designs, don't we? Aren't we able to see clear obvious biological marks in our bodies that features serious signs of male and female organs in every person's body to conclude our sexual identity to be that of what is featured in the biological design in our bodies?" This is irrelevant to the debate. "Should we base on what really the person feels inside of him/her (which is subjective)? Or should we justify it by the biological design endowed in us (that is objective)?" What is best for a person may be subjective, but what they feel is objective, and is something only the person themself knows. At any rate this has nothing to do with the debate topic. "it is clear homosexual behaviour is not really about born that way- but a chosen behaviour by the host." Gay sex may be a choice, but homosexuality is not. Thought cannot be a choice-how can one choose something without having thought about it first? "Since homosexuality is also a moral issue, how do then judge other moral matters like rape and murder? If you say homosexuality is "normal" , by what basis of moral "normal" you mean? If we should defer to judge homosexuality to be normal based on what the current moral ethics society uphelds, should we also defer to moral ethics that might later upheld by society in the future take murder and rape as normal for example?" My opponent begs the question by asserting that homosexuality is a moral issue, without having satisfactorily established this. Furthermore, comparing homosexuality to rape and murder is not only absurd but offensive. Homosexuality has no victim, so to compare it to rape and murder which have easily-identifiable victims that are harmed by it is ridiculous. "Unhealthy promotion of the lifestyle to the public- especially to children: We all too know that homosexuality is characterised by its unhealthy lifestyle. It is infested with much diseases in comparison to the heterosexual lifestyle. Too is homosexuality plagued with problems such as mental illness, depression, prone to suicide and to pressure as well as shorter lifespan comparing to heterosexuals." Unsourced assertions. My opponent claims that "We all know" homosexuality is unhealthy but fails to back it up at all. "Homosexuality is not about civil rights- a favourite mantra of the LGBT community is to say that homosexuality is about civil rights and since rights have been given to slaves and women over past centuries as seen in history- too that homosexuality should be given the "rights" to be legislated in the public today. But such comparison is irrelevant and certainly self-serving. Some of these struggles are long and hard and has endured extreme persecution for their cause." As is the struggle for gay rights. In most of the world homosexuality is a crime that one can be imprisoned or killed for, and homosexuality has been a crime in parts of the world at least since the days of the Old Testament. "Also, groups that advocate emancipation of women and slavery in the past- what are they trying to do, is to reaffirm the moral view of that of men being created equal and that women are too created in the Image of God like men too. They are not trying to redefine morality, but rather affirm the true position of the status of other people and women from the beginning." My opponent presumes that trying to "redefine morality" is wrong. However, morality has been redefined many times throughout history, for better and for worse. For example, the idea of slavery being wrong to begin with was itself a redefinition of morality at one point, as was (and arguably still is) Jesus' message of universal love. "In contrast to LGBT, they are practically self-serving, bullying others to get what they wanted instead of what really is the best for the public." My opponent makes sweeping generalizations with no facts or statistics to back them up whatsoever. "Even though the public may believe in "gay rights"- there is a clear difference between what you believe of what is good and what is best for the public. The "gay rights" movement is not about civil rights, it's about redefining morality in the Public Square." As I explained above, redefining morality can be a good thing. " the "domino" effect of homosexuality - The domino effect is a concept of a chain reaction of which a one small change can lead to a radical overhaul of major changes following on since its wake. If homosexuality is to be legislated in the public, what stops us from getting pedophilia, rape, murder, abortion, stem cell research, polygamy and group marriage to be getting legislated in the public?" Stem cell research and abortion are already legal, at least where-the question of "legislating" homosexuality is pointless since noone is advocating forcing people to be gay. Pedophilia, rape, and murder have victims that are harmed by it, which homosexuality doesn't. I don't necessarily have an objection to polygamy (I'm not sure how that's different from "group marriage") if all involved consent to it. "If morality is just based on what you just feel or just a convenience- what final objective justification as a basis for supporting our "moral" views? Opinions? Or the predominant views of the public?" The simplest method is just to look at the effect it has and whether it is positive or negative. However, this is not an argument. Arguments C1: There is no harm My opponent has attempted to show that there is harm in homosexuality, yet all he has done is make unbacked and sweeping assertions about LGBT people. As such, he has provided no real reason to believe homosexuality is harmful. C2: Thought cannot be wrong For something to be truly wrong it must be something that someone is capable of choosing not to do (i. e., if you are given false information that you believe and tell it to someone else, you are not wrong for lying, nor are you wrong for adultery if you are raped after being married). Homosexuality is a thought, because it is someone thinking that people of their same gender are sexually attractive. As I explained above, thought cannot be a choice, because making a choice requires thinking about it first, meaning thought must be able to exist without choice. Therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong as it is involuntary. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Best original rap because I'm a legend, I was born to be an infamous god You a faggot, wishin you would get stuck in the @ss by a rod Wow at you talking about you talkin about my mom's titties sagging, what a disgrace. The only thing that's sagging for you is your boyfriend's balls in your face. Your a faggot you never fought with a guy That's because every time you tried you got lost in his eyes I got groupies that wanna see how long my condom stretch. You got groupies and they go by names like John and Jeff. At your sonogram your momma asked what's your sex? Your doctor was like I'm sorry, we'll have to run more tests. You a prude faggot, probably never been twisted. You've never been in a fist fight but you have been fisted. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Kony a good person who is doing the right thing because I shall approach this round in 3 quick sections. 1) Re-addressing my arguments My opponent has basically accepted my definitions and value system ("...i am glad he defined everything and whatnot."). My opponent has also admitted that Kony is doing what he believes is best for his people. He is not acting in his own self interest and masking it as "good for his people," he truly believes that what he is doing is right. Now, under the virtue moral system laid out in R1, this is an acceptance that he is a good person who is doing the right thing. Technically, this is all that is needed for this debate, but I shall continue with my opponent's arguments for the sake of debating. 2) Addressing my opponent's arguments My opponent claims that Kony "rapes" and "kills" but offers no sources for those claims. I will counter these arguments regardless in two fold. First, it does not matter if these are the most efficient means to achieve his desired results, as the results justify the means under our given moral system, and as long as his desired results are moral, than ANY means to achieve them are moral. Second, you've provided no sources for Kony raping or killing anyone. While this technically counts as a strawman, I will counter what I believe you mean. There are plenty of sources for Kony's forces killing people and whatnot, but those are the actions of his followers, not him. It is illogical to claim that because his followers do something, that HE does something. For example, one could not logically say that Patrick Doyle (CEO of Domino's Pizza) delivered pizza to my front door just because one of his employees did so under the policy that he supports. One could also not say that Obama took a piss on some dead Taliban soldiers just because some US soldiers did (though not under our policy). We can conclude that you cannot simply pass the buck up the chain. One is only responsible for the actions that one makes. 3) Recommendations for my opponent. I will admit that I'm slightly put off that my opponent wouldn't read my entire arguments (when they weren't even that long) and would actually admit it in the debate. If my opponent is not interested in a serious debate and just wants to hear what some people think, a forum thread might be a better option for future questions like this. Anyway, since no new facts were presented in my argument, no sources were needed for them. I pass back to my opponent for their final round. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution because Pro's case My opponent brings up two uses of the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf. The word evolution first appeared in English in the 17th century, referring to an orderly sequence of events.[1] The concept of evolution in the mere sense of development predates Darwinian theory by over 200 years. What distinguishes Darwin's theory is not use of the word evolution. Although we call it Darwin's theory of evolution, Darwin only used the word once in On the Origin of Species , prefering "descent with modification." We may talk of the evolution of the solar system and this, despite creationist confusion, has nothing to do with Darwinism. This difference in evolution as development and evolution as in Darwin's theory is made clearer in German by the fact that they use completely different words to refer to the two different concepts. In the examples my opponent posts, the German word translated as evolution is "entwicklung."[2] This can perhaps better be translated simply as development.[3] Words for evolution in the context of evolutionary theory[4]: theory of evolution Abstammungslehre {f} Evolutionstheorie {f} Deszendenztheorie {f} Abstammungstheorie {f} Darwin's theory of evolution Darwin'sche Evolutionstheorie {f} die darwinsche Evolutionstheorie {f} Evolutionsforscher {m} evolution scientist Genomevolution {f} genome evolution Pflanzenevolution {f} plant evolution None of these words, "Evolution", "Abstammungslehre", "Evolutionstheorie", "Deszendenztheorie", "Abstammungstheorie" appear in Mein Kampf. Another quote my opponent presents is "The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention" This idea is not in Darwin's book. It would not be the view of evolutionary theory that inventions separate man from other animals. Darwin's theory is a biological theory. Hitler is plainly talking about cultural "evolution" (development) not biological evolution by natural selection. Another quote from Mein Kampf my opponent thinks is Darwinian is "Originally they sprung from the brain of an individual" What is it that sprung from the brain? "fundamental military principles which have now become the basis of all strategy in war" Clearly, Hitler is not talking about biological evolution. Hitler is talking in cultural and militaristic terms, in terms of a battle(Kampf) for life. Hitler takes the opposite view to Darwin. Darwin's theory requires that all plants and animals struggle for existence. Hitler thinks that an impulse for struggle arose at one time, that it spread amongst the higher organisms who have a subconscience, and that it spread via practice not reproduction. This has nothing to do with Darwinian principles. Hitler is not talking about sexual reproduction and the gaining of biological traits at all.He is referring to a cultural transmission of "the vital urge". Someone doing something until everybody picks it up. Hitler seems to have some conception of a vitality or will that inspires people. This is adapted from the ideas of the German philosopher Schopenhauer.[5] With his longest quote, my opponent is clutching at straws. The idea that certain men are best suited to some means of employment did not originate with Darwin, is not spoken of by Darwin, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. My opponent would have it that Darwin invented the concept of selection. This is patent nonsense. What my opponent has failed to do is show where in On the Origin of Species these ideas he attributes to Darwin occur. He has not done so, because he cannot do so. His linking of them with Darwin is a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is, and what was original about it. "Obviously, breeding had happened long before Darwin, but just because it was used prior, does not exclude it from being part of the Darwinian theory" Breeding is not part of the theory of evolution. Darwin uses domestic breeding to show that traits can be selected for, before explaining his theory, where nature selects traits. Racial views Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It is a Victorian difference in language. Darwin simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all. Examples of "race" in On the Origin of Species include, "if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock."[6] "Several most experienced ornithologists consider our British red grouse as only a strongly-marked race of a Norwegian species"[7] and, "it is quite incredible that a fantail, identical with the existing breed, could be raised from any other species of pigeon, or even from the other well-established races of the domestic pigeon"[8] Con's case 1. Hitler was a creationist My opponent claims it is obvious that Hitler hated Christianity. This is unevidenced assertion, belied by the following quotes “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" "Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit"[9] 2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory. "Hitler believed that he was helping natural selection by making it artificial, and removing the undesirables from the gene pool." Assertion not backed by any evidence. "Yes this eliminates the variety, but he believed that the end would be the same, that the Aryan race was strongest and was destined to win out." The end would be the same as what? Darwin says nothing about the Aryan race. 3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf. "As I showed in the opening of this round, he does indeed mention evolution as well as natural selection." He mentions development, and not evolution in the Darwinian sense, as I explained. He does not mention natural selection. "Nature's will was in Mein Kampf. " But not in On the Origin of Species at all. 4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities. "The Nazi regime was full of evolutionists." My opponent has resorted to blatant assertion with no evidence to back it up at all. He forgets that Darwin's books were banned. 5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. "eugenics, etc., can all be defended in light of Darwinism." My opponent asserts this, yet he has failed to show where in On the Origin of Species Darwin defends eugenics, or lends it any support at all. "Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution." The Satanic Bible mentions sin. However, a man influenced by the Satanic Bible is not influenced by the Bible. My opponent's case rests on superficial similarities, misunderstandings, and insinuation. He makes a largely negative case: X is not explicitly excluded from being about the theory of evolution, therefore it might be. I thank my opponent for the debate, and trust you will vote Con. [1] http://moourl.com... [2] Mein Kampf pp494 http://moourl.com... [3] http://en.dicios.com... [4] http://moourl.com... [5] http://moourl.com... [6] http://moourl.com... [7] http://www.talkorigins.org... [8] http://www.talkorigins.org... [9] http://moourl.com... <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Grammar, spelling and punctuation should be taken into consideration when voting upon a debate. because First I will address your points: 1)Lets assume that you are right that "If a debater wants to be taken seriously [or respected]…they should use good grammar, etc." So, debaters with poor grammar, etc. don't want to be taken seriously. How does that impact the judges voting? If the debater is debating well, what does it matter if she does not want to be taken seriously? A parallel case: If a boxer is holding his own or winning in a boxing match, what does it matter if he wants to be taken seriously? The only relevant factor is the punches made in the ring. 2)How is grammar, etc. the criteria for presenting arguments in a respectable manner? Who decided that and on what authority? Why should capitalization change the respectability of a good point? More importantly, what role does respectability play in a judge's decision? 3)Your mention of members with English as a second language is noted but irrelevant. My underlying point is this: How does anything you said mean that a judge's decision should be based on grammar? You talk about respectability and being taken seriously but make no attempt at explaining how these relate to judge decision. At this point in the debate you have not made ANY connection to how grammar should affect judge decision. My offense: 4)i. The purpose of grammar, punctuation, and spelling is clarity. Ultimately these are all near-arbitrary norms set by society. They are only important insofar as they are useful. They are only useful insofar as the preserve clarity. If grammar, etc. has no impact on the clarity of an expression, then it is irrelevant. ii. CLARITY should be taken into account when a judge votes. Clarity is relevant to the debate because it is a part of how well the debater expresses and defends his position. Clarity is an indicator of style and skill. Grammar, etc. are only relevant with relation to clarity. 5) The only considerations a judge should have is the quality and skill of the points being made. The point of debate is to beat an opponent in argument. The only thing the judge needs to do is see which debater better defended his position. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Execution is more important than an idea for a successful business. because Because my opponent forfeited R2, I'd like to extend all of my arguments from R1. Also, I'd like to remind everybody that without an idea for a business, there is no business. What good is business execution if there is no idea to be executed? Thus, an idea is more important than execution. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus because Since the resolution is a conjunct, I simply have to disprove either of the following two claims to "win" - as though there is a "winner" per se in this humorous debate... 1) Jesus is the spawn of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 2) Jesus is a better deity than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Far be it from me to demean His Noodlyness, I shall concede the second of these two points and simply state of His Noodlyness, "May he reign forever, perched on His Holy Colander, justly Pastifying Christians and those Spagnostics." Now... on to the contentions! 1) Both like alcoholic beverages. Jesus was a middle easterner, familiar with only wine from the middle east. Thus, any wine he created would need to taste like middle-eastern wine, else the entire personage at the banquet would be confused and suspicious. However, everyone knows perfectly well that the only wines that go well with pasta are from Italy. Any true son of the FSM would have made wine that went well with pasta. Furthermore, Jesus only serves wine in a couple of places in the gospels. Any true son of the FSM would have served wine every chance he could, exemplifying the most holy drunkenness of his divine father. Also, if Jesus were truly the son of the FSM, he would have rendered more of his parables as being about wine and pasta, rather than kings and servants. 2) Both Displayed Amazing Powers. Jesus never displayed the ability to fly while alive. However, the powers of the FSM greatly exceed the powers of Jesus. Jesus was man, and after a certain point would become so intoxicated as to pass out and be unable to exercise any of his powers. Any true son of the Most Holy Imbiber the FSM could drink as much alcohol as he wanted with no detriment to the exercise of his power. 3) Both Are Around Prostitutes. There is a fundamental difference between Jesus and the FSM on this regard. The FSM, a most holy deity, is capable of maintaining a "noodly" character in his "appendage" while amidst strippers and prostitutes. As we all know, no man would be able to do this, and Jesus was a man. Any true son of the FSM would be able to maintain a noodly appendage, and since Jesus was a man, he could not have done so. ********************************************** Additional arguments: 4. When Jesus supposedly multiplied food to feed 5000, he fed them bread and fish. Of course, any son of the Most Holy FSM would have fed the crowd Ramen. The cook time of the Ramen is of no importance, as any true son of the FSM could have simply ordered the Ramen to cook itself instantly - all forms of pasta necessarily obey the epitome of pastaness as well as his offspring. 5. I cannot, and will not believe that His Noodliness would dare splooge his Divine Alfredo Sauce from his no-longer-noodly appendage into something so comparatively lowly as a mere human female. The very thought is repugnant, violating every strand of his Noodly Gospel. 6. No mention of a "Jesus" being the son of His Noodliness is made in the Most Divine and Holy Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this is not the sort of minor point that would have been merely left out, such as the type of beer to be served in heaven. 7. There is no evidence of this "Jesus" having anything resembling a noodly appendage. It is said that this "Jesus" was a man, but everyone knows that no man would describe himself as noodly. One may contend that he hid it to blend in with people, but everyone knows no true son of the FSM would dare disgrace his father by hiding his noodlyness from the world. ******************************************* A short refutation for FSM vs. Jesus as a deity even though I've conceded the point: All else being equal, the FSM can perform miracles and exercise his power with a .50 BAC. Jesus, on the other hand, would be so roaring drunk with a .15 BAC that he could not tell his left hand from his "noodly appendage" if you get my drift. Thus, the FSM is clearly the better deity, and since only the best deity should be in charge, he is more legitimate at doing his job than Jesus. AFFIRMED. Ramen. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with Communism > Capitalism because I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and giving me an earnest argument. I will organize my rebuttal using my opponents RD 1 order. Look to my tags. On a lawless society: The reason I stated that there are no 'laws', is because a ruling body is needed to carry out these 'laws', and since government is abolished, these types of 'laws' cannot exist. Though, there is such a thing as abiding by the laws of nature. Humans are not lawless and don't believe anything they do should go unpunished. Incredibly influential philosopher John Locke properly characterizes the nature of man in the following, from his Second Treatise of Civil Government: "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..." In the event that someone were to murder, steal, or rape, he or she would be at the mercy of his or her community in which he or she lives in. Though vigilante justice, in this particular case, is almost democratic, this doesn't negate the fact that Communism cannot exist. It proves a possible flaw in the theory, or even just a spot in the theory that is indeterminate, but no political theory is infallible. However, to say that it can't exist because one piece of it is problematic is silly, and does not give us enough reason to believe Communism can never exist. Furthermore, keep in mind that Communism is more than just a change in regime or government structure. It is a change in culture. With that change comes a necessary change in natural laws. If people act as John Locke would have them, abiding by the Golden Rule and rationally trying to further their own species (which can be taught if we are diligent), then the capacity for human beings to live without the need for strict legal enforcement increases dramatically. Don't let my opponent limit the potential for humans to grow and evolve, since that potential is limitless. On currency as motivation or materialism as motivation: There hasn't always been 'money'. Bartering societies have thrived for extremely long periods of time, prior to outside influences. The only reason most of those societies have changed, is because they have been conquered and forced to accept a new way of doing business. Man does not inherently require a monetary supplementation to quench a genetic thirst to buy things with 'money'. Extrinsic incentives are not the only incentives that can motivate an individual to want to succeed and provide for his/her community. Intrinsic motivators are arguably more effective, as they pierce the conscious and are more understandable than flimsy green paper, or a record of wealth in a bank account. Communism thrives on intrinsic motivators, because a desire to provide according to one's ability, in order to sustain a society, can be great motivation. Where exactly in Communist theory, are workers not given the right to strike? Freedom is the main proponent of Communism, this confuses me... It's becoming apparent that Con's arguments seem to be relying largely on the idea of currency. There is no set wage for workers in a Communism; because there is no money. I understand this might be hard idea to conceptualize, but it is necessary if you are to truly understand Marx's vision. The incentive to produce is provided by the community. If the writer needs ink and a book to write in, the positions are filled by those who can fill them, in order for the writer to be able to spread knowledge. Or the butcher needs a knife, the knife maker plays his part, and he and his community are provided with meat. My opponent's criticisms of Communism seem to originate from criticisms of Socialism, which is where most of our preconceived notions about Communism come from, rather than actual Communist theory. On supply & demand, as well as citizenry needs. There is nothing in Communist theory that says production is controlled and surplus is non existent. The only thing that it does do is prevent any surplus from being controlled by a single party and possibly be exploited by withholding the surplus in exchange for greater payment. In regards to a time of famine; any producer of food would be largely motivated by self interest and altruism alike to provide even greater for the community. In a Capitalistic society, the poorer citizens would starve in a time of famine because of their inability to pay for food. Take for example, the Great Depression. The lower and middle class suffered the most, as they could not pay for the most necessary things (i.e. food, housing, electricity etc). The rich also suffered, but were still able to afford necessities. A poor man deserves to live just as much as rich man. On equality & rights How does Communism take away the rights of body, life, mind, and actions? And where does it strip one of their intellectual property? This isn't Big Brother. Also, the problem of some individuals working harder than others will arise, there is no doubt of that. But the idea of all contributing equally in their society would spread quickly through education, as it is a learned altruistic behavior. Though, in round one, I asked that we skip the idea of the long enduring learning process. How is a Communistic society a forced equality? It is the people themselves who strove for the system. Also, to believe that a 'lazy worker' would thrive in a Communism, is quite naive. Communist need to survive as well, they will not just sit idle if this were to occur. On education It is not true to assert that Capitalistic education systems would surpass a Communistic counterpart. Many of the education systems in self proclaimed Capitalist nations aren't working out so well. The U.S. is a perfect example. To look at it from a Capitalistic perspective, how motivated is a teacher in a society where in a public system they make 50,000 a year even after 10 years of service, while a professional athlete will make 10 million in a single contract. Good system eh? Also, in the nations with the most successful school systems, education has taken a Communistic approach. On competition Just because there is no one company attempting to monopolize a product doesn't mean there won't be incentive to go far and beyond. The incentive would be community driven. The desire to serve the community does not logically hinder individualism or creativity. Human beings are naturally ingenuitive, and will be so under any political system, be it Capitalism or Communism. People innovate even in the most oppressive environments, like totalitarian dictatorships. My opponent has yet to prove conclusively that Communism will hinder the human capacity to innovate. Now, my opponent uses Biological Determinism and Social Darwinism to flaw Communism. Some people will, without doubt, inherently be smarter, faster, and stronger than others; does this also mean that they should have a more luxurious life? Everyone has a skill, and everyone can contribute to society in some way. Maybe not entirely as effectively as someone else, but does this mean they should be punished for it? The rewards of a successful and striving individual will be intrinsic, rather than materialistic and hollow. My opponent uses the Soviet Union to attack Communism. I hope that voters will see that this is a terrible example of anything similar to Communism. The USSR was a totalitarian government lead by a demagogue who made his citizens believe they were all being treat <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with This debate will not result as a tie. because I accept my opponent's definition of "tie" and thank him/her for contending. I start Pro with a definition for "result": Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This re�sult Audio Help /rɪˈzʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object) 1. to spring, arise, or proceed as a consequence of actions, circumstances, premises, etc.; be the outcome. 2. to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing. –noun 3. something that happens as a consequence; outcome. 4. Mathematics. a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation. 5. Often, results. a desirable or beneficial consequence, outcome, or effect: We had definite results within weeks. —Idiom6. get results, to obtain a notable or successful result or response; be effective. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME resulten (v.) < AL resultāre to arise as a consequence, L: to spring back, rebound, equiv. to re- re- + -sultāre, comb. form of saltāre to dance (freq. of salīre to leap, spring)] —Synonyms 1. flow, come, issue. See follow. 2. resolve, eventuate. 3. conclusion, issue, end, product, fruit. See effect. —Antonyms 3. cause. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, � Random House, Inc. 2006. [end] If you would look at definition 2 (the definition we will be using, if my opponent agrees), it states: "to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing. –noun" My opponent states: "My main contention is that the second any debate ends on debate.org, the immediate vote score is 0-0 - a tie. Therefore, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden, as the debate will immediately be a tie." I ask my opponent: How can the voting procedure on this debate END in a tie, if it has never STARTED? At 0-0, no voting has taken place, so it has not started. Because of this, it cannot end, and therefore does not yield a "result". A result, consequently, will only be shown after all voting has ended. Now you may wonder, what about such things as say, a soccer game that ends 0-0? Well, the scoring has not ended, but the game has, so this is the final result. You may now conclude that once this debate is over, the votes (or lack of) present right away are the final result. However this is not true. In a finished 0-0 soccer game, there is no more opportunity for scoring, since the game has ended. After a debate, on the other hand, there is always opportunity for gaining votes. Therefore the results are always changing. The only way, therefore, that this debate can result as a tie, is if after all voting has ended, the score is tied. My statement was not that the debate CAN end in a tie, it is that it WILL. Therefore, voters, at long as the debate is not tied, you have no choice but to vote PRO, as I will have proved my point that the debate is not tied. It is now up to the CON to prove that this debate WILL end in a tie. <EOA> |
<BOA> I am with It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only. because Thanks for your reply. 1. I think we don't quite understand each other. Omnipotent means absolute infinity. Nothing in this reality can be infinite. From the debate's title, we are debating not the Lord's infinity, but the ability to prove his infinity. 2. Imagine eternity as a container of beef jerky. This container lasts forever, and has infinite beef jerky. We can't see past the container of eternity, so thus we cannot prove infinity because it simply cannot exist in a provable way. 3. Measurable things *in our reality.* We feel emotion every day- that proves it is real. We cannot see nor hear God every day, so He is immune to these rules. Anyway, thank you for allowing me to debate the nature of the Lord! <EOA> |
<BOA> I am against Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax. because I accept the position of Con for this debate. Empty apartments/homes and unused land should not be subjected to a tax. <EOA> |
Subsets and Splits