_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
afd62ce-2019-04-18T16:16:13Z-00001-000 | The question of rape in the bride kidnapping video | Sandra Nisanov Phi/Law 310.08 Round 4 When you say this: "Only in the recent years and mainly in the western cultures, the dating practice of aggressive male and passive female has been slowly phased out and replaced by more equal approach of two confident in their wants and desires adults meeting up for romantic purposes. Diminished focus on social stigmas related to dating and increased urbanization to big cities, where negative reputation and notoriety is less significant than in small villages or cities, greatly contributed to women in these cultures no longer feeling an obligation to play the role of a passive female at the risk of any public shaming. In these modern cultures women can properly articulate their feelings and "no" means "yes" philosophy is less likely to be practiced. Circumstances above definitely do not apply to the case in the video. The location in Kyrgyzstan is a very rural area and showcased society seems to follow old fashion, patriarchal way of thinking when it comes to gender roles and what behavior is appropriate for women. The "no" means "yes" philosophy is very much relied on in male/female relations. It is explained that answer "No" is associated with female purity and innocence, while saying "Yes" will be identified with negatively perceived characteristic of being desperate to get married (16 mins-15 secs). A lot of importance is being placed on the idea of purity for women, as evidenced by public display symbolizing girl"s virginity on her wedding night (30 mins-30 secs). If we additionally consider that bride"s mother actually agreed to be married by kidnapping, meaning her resistance and protest was most likely a staged performance, it is virtually impossible to determine if this is a case of "No" means "No" or not (23mins-05 secs)." you are further proving my point as to why the law should address all areas as well as all individuals with the same respect. The fact that we as a society or culture are a bit more progressive here in the United States is irrelevant because there have been at least one or more instances where rape has occurred even in today's society where the location is a progressive region in the United States. The law cannot protect a man just because his traditions are different. The fact that this rape has not taken place in the United States is irrelevant because the acts that this man committed are grounds to determine a rape has taken place no matter what region you are from. Because of the traditions there, the society is more patriarchal therefore often times favoring the men in the criminal law. This does not necessarily mean that rape has not taken place."Most of the time, a criminal law that reflects male views and male standards imposes its judgment on men who have injured other men. It is boys rules applied to a boys fight. In rape the male standard defines a crime committed against woman, and the male standards are used not only to judge men but also to judge the conduct of woman victims. Moreover, because the crime involves sex itself, the law of rape inevitably threads on the explosive ground of sex roles, of male aggression and female passivity, of our understandings of sexuality " areas where differences between male and female perspective may be most pronounced." (160.4.4-7) Rape cases almost entirely disregard the defendant, and focus on the behavior of the victim, which is based on a male standard of what is appropriate behavior of a woman. (162.2-3) "The study of rape as an illustration of sexism in the criminal law also raises broader questions about the way conceptions of gender and the different backgrounds and perspectives of man and woman are encompassed within the criminal law." (160.4.1) So to make it clear what constitutes as rape cannot be different in one country then it is in another. The law must recognize rape and what constitutes as a whole. If one individual murders another one what follows is necessary punishment regardless of what region you are from. The same concept should be applied to rape. One cannot be punished differently or not even accused of a crime which would have different circumstances in the for example the United States or any other progressive region. The conduct of a reasonable man should be evaluated by the law as opposed to being influenced by a playboy Macho philosophy which insinuates," no means yes" but by valuing the words of a woman. (161.5.5) A man who claims he thought a woman was consenting, or didn"t bother to think about it should always be compared to what a reasonable man would do in that sort of situation where he would have clearly known that there was no consent present. In this case the negligence of the man who did not bother to think about mistaking the non consent for consent from the woman, should be punishable. (163.6.2) |
79b08345-2019-04-18T12:52:37Z-00001-000 | Gendered Language Should be Replaced with Gender Neutral Terms. | ThesisI'll argue that gendered language is harmful and promotes sexist attitudes. Con just has to disprove my arguments. .. .Some common gendered words you may be familiar with are terms like "chairman", "police man", "mankind", and "you guys". Please express interest in the comments Also, everyone should know that accepting this debate doesn't mean I, or the judges, will label you a sexist or anything. Definitions:gendered language: reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other; also : reflecting or involving gender differences or stereotypical gender roles. should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Rules:-UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEBATE YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATION IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED HIGHER VOTING STANDARDS, FOUND HERE:. https://docs.google.com......-Kritiks are allowed-Don't forfeit. |
79b08345-2019-04-18T12:52:37Z-00000-000 | Gendered Language Should be Replaced with Gender Neutral Terms. | I accept. |
3c02a6e-2019-04-18T17:02:32Z-00001-000 | Are Robots useful to the world | THESIS: The benefits of robotics outweigh the disadvantages. Every new technological advance has potential for harm. Technological advances should be adapted with caution and consideration, but we should never dismiss the challenge of a new technology simply because we detect potential drawbacks. I like to use fire as a metaphor when considering a new technology. When humans first gained control of fire and began to use fire for warmth, light, cooking, and protection we must have immediately discerned the hazards. If fire is not watched, it can burn out of control. Fire is smokey and the ashes are dirty. Enemies and predators can see and smell a fire from a distance. At some point, we had to ask ourselves if fire was worth the risk. Clearly, the answer was usually yes. So it is with most technological advances since fire. We have to be careful to discover and mitigate the risks of any new technology, but the challenge of progress is compelling and part of the adventure that is human history. Pro has argued that robotics has the disadvantage of making humans lazy. I'll counter by saying that short of imprisonment, no person or thing can make a person lazy. A roomba might require less human effort than vacuuming, but that doesn't mean that the human with extra time is forced to be idle. Instead of vacuuming, a human can be free to pursue other labor or activities, including those that might provide as much or more exertion than vacuuming. Robots might offer humans one more opportunity to prefer idleness, but robots don't force us to be lazy. That's a choice we make for ourselves. Some of the many foreseeable advantages of robotics include:Driverless cars- In fact, this may be the first large scale application of robotics to have a profound effect on modern culture. Google expects driverless cars to be mass produced and legal in some states as early as 2017. Some experts are more pessimistic, but most anticipate that driverless cars will be an option by 2025. Almost every expert expects that the superior safety and savings of driverless cars promote rapid adoption and rapid adaptation to a driverless car infrastructure. Driverless cars have an impeccable safety record. Over a million test miles have been driven without a single accident. The blind, the disabled, the elderly, and the young will be able to enjoy the same advantages of autonomous transportation as the majority. Parking will become far more efficient, resulting in increased real estate availability in populous areas. Eventually traffic jams, stop lights, traffic tickets will all become a thing of the past. There can be little doubt that this will also mean the obsolescence of a couple of million jobs, but this is a challenge we need to learn to overcome. Robotic farm equipment- Robotic tractors and cultivators and seed mills, etc. will greatly improve agricultural efficiency and reduce food prices. Again, job loss will be a major disadvantage which we will need to overcome, but few humans enjoy the back breaking work of industrial sized harvesting. Robotic factories- perhaps the most obvious application of robots, where humans are required to perform mind-numbingly repetitive tasks for low wages. Robots have been employed in factories since the 70's and are clearly positioned to make one of the least pleasant aspects of the industrial revolution obsolete. Robots in health- There is an increasing gap in medicine between the doctors engaged in the science of diagnosis and prescription and the art of nursing, the human element of evaluation and support. As nurses are increasingly called upon to fill that gap, robots can be used to complete the mundane tasks of making beds, cleaning up messes, delivering meals, etc. Robots can be used to resolve all kinds of access and safety problems on behalf of the elderly and disabled. Think of the advantages of a wheelchair that can navigate steps and steep slopes or that can help a person back to their feet when they fall. Military robots- We have already seen the rapid adoption of robots on the dangerous frontlines, particularly in Afghanistan where over 30,000 robots are in use. Obviously, the primary advantages are the safety of soldiers and the precision of robotic tools in deployment. We have already seen the potential blowback in the reaction to drone strikes overseas, but the advantages in saving soldier's lives is undeniable. Robotic police and firefighters- Again, safety is a primary advantage. There are also major efficiencies in being able to deploy a flying drone straight to a fire rather than the time lost and dangers incurred from speeding fire trucks through the streets. Robotic police might be intimidating, but think of all the times police shoot a person because they are worried about their personal safety. A robot can disable a person wielding a weapon without risking police and so save a life. In the next 50 years, we are going to see a major expansion of robotics in our culture. Robots offer humanity the possibility of freeing us from a thousand different repetitive and unpleasant tasks. It is true that humans do not always take the best advantage of such opportunities and humans clearly benefit from the discipline and patience required for practicing such tasks. Nevertheless, history has proved that these tasks have always been relegated to lower and middle classes and the compensation is rarely proportional to the undesirability of the work. Yes, robots will replace these jobs but for the most part these are jobs that few humans desire to do. Robots will free a much wider portion of the population to pursue education, arts, science, research, human development, social improvement and lessen the distinction between social classes. Robots have the potential to introduce revolutionary social improvements to the human condition. |
3c02a6e-2019-04-18T17:02:32Z-00002-000 | Are Robots useful to the world | The Robots are making human as lazy and also its not good for future world. |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00000-000 | School Uniforms | When mentioning Long beach, California, I wasn't contrasting it from other states. I was simply explaining the impact that school uniforms potentially had on a neighborhood. Secondly, abuse and discipline are two different things. Although some people may argue that it is a form of discipline, abuse does not necessarily correspond with it. As you stated, "depression and PTSD are some of the long term effects when discipline becomes abuse", shows that abuse is the reason of the depression and not the discipline itself. Ask yourself, would you discipline your children? Or would you let them tell you what they want to wear because their friends are all wearing it. If you think about it they wear a uniform whether it's identical or not. |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00001-000 | School Uniforms | To properly conclude, the speaker has brought many valuable points to the discussion. However, these methods are not always sound. To begin, the speaker compares to Long Beach, California, even though it has a higher per capita murder rate of 7.4% to 5.1% of NYC (baruch.cuny.edu). Clearly, this should not be possible with lbschools.net, boasting a 90% decrease. Frankly, it seems like inflated numbers, using a small sample space to predict the population, instead of using larger ones. Regarding disciple, "Depression and PTSD are some of the long-term effects when discipline becomes abuse" (CNN.com). To have much of it, regardless of corporal or not, is not useful. Nevertheless, this was a wonderful debate that yielded many valid solutions. |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00002-000 | School Uniforms | There is no way to show that conformity at a young age, elementary school and some high schools, would make children machines. Discipline is important at an early age in a child's life. Without Discipline, children will grow up not knowing how to face certain obstacles. Then there is also the the respect factor, without discipline it can be said that there will not be respect for others. According to lbschools.net, Schools where uniforms are required have seen a 95 percent decrease in crime, 90 percent decrease in suspensions, and vandalism on school property decreased by 69 percent. Also in Long Beach, California, where school uniforms are required almost everywhere since 1995, the average cost of uniforms per year is roughly $60 to $70. |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00003-000 | School Uniforms | As the speaker may have valuable points such as discipline, it still causes horrendous conformity. Simply put, conformity and discipline is like the military; such an act on small children in early education makes them machines. With Syria, that worn torn country has emboldened students with their blue uniforms (washingtontimes.com). Clearly, this is contradictory to “land of free.” To add, it apparently “[interferes] students' right to choose their dress…[Violating] First Amendment rights (Mitchell and Knechtle, 2003).” Thus, apparently this is militarization and constitutional infringement. With finance, parents should know how to spend wisely; if they afford new “kicks” every season, they certainly can afford at least 7 pairs of clothes. |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00004-000 | School Uniforms | School uniforms help schools portray discipline. It keeps schools somewhat in check. Usually public schooling doesn't require uniforms, some do, while catholic schools try to keep a uniform a requirement. According to Statisticbrain.com, Parents spend roughly 1.3 billion dollars annually on school uniforms, which breaks down to about 249 dollars per parent per year. That would be much cheaper than trying to get the newest clothing per year and spending money so that the child can have a new outfit of the "coolest styles" each day. School uniforms also try to keep the school itself united. The uniforms help diminish economic and social barriers between students. (greatschools.org) |
24034d4a-2019-04-18T16:35:18Z-00005-000 | School Uniforms | School uniforms, in general, seem to stretch the notion of assertion over students. There may be advantages with respect to fashion conservation, but it still destroys the concept of independence and art. In reality, wearing such uniforms brings a relatively stable nation like America, more like that of Syria, where uniforms are required by students, as well as longer class days (everyculture.com). If there is not a decrease in student morality, then certainly there can be one in their artistic flare. As the sun-sentinel.com suggests, wearing “uniforms stifle creativity” implying that to be creative proposes to not wear them in the first place (material conditional then modus tollens). While they may have their benefits, they harm far more. |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00004-000 | evil does not exist | Yes everyone can agree that animals are not evil because they do not have a higher intelligence to think about that, and we can agree that natural disasters can be considered not evil since they are not a alive thing with any form of intelligence. I would think that evil would lie with humans. And yes what is evil may be subjective in the form of small things like animals I am talking big league when it comes to evil. For example, Hitler is evil his motives may seem good at first however in the end his motives was because he was a selfish dick who wanted more than he had and he died from it, of course before his death he killed 11 MILLION people you can not justify that as good. That was plain and simple evil |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00005-000 | evil does not exist | the Google definition of evil is " profoundly immoral and malevolent" and exist as "have objective reality or being" Evil is an idea that can not exist in the real world The idea of evil by its nature is subjective. You may think an action is evil but another person may claim it is good. For example one may believe that killing any living thing is evil, where others may say that killing animals is just part of life. Here are some questions than may arise. Who's beliefs are correct? and what if killing one things saves five others? Is an evil action always evil or can exceptions be made? and finally how gets the right to answer these questions? so evil is clearly not objective I also want to talk about volition. Most people would agree that killing is immoral. An earthquake may kill people but an earthquake is not malevolent, it has no will to kill people. Most would agree that an earthquake is not evil it has no freewill. Say some is killed by an animal for food is that animal evil? It is just following its instincts it did not relay have an active choice in the madder. People also follow there instincts and there brain reacts to outside stimulus. so if the brain controls peoples actions, and has no power over the outside world can they relay be evil or act evilly? I would say no. I also want to say morals change with time, and what one group thinks is immoral another might have no issue with, so I ask can something be evil today and not be evil in say 100 years? There is no way to measure or quantify evil, and there are a lot of grey areas about what is and is not considered evil. this lack of agreement shows the frail nature of the idea of evil, and its inability to exist in the world. |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00006-000 | evil does not exist | I look forward to what you have to say |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00007-000 | evil does not exist | A short debate with 3000 characters per round. |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00000-000 | evil does not exist | You say that evil does not exist from the points you made so this is what I will do. Lets see what you said There is no objective evil? Not true the best example I have ever heard for evil is, evil for evils sake, which means no ending purpose, just for the hell of it Like I said with the one above there is a direct point of view of evil IT does not change what people think of it does, again you have to look at it objectively which most people can not do You can infact measure evil, here is a article I found with what most would consider a accurate scale about evil http://www.npr.org... So for my final thing I just want to say, everyone can agree that good exist in the world yes? then you believe in evil and the reason why is because for good to exist there needs to be a opposite so we can know the difference. Like for light to exist then dark has to, it is the same principle. That is why evil does exist |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00001-000 | evil does not exist | You have yet to convince me that evil exist and I think I have made some compiling arguments against the idea of evil.I want to quickly comment on some of your last points You say Hitler did not think it was for the best, he do it because he thought aryans where better than everyone else, but those are not exclusive he could think and did think both. He wanted to have the people he thought where best to run things because if they where the best, giving them power would be for the best. Hitler also was not aryan, so he clearly was just not thinking about himself. Also on that point just because it was not best for Germany does not mean he did not think it was best for Germany.You said "you have to look at it objective to really see if something is bad" I agree with the sentiment, but since there is no objective bad, nothing can be called really bad. This idea also works for evil, since there is no objective evil there is nothing that is truly bad.The final thing I will say on your points, you said "saying he was not evil is the same as saying a serial killer is not evil for murdering someone" with this you are not wrong I would say a serial is not evil same as I would not call Hitler evil. more so in the case of serial killers, many of whom have mental disorders. I would say in cases of serial killers with a disorder it is not to different from the animal killing people, and we agreed that the animal is not evil.To bring it all together, evil is not real because1 There is no objective evil 2 Ideas of evil change and vary -This is why people who kill like Hitler are not evil, but we can agree it is tragic that the people where killed. 3 It can not be measured or Quantified |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00002-000 | evil does not exist | But that's thing thing Hitler did not do it because he thought it was best, he did it because he thought that he and all who looked similar to him was better than everyone else. Yes the mass populace may say that this is bad and that is bad but you have to look at it objective to really see if something is bad .For example in the holocaust Hitler killed more than Jews he killed EVERYONE that was not a perfect arion which is why it was evil he did not do it for the best of Germany he did it because he wanted to and he thought he was better and that arions were better, so saying he was not evil is the same as saying a serial killer is not evil for murdering someone |
b0ddc07a-2019-04-18T12:49:56Z-00003-000 | evil does not exist | First I would agree that what happened to the Jews in W.W.2 was tragic, and that Hitler played a huge role in that tragedy and is an undesirable human. However that does not mean that he is evil. He did what he thought was best for himself and Germany, so I argue this does not prove evil exists. I want to make a more abstract example, say there is an election, I think candidate A's views are immoral and and bad for the country, but that does not make him evil. I have my right to think candidate A is immoral but it does not make him immoral. The lack of evil does not mean that people still can't think this or that about anything. One could even think that someone is evil, but it does not make it so, same as one thinking the world is flat makes the world flat. I want to comment that just because something is not good that does not mean it is evil. Good is also very subjective and what is good for the majority may not be good for the minority and vice versa. |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00004-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | I fully welcome my opponent's unconventionality, and shall follow suit. Since my opponent has not justified his framework, not has he made positive arguments generally (as opposed to assertions), I am free to do the same. I will, in this round, present two arguments, each negating the resolution, based on two contrary assumptions (the first, that a constitution may have authority extended through time, and, the second, that a constitution cannot), such that, no matter what my opponent makes of the framework in which I am working, my conclusion is inevitable. Note that this is in direct opposition to my opponent’s unwarranted decree that “Con must argue that the Constitution should be a "dead" document to succeed” – I must only argue that it should not be a living document (which includes an utterly impotent, and, therefore, de facto nonexistent constitution). I do not challenge my opponent’s acceptance of “natural rights”, but the exact list of rights he is accepting must be clarified before discourse may be had. So that there exists no ambiguity, I will operate with the assumption that the primary right is the Right to Autonomy, which has corollaries: the Right to Property and the Right to Self-Ownership. The Right to Autonomy states, generally, that each man has the right to exercise their own free will; the Right to Property that each man has the right to act exclusively over unclaimed material or material within his domain (this right also establishes the right to domain); the Right to Self-Ownership that each man must be treated as property of only themselves (unless they sign themselves into slavery), which, as explained, implies that they have exclusive control over their own person. If my opponent wishes to challenge any of these rights, I will present their justifications. The way my case is constructed means that, if my opponent cannot show that the Constitution is not “dead”, then it does not and should not have authority. Therefore, many of my opponent’s arguments work towards my conclusion. To give the foundation of my argument, I present passages from Lysander Spooner’s No Treason/Constitution of No Authority. Quoting the noble man on why Constitutions bind only those who signed them, and only on the terms that they signed them under: “Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: “We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.” And on why those bound by it must have signed it of their own accords: “The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. [...] Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not THEN sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? [...] The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution — from an instrument that nobody ever signed — would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication. […] Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. […] The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.” [2] Prong the First: If a Constitution is to Have Authority, it Must Not Change This is obvious by the fact that a contract is binding only insofar as it was consented to, and that “progress”, no matter to what end, would obliterate the ability for the terms of a contract to be specified (and therefore it could not be agreed to – empty and tabula rasa contracts are not contracts). Prong the Second: If a Constitution Changes, and Therefore Has No Authority, it Must be Discarded My opponent’s arguments mostly reject the consistency of our Constitution, and, therefore, we move to this prong. This conclusion is clearly given when one accepts that an improper contract is not binding; therefore, my opponent has shown that a living Constitution would be impotent, and, therefore, neither practically nor morally desirable. In addition, my opponent must recognise the difference between holding that a specific Constitution, by definition enduring, should be living, and that morally bankrupt Constitutions should be destroyed and replaced by More Perfect ones, and, if such replacement is impossible, just destroyed. My opponent needs to justify why the first would have been morally superior for, for example, Rome. |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00005-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | Thanks to Shab for accepting this battle to the death debate.Untraditionally, I will not be laying out a framework for this debate yet. Instead, I am merely going to present facts this round, which I will use to make my case in the next round. Assume that my framework is natural rights; if Con doesn't contest, this is the framework we will use. Con must argue that the Constitution should be a "dead" document to succeed. Accordingly, these facts I present will be used in the next round to accomplish two objectives: 1) to show that the Constitution should be living, and 2) to show that the Constitution should not be dead. Because it can only be one or the other, judges should treat both types of arguments as positive arguments that advance my case. How the Founders Intended It?Significant hullabaloo is raised by some in defending the "original" Constitution. However, the Constitution from its inception was actually intended to be a living document, according to a significant number of its creators and ratifiers. The Constitution was not a coherent statement of ideology, outside of certain vague commitments to liberty. It was the product of compromise (1). Specifically, the compromise was between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists would find camaraderie among the originalists today. The Federalists included John Marshall, a delegate to the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution, and the fourth Supreme Court justice, responsible for the creation of judicial review (2). It is important to note that judicial review stems from no explicit constitutional authority authority whatsoever--it is truly one of the first and most famous examples of the living constitution, far before the phrase was coined. We can indeed see this same evidence of two interpretations of the constitution in the debate over the Repeal Act in 1803--"[T]he Federalists urged that the constitutionality of the Repeal Act be referred to the Supreme Court. The Republicans responded that the people, not the courts, were the judges of the constitutionality of acts of Congress" (2, pg. 313). Furthermore, "Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed" (3) We'll return to Justice Marshall later, but for now it is enough to say that originalism was not the doctrine of the Founders. I will explain the importance of this in Round 2. Judicial Review--In Defense of Liberty The GPO has published a handy-dandy list of things deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (4). Of particular note are cases 150, 144, 140, and 133. I will not use them now, but I have acknowledged that as a courtesy to my opponent. The fundamental fact about rights is that, by definition, they cannot be subjected to a vote. Either they exist, or they do not exist, and woe be to the positivist that ascribes only the "rights" they like to the people they like--if rights are mutable, they are not rights. A dead constitution necessarily entails that we rewind our conceptions of rights, and of morality, to an earlier, worse time. More than just judicial review, the living constitution approach ensures that the Constitution is a document worthy of respect. The law is not an end, it is a means to the end of the public good. There is no quality of law that gives it an intrinsic utility or moral worth. Even the law of a religious society with religious law is worthless if the law is not followed. To the extent that the law protects the public welfare, it is worthy of praise; to the extent that it damages the public welfare, it is worthy of scorn. One of the great successes of the Living Constitution recently has been Obergefell v. Hodges. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage because of the Due Process and Equal Process clauses (5). Both clauses clearly were not meant to apply to gay marriage, and it is doubtful the Founders would have supported gay marriage. Yet, because of the actions of the Supreme Court, gay marriage is legal, and it is guaranteed to remain legal. No legislature can change that. The Living Constitution approach has successfully ensured that the Constitution remains a document worthy of respect that preserves the rights of the people. Rome Quite the segue, eh? This section demonstrates the harm caused when constitutions--in this case, the unwritten Roman Constitution--are insufficient to provide for the people. The beginning of the end of the Roman Republic is generally traced to the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus (6, pg. 144). Rome was in dire straits. The poor filled the streets of Rome, and wealth continued to be concentrated in the hands of a few (pg. 145). Tiberius pushed for land reform. Tribunes, as it happened, all had the power to unilaterally veto any proposal, and one by the name of Marcus Octavius did just that (146-147). The common people wanted reform (147). The law was intransigent. The natural response? Tiberius convinced the assembly to eject Octavius from office, a step with no legal precedent (147). For his trouble, Tiberius was murdered by the pontifex maximus and a mob of senators and retainers (147). This set the stage for enduring conflict between two camps--the populares and the optimates--with the former relying on popular support to pass reforms and the latter relying on senatorial support to promote stability (153). The clear issue is that there was a dichotomy between the two, when there shouldn't have been a dichotomy. Choosing between terrible law and lawless reform is not a choice. The populares largely gave up on the law altogether, and the optimates failed miserably in their attempts to restore the Republic. A dead constitution goes the way of the optimates--into extinction and irrelevance. It can preserve no freedom in the long run, because it preserves only itself. A living constitution, on the other hand, would have bypassed many of the problems traditionalist Rome had with the populares. It would have enabled Tiberius and others to enact the will of the majority while preserving the rest of the Roman institutions. Attempting reforms under a dead constitution is like attempting a surgery with a battleaxe. You'll get the problem area cut out just fine--and a few other vital organs while you're at it. The scalpel of the living constitution is necessary to preserve this stability.ConclusionIn this round, I demonstrated several strengths of a living constitution, and provided necessary historical context for understanding my case. A living constitution more effectively protects liberties, more effectively allows for reform, and was favored by a good number of the Founders.Sources http://law2.umkc.edu... John Marshall by Jean Smith http://law2.umkc.edu... https://www.gpo.gov... https://www.oyez.org... The Romans: From Village to Empire by Boatwright et al. |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00006-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | I accept. |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00007-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | Other than that, everything (excluding blatantly anti-debate practices like Google Doc links to avoid the character limit) is fair game. Definitions"Should" implies moral desirability. A "living constitution" is one that " . . . changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended" (1). Generally, this interpretation is opposed to originalism, which states that "those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution—the supreme law of the land—as it was originally written" (2). Sources 1. . http://www.law.uchicago.edu...2. . http://www.heritage.org... |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00000-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | what a clown |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00001-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | Con is wrong, but I've been stuck away from a computer for the past two days and I can't respond in time. I'm posting to avoid the forfeit glitch.For now, I concede. Hopefully we can do this again some time--I have some major fixes I made to my argument and I've learned not doing arguments in the first round was a poor strategy, lol.GG WP |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00002-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | On Framework Note, here, that my opponent claims to have accepted my list of rights. Afterwards, he argues against the primacy of autonomy (saying that it must be compromised in the advance of something “greater”). He must have been very confused; there is no other explanation for this massive lapse in understanding. I specifically noted that the Right to Autonomy was the “primary right”, and other rights were corollaries. Given that my opponent has still presented no justification for his framework except for saying, descriptively, that certain things are “just” or “respectful of dignity” (which my opponent seems to believe counts as proving it so), there is absolutely no reason to accept the “appended” rights he tries to tack onto my own framework. Indeed, the very fact that he ACCEPTS my framework and then argues against its fundamental nature should be enough to discredit his attempts at consistency. The question one must first ask in this debate is "By what standard am I to pass moral judgement?” I pose one simple challenge to both my opponent and the reader: find any answer which does not, at least implicitly, require autonomy of the Will. You will find that you cannot. This being so, it is clear that, unless my opponent decides to finally offer a positive argument, my a priori true position must be accepted prima facie. Defence1. Consent of the Governed Quoting Ayn Rand: “A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.” It should be clear that I am not arguing that justice is “up to a vote”, or whatever other ridiculous position my opponent wishes to paint me as holding; justice is the protection of consensual relations and the destruction of all others. This is much different – justice is not “majority rules” or arbitrary under my theory, but, rather, justice itself is the principle of free association with the world and others. This is why my opponent’s rant about how “What grants the Constitution legitimacy is not consent; it is its protection of the rights of the people“ falls flat; that which professes to protect rights cannot itself be a slavemaster. Thus, my opponent’s strawman is burnt to a crisp. The point made by my opponent about “practicality” is also worthless; is the unjust, then, to become just because it is expedient? I see no reason why one cannot consent to everything done to them; my opponent has a totally unjustified pessimism towards freedom. Also, I do fully believe that starving is oftentimes consensual. I have no problem biting the bullet; it’s your job to show why I’m wrong even if I do get around your silly reductios. Moving to another of my opponent’s scattered chains of twisted logic, he takes for granted that doing “beneficial” things is never unjust. This, while literally true, attempts to smuggle something past the reader: it assumes that non-beneficial actions actually are, in order to prove their moral acceptability. This is a ruse. He says himself that the reason the theft of the apple is a crime is the absence of consent. There are no two ways about this: Pro has unequivacly conceded that a possible distinguishing factor of a criminal act, as opposed to any other act, is a lack of consent. This, in itself, torpedoes the argument that consensual action is not an end in itself (and also the idea that “kind things” are always just). If that done without consent is criminal (and therefore unjust), and benevolent actions are always just, nonconsensual actions must always be unbeneficial. Q.E.D. I leave you with this unjustified, out-of-context segment of Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia is very relevant here) that should, in itself, be just as weighty as my opponent’s unjustified, out of context segments of Dworkin, and far weightier when taking into account my positive arguments for my framework: “Political philosophy is concerned only with certain ways that persons may not use others; primarily, physically aggressing against them, A specific side constraint upon action toward others expresses the fact that others may not be used in the specific ways the side constraint excludes, Side constraints express the inviolability of others, in the ways they specify, These modes of inviolability are expressed by the following injunction: 'Don't use people in specified ways,' An end-state view, on the other hand. would express the view that people are ends and not merely means (if it chooses to express this view at all), by a different injunction: 'Minimize the use in specified ways of persons as means.' Following this precept itself may involve using someone as a means in one of the ways specified, Had Kant held this view, he would have given the second formula of the categorical imperative as, 'So act as to minimize the use of humanity simply as a means,' rather than the one he actually used: 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Side constraints express the inviolability of other persons, But why may not one violate persons for the greater social good? Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or sacrifice for a greater benefit or to avoid a greater harm: we go to the dentist to avoid worse suffering later; we do some unpleasant work for its results; some persons diet to improve their health or looks; some save money to support themselves when they are older. In each case, some cost is borne for the sake of the greater overall good, Why not, similarly, hold that some persons have to bear some costs that benefit other persons more, for the sake of the overall social good? But there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?) To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice, and no one is entitled to force this upon him-least of all a state or government that claims his allegiance (as other individuals do not) and that therefore scrupulously must be neutral between its citizens."2. Rome (An Exercise in Inconsequentialism) My opponent makes the rather unconvincing argument that, had the Romans made a new Constitution, it would likely itself have been in opposition to liberty, and thus the proper thing to do is not to make a new Constitution. The problem is obvious: I did not advocate for the creation of any Constitution, only a Constitution of a certain… constitution. Unless my opponent is fully committed to the idea that it is physically and logically impossible that such a Constitution be created, he must admit that it is possible, and thus relevant to the moral discourse. If this is done, it is clear that, of the choices, a new and truly just Constitution would be the obvious best. In conclusion, I wish the reader to keep in mind that my opponent constantly appeals to dignity. I ask: What is more dignified? Self-determination or subjugation? To quote, again, Senpai Nozick: “The minimal state treats us as inviolate individuals, who may not be used in certain ways by others as means or tools or instruments or resources; it treats us as persons having individual right with the dignity this constitutes. Treating us with respect by respecting our rights, it allows us, individually or with whom we please, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more. Or less.” |
a617b5f8-2019-04-18T12:37:07Z-00003-000 | The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document | I accept Con's list of rights, but I will also add a list of my own. The exhaustive list of rights is everything that is necessary to provide equal respect and concern for all citizens. According to Ronald Dworkin (Justice for Hedgehogs), "Someone's total freedom is his power to act in whatever way he might wish, unimpeded by constraints or threats . . . His negative liberty is the area of his freedom that a political community cannot take away without injuring him in a special way . . ." (366). The distinction between the two is important. Borrowing from a secondary source,Dworkin believes that a right to liberty in general is too vague to be meaningful. However, certain specific liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, rights of association, and of personal and sexual relations, do require special protection against governmental interference. This is not because these preferred liberties have some special substantive or inherent value (as most rights philosophers hold), but because of a kind of procedural impediment that these preferred liberties might face. The impediment is that if those liberties were left to a utilitarian calculation, that is, an unrestricted calculation of the general interest, the balance would be tipped in favor of restrictions. . . . Dworkin says that if a vote were truly utilitarian, then all voters would desire the liberties for themselves, and the liberties would be protected under a utilitarian calculation. However, a vote on these liberties would not be truly utilitarian nor would it afford equal concern about and respect for liberties solely by reflecting personal wants or satisfactions of individuals and affording equal concerns to others . . . because [of] external preferences, such as prejudice and discrimination against other individuals deriving from the failure to generally treat other persons as equals . . . These external preferences would corrupt utilitarianism by causing the individual to vote against assigning liberties to others. Accordingly, the liberties that must be protected against such external preferences must be given a preferred status. By doing so, society can protect the fundamental right of citizens to equal concern and respect because it prohibits "decisions that seem, antecedently, likely to have been reached by virtue of the external components of the preferences democracy reveals." (The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights, Jerome Shestack, Human Rights Quarterly 20.2: 201-234) Con's first point deals with liberty of contract. His argument basically boils down to the "Contract? I never signed a contract!" shtick, and you shouldn't buy it for a number of reasons. First, the principle that liberty is inviolable overrides consent--in other words, rights cannot be subjected to a vote, for the simple reason that if they can be revoked by a simple majority vote, they aren't really rights. Second, consent of the governed is not valuable as an end, but a means to an end. Suppose a woman opposes restrictions on abortion until fetal viability, but the state they reside in institutes waiting periods, requires consent of parents/the court, etc. They did not consent to those restrictions being placed upon people. Even if she are in the government itself, it cannot be said that the women "consented" to such restrictions. The sense of consent that Con uses is this broad sense, in which every person must consent to every single law they live under and every condition that would potentially infringe on their freedom, and it is a total fantasy--there is zero possibility of ever achieving broad consent like that. Even in the state of nature, the fantasy land where everyone voluntarily consents to contracts, Con cannot pretend that people "consent" to starvation, for instance. If we accept that consent of the governed is thus not a right, then we have destroyed our own framework that we agreed to. The only solution is to change the way we view our terms. If I have an apple, for instance, and a thief takes it without my permission, what is the crime? The crime in itself cannot be my lack of consent; the crime is the theft of the apple, and the lack of consent is why it is a crime. However, say a random stranger, in an act of kindness, slips $20 into my coat. I did not consent to that, but was any crime committed? After all, I did not consent to this action performed on me. Consent of the governed is a means to the end of the protection of liberty--it is not an end in itself. It does not matter that Americans today did not sign the Constitution. If one were to sign a regular contract, ignorant of some of the provisions, and it turns out that those provisions are actually favorable to the ignorant person, there is no injustice. What grants the Constitution legitimacy is not consent; it is its protection of the rights of the people. As Dworkin notes, " . . . a collective decision to impose a duty not to kill and to threaten a serious sanction for any violation is in itself an insult to the dignity of subjects. On the contrary, your dignity as an equal citizen requires that government protect you in this way. It is not demeaning . . . to accept that a majority of your fellow citizens has the right to fix traffic rules and enforce the rules they fix, provided that the rules . . . are not wicked or desperately foolish" (Dworkin 367). With this in mind, we must devise a different analysis from what Con has suggested. The measure of any governmental system is not whether it is completely consensual, but whether it is just, and by extension, whether it protects individual liberties. Con's argument is wholly based on contract language, which I have debunked, but his alternatives seem to be meaningless when it comes to protecting liberty--destroying and replacing Constitutions in itself carries no inherent procedural benefit. A Living Constitution does. As Dworkin noted, democratic utilitarian calculations and votes on rights are inherently unjust because of discrimination against others, so the rights cannot be put to a vote. They must be protected by an independent institution--the Supreme Court. Rehashing constitutions every few years or abolishing the constitution is merely a more complicated form of the tyranny of the majority. Extend Obergefell v. Hodges as an example of protection of rights thanks to the Living Constitution. Extend judicial review as another example. Since Con asked me to justify why a living constitution would be superior to a new constitution in Rome, I'll respond to that. The reason is as simple as that a new constitution was impossible to create. As I said last round, there was "enduring conflict between two camps--the populares and the optimates--with the former relying on popular support to pass reforms and the latter relying on senatorial support to promote stability (153). The clear issue is that there was a dichotomy between the two, when there shouldn't have been a dichotomy. Choosing between terrible law and lawless reform is not a choice. The populares largely gave up on the law altogether, and the optimates failed miserably in their attempts to restore the Republic." Had new constitutions been made, they would have inevitably slanted toward the more-numerous populares, who were the epitome of majoritarian, as evidenced by the many mobs that they formed to kill political leaders and kick people out of the Senate and all sorts of other fun things (sarcasm). If I haven't shown that a LC would be better, I've at least shown that creating a new Constitution or leaving the dead one would have been a lot worse. |
a99a31aa-2019-04-18T16:24:33Z-00000-000 | ronaldo is a bad player | all points should be given to me. |
a99a31aa-2019-04-18T16:24:33Z-00001-000 | ronaldo is a bad player | He's very good. great scramble and aim is good. |
a99a31aa-2019-04-18T16:24:33Z-00002-000 | ronaldo is a bad player | He's a very well known player across the world. having almost all the league records and he's has very great strength, agility, and good at crossing players up. |
a99a31aa-2019-04-18T16:24:33Z-00003-000 | ronaldo is a bad player | ronaldo is bad |
32ec86bf-2019-04-18T12:39:11Z-00000-000 | Women Should have rights. | I'm glad you challenged me to this debate. I will try to be as respectful as possible when making my position clear. "Just as support for women"s suffrage was on the rise by the 1910s, there were equally as vehement opponents to those expanded rights. The anti-suffragist movement based its objections on several points that adhered strongly to the stability of civilization and the traditional roles of women. On March 22, 1914, the anti-suffragist Grace Duffield Goodwin laid out several commandments for rejecting the right to vote in a column in the New York Tribune " and in listicle form, no less. These points are derived from a 141-page treatise she penned entitled Anti-Suffrage: Ten Good Reasons which you can read at the Internet Archives. (One example from the book " Chapter One: The Ballot Is Not A Right)" 1) "Because the basis of government is force " its stability rests upon its physical power to enforce its laws; therefore it is inexpedient to give the vote to woman. Immunity from service in executing the law would make most women irresponsible voters." Women were not allowed to serve in juries or in the Armed Forces in 1914, and very few sought out roles in traditional law enforcement. Goodwin"s thinking is that if women can"t actually enforce the laws, they should not be able to determine the laws. 2) "Because the suffrage is not a question of right or of justice, but of policy and expediency; and if there is no question of right or of justice, there is no case of woman suffrage." Goodwin echoes the feelings of many Americans back then that the right to vote and to elect leaders was not a fundamental right of Americans. Keep in mind that just 125 years before her, many believed that only land-holding white educated men should have the right to vote. 3) "Because it is the demand of a minority of women, and the majority of women protest against it." And really, Goodwin argues, women don"t really want the vote anyway. Goodwin thankfully avoids mentioning many of the offensive characteristics suffragists supposedly possessed. 4) "Because it means simply doubling the vote, and especially the undesirable and corrupt vote, of our large cities." Voting procedures in America were already so distorted by corrupt political machines, adding voices to this mix would only make it worse. Keep in mind that political machines were still greatly in control in most places in the United States, locally and nationally. Swelling the numbers of voters would only give machines like Tammany Hall further opportunities to corrode the process. (As for the "undesirable" vote, I believe Mrs. Goodwin"s classism is shining through here.) These are just some of his arguments-- and I'm sure you can agree, they seem fairly sound. However, one must consider that there's a biological part to all of this. Women are naturally going to vote for what they subconciously believe to be the 'stronger', more 'dominant' party. This is why shotgun-styled advertisements (like what we saw this year in the elections-- with Hillary constantly buying out advertisement lots for her own agenda) work particularly well on this group. Minority women, especially, seem to be prone to the ill effects of targeted advertisements, and is the main consumer of these 'brands'. It's the same throughout history, and it has always been that way-- not because of some evil patriarchal society that seemingly wants to keep women down, no, it's simple biology and nature at that. Women have their place and so do men. Furthermore: 5) "Because the great advance of women in the last century " moral, intellectual and economic " has been made without the vote; which goes to prove that is it not needed for their further advancement along the same lines." Women can simply piggyback upon the decisions made by men on their ascent through professional circles. Many are already benefiting greatly from this adjacency. So why change anything? 6) "Because women now stand outside politics, and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform." Mrs. Goodwin dances around a salient point here " the idea that being outside of politics allows somebody to get things done that would be impossible within the constraints of government. Of course, this isn"t a justification for simply women; today many choose the sidelines as a place to affect change. 7) "Because the ballot has not proved a cure-all for existing evils with men, and we find no reason to assume that it would be more effectual with women." She"s being accidentally radical here with the notion that because it"s so broken, why even bother participating in it? We all think a version of this every year we go to the polls. It"s the universal notion of my vote doesn"t matter. Mrs Goodwin uses it here as a justification of avoiding the process entirely. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ The ballot, as has been said, is not a right. It is an honor to be given the right to vote, and should any party not have the guts or the brains to live up to such a task, that honor should be relinquished. |
32ec86bf-2019-04-18T12:39:11Z-00001-000 | Women Should have rights. | You may have the first argument. |
3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00000-000 | Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School | We need to establish that I am against real-world, real-life payment, a free-day and the option of attending school. I am NOT against extra credit, or 'teacher dollars' in most cases. What we need to distinguish is what we're talking about when we say 'reward'. Is it money? Or is it something a teacher comes up with like 'teacher dollars'? Figure this out before we get to real debating. If a reward is anything in general then I don't think any rational person has an extreme 'Yes' or 'No' answer. |
3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00001-000 | Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School | I have learned as a student that when students are rewarded they work towards getting the reward over and over. My teacher is using a method where she would give out teacher dollars to the students at the top of the class and for doing an assignment and getting full marks and even perfect attendance. right now there is a battle for who has the most teacher dollars in the class which means that in all our marks that are being recorded no one in my entire class of 25 kids has any marks below half. |
3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00002-000 | Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School | Just by saying that we don't have a choice doesn't mean we should get a tangible reward. Education in itself is a reward. Look at the long-term benefits. You go to school, you go to college, you graduate either get a job or go on for further education. That gives you a reward. Rewarding students physically is just not a good idea because there is no single flat physical gift. Letting people do whatever they want is not an option due to legal liabilities. Money, how much? Where's it coming from? |
3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00003-000 | Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School | Students should be paid to go to school because we do not have a choice as to whether or not we can go yet teachers decide to beome teachers. Teachers get paid a large sum of money and although our reward as students is our education, to prepare our selves for our future, we should be rewarded with more of a physical treatment such as money, a free day of just not having to go to school at all or being allowed to do whatever we want. |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00001-000 | People should not text and drive. | My opponent mentioned that the most frequent causes of fatal car crashes is daydreaming. To support their claim, my opponent provided statistics that date back to 2013 which was a time where technology had just taken a leap. As stated by Alistair Charlton, a reporter at International Business times in 2014, 2013 was, "...the year existing technology took huge, game-changing leaps forward". In 2013, phones and such technology was just being beginning to evolve into what it is today. Today, technology has become more incorporated in our daily routines which is why, as stated by Julie Luhrsen, one of the attorneys of Luhrsen Goldberg Attorneys At Law in 2017, "People who use their cell phones to talk or text while driving are by far the most common reason for distracted driving accidents. In fact, the National Safety Council estimates that 26% of all car crashes involve cell phones". My opponent utilized the same source I mentioned and stated that there are many other causes of fatal crashes not just texting. Luhrsen did state this but my opponent failed to incorporate the rest of Luhrsen's statement, "...cell phones to talk or text while driving are by far the most common reason for distracted driving accidents". This validates my claim that texting and driving should not be allowed or in other words, people should not text and drive, because it creates a major distraction to the driver and not only puts their own life at risk but of those around them. Therefore, people should not text and drive. https://www.lginjuryfirm.com... https://www.ibtimes.co.uk... |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00002-000 | People should not text and drive. | My opponent stated that texting and driving is a major distraction to drivers, however, texting is not the biggest or most fatal distraction. According to Jack Benton, an environment, safety, and health specialist, from Safety News, in a 2013 article, 62% of fatal car crashes were caused by drivers simply being lost in thought or daydreaming. While cell phone use did cause 12% of fatal car accidents, it is far less than the most frequent cause, daydreaming. Texting while driving is also not the only distraction a driver way face when behind the wheel. According to Julie Luhrson, an injury defense attorney, stated in her 2017 article, drivers can be distracted by numerous causes such as noisy children, GPS, and music. Going by my opponent's logic, all of those things should be illegal too. Therefore, it is useless to illegalize texting while driving. https://www.lginjuryfirm.com... https://ehssafetynewsamerica.com... |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00003-000 | People should not text and drive. | My opponent stated that people should be allowed to text and drive because it is a convenient and faster way to communicate with others. This is true, cell phones do allow people to communicate with others at a faster, more convenient rate but, they should not be used in any way while driving. This is because texting and driving puts people at a higher risk of being in an accident. As stated by the Los Angeles DUI Law Office, "...texting is the biggest distraction we face today and that it is six times more dangerous than drinking and driving. To add, according to the Brain Injury Society, "Drivers who are texting while behind the wheel have a 23% higher chance of causing a crash. That is equivalent to downing four beers and getting behind the wheel". This demonstrates how significant the effects of texting and driving are considering that drunk driving was the leading cause of "traffic fatalities" for years but has now been overpassed by texting and driving. Therefore, with this in mind, texting and driving should not be allowed. |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00004-000 | People should not text and drive. | For this debate, the negative side is arguing that people should be allowed to text and drive. In this day and age, texting has become a very convenient way for people to communicate long-distance. According to the admin from Asia-Pacific Economics Blog in a 2015 article, texting while driving can be convenient if you quickly need to change plans and have to tell whoever you made plans with. Texting is also quicker than talking on the phone. According to T. Griffith from Car Gurus, sending a quick text while at a red light is a safer and quicker alternative to talking on the phone or texting while the vehicle is in motion. With that being said, there should not be an all out ban to texting while driving. https://blog.cargurus.com... https://apecsec.org... |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00005-000 | People should not text and drive. | People should not text and drive because texting creates a major distraction while doing everyday functions such as driving. According to the DMV, the Department of Motor Vehicles, "In just the 5 seconds it takes to send or read a short text message, you've already zoomed past the length of a football field(traveling at 55mph) with minimal attention on the road ahead".This demonstrates that not only does texting and driving put your own life at risk but it endangers the life of those around you. As stated by the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "...causes their own driving to deteriorate and can lead to crashes, injuries and even death...more than 3,300 people were killed in 2011 and 387,000 were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver". |
a8803c78-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00000-000 | People should not text and drive. | My opponent failed to address my claim that if noisy children, GPS, and music are distractions, then they should be illegal as well. My opponent also claimed that cell phones are a lot more dangerous after 2013 than before. However, according to Emma Elsworthy from Mirror, a British news company, stated in a 2017 article sharing the results of a poll of over 2000 applicants, one in five stated that their children were the most distracting when driving, one in six claimed that their partners were the most distracting, and the most distracting were people that drove with their headlights in the dark. Therefore, while texting may be distracting to drivers, it is not the most distracting. With other circumstances proving to be much bigger distractions than texting, it would be irresponsible to illegalize texting before anything else. Therefore, people should be allowed to text while driving. https://www.mirror.co.uk... |
c79c2590-2019-04-18T19:03:21Z-00000-000 | Star Wars is better than The Lord of the Rings. | My opponent has forfeited again, default to con. |
c79c2590-2019-04-18T19:03:21Z-00001-000 | Star Wars is better than The Lord of the Rings. | My opponent was sadly unable to make a post for round 2, so I restate my round 1, thankyou. |
c79c2590-2019-04-18T19:03:21Z-00002-000 | Star Wars is better than The Lord of the Rings. | The resolution, "Stars Wars is better than the Lord of the Rings" taken on it's own would produce a very subjective and nebulous debate. Fortunately my opponent identifies specific criteria to address this issue, and once I have addressed his I will other my own. Creativity My opponent states that Star Wars is more creative and that "No one can disagree that Lord of the Rings is simply ideas from Old Norse Scriptures compiled with Ancient Mythology," However according to Wookieepedia (The Star Wars Wiki). "The Star Wars story employs archetypal motifs common to science fiction, political climax and classical mythology, as well as musical motifs of those aspects. " . http://starwars.wikia.com... The Setting My opponent states that, "In actuality, however, Middle-Earth is just another name for Midgard- The land between Heaven and Hell. " I am not convinced that this is an accurate portrayal of Midgard, in addition though Tolkien was inspired by Midgard LoTR makes no reference to key features of Midgard such as Jormungandr, the bifrost bridge linking the world to Asgard etc etc. My opponent needs to substantiate this point. In addition the Star Wars Universe is in simple terms simply a rehash of preexisting science fiction. My opponent needs to explain what in the Star Wars setting is original compared to what was already present in the genre. Droids, aliens, vast space empires, the battle between good and evil, even the Jedi have all in one form or another been done before. With reference to 'species' my opponent states, "did you know that "Orc" is simply another word for an enemy in Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon? With this, we could understand another reason why Peter Jackson did not comprehend Tolkien's writings - As far as I'm concerned, Tolkien's depictions of Orcs, or Orqai, may have been simply from the viewpoint of the Men, these "creatures" could have been human-like and not disgusting zombie-things like in the trilogy. " The Tolkienesque Orc is not simply taken from the old norse, though there is a eytomological linkup. In addition though it is debatable that Peter Jackson's interpretation was the same as Tolkiens version my opponent is not actually aware of what the original version was envisaged to be, ugly replusive and flesh eating. In addition Tolkein's Orcs has inspired the fantasy genre, they have given inspiration to numerous writers and subgenres. Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer, Morgan Howell etc etc. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Conversely Star Wars has failed to create one enduring alien race that has been celebrated or reimagined by any later science fiction writer. It has hower created the Gamorreans, or rather stole the concept of Orcs from Tolkien and passed it off as its own. Please compare Orcs here, . http://www.google.co.uk... With Gamorreans . http://www.google.co.uk... Elves are inspired by norse mythology, very much so. However it is only through the power and quality of Tolkiens writing that the Norse-Tolkienesque elf has become such a popular staple of the fantasy genre. Starwars has not created, or brought back a single fictional race so loved or enjoyed as Tolkiens elves, dwarfs, and orcs. The Nazgul: The dreaded Nazgul, or Black Riders alternatively are the Wraiths of Lord of the Rings. A Wraith is a demonic ghost or spirit; Which is what they basically are. There are 9, they were once all kings and received rings but couldn't wear them or touch them. .. eventually they became overcome by greed and envy and were transformed into these hideous abominations. Does anyone think "King Midas" here? ! I fail to see the connection here. Though Tolkien was inspired by norse mythology, George Lucas has 'created' numerous two dimensional alien races, frequently with the assistance of paid empolyees and are generally based around a lazy racial stereotype. Twi'leks, are simply arab traders in space. Watto, (a toydarian) was created by a team and criticised as an antisemitic parody. . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Ja-Ja Binks faced acusations of 'blackface' amongst others. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent states that, "In The Lord of the Rings, there is magic much like any other fairy tale. There are Wizards and Witches and Bad Wizards and Bad Witches. .. but it's all pretty typical and not too impressive, maybe it would be if Tolkien would've explained magic in LOTR a little better - Like, certain people are born with it or it stems from a source. .. or something. But Nope, Johnny (i. e. Tolkien, no disrespect btw) leaves us with nothing. " Likewise George Lucas fails to explain the nature of the force and his failure to do so creates inconsistencies that cause confusion. For instance the Dark Side derives it's power from death, it is however part of the force, the force is derived from life. Why should a powerful user of the Force, which is derived from Midi-chlorians suffer from physical decay, such as Palpatine or King Onderon. It makes no sense. In addition certain creatures without a bloodstream are also capable of using the force. . http://starwars.wikia.com... My opponent states of the Expanded Universe that "The Movies did a very good job of detailing the main species of Star Wars, but the EU is just fascinating. You could explore for hours and hours or days and days. .. And you could never know all the species, and planets, and crime lords. . etc. " However the Expanded Universe creates inconsistencies, for instance in the films Palpatine states that the Republic has not fought a major since it's founding. In the expanded Universe we have the Stark Hyperspace war within living memory, the Hyperspace War, the 100 years of Darkness, the wars of Darth Revan, the Mandalorian wars. In addition hundreds of people have contributed to the expanded universe, LoTR is mostly the creation of one man. My opponent extols the virtues of the Starwars universe in the same way that he attacks what he perceives to be the failures of LoTR. (Some of which I have already addressed but I'll go over what I have missed). The Setting "This Universe contains so many different things it would take a lifetime to name. The Planets are all original with a different history and different natives - From Hoth to Tatooine" This is true, however the Star-Wars Universe is vast, it is also devoid of any real development. For instance what is the constitution of the Republic, what are the powers of the Chancellors, how many have been impeached, are there term limits, are there political parties, what are the major religions of the galaxy. These key details are ignored. At least we can gain some sense of culture from Tolkiens Gondorians and the riders of Rohan, the Star Wars universe is a vast but lazy construction. I have address the issue of species, George Lucas has populated his universe with superficial two dimensional constructs, no depth, no characterisation and generally racist caricatures. Do Hutts worship? Are Rodians anything but hired killers? Tolkien even went so far as to develop an entire language for the elves, a simple description of a single interesting alien race with actual depth is beyond Mr Lucas. PS: I have addressed my complaints with regards the force. In conclusion Stars Wars, which is the creation of many people, is utterly unoriginal, has added nothing to the science fiction genre and is a poorly developed setting without depth. LoTR the creation of a single person, Tolkien in in effect revered as the father of modern fantasy. |
c79c2590-2019-04-18T19:03:21Z-00003-000 | Star Wars is better than The Lord of the Rings. | I will begin my argument right away. I believe Star Wars is all-around better than Lord of the Rings. Overall, it is much more creative and Lord of the Rings is, to be blatant, a series of recycled ideas put into a novel and a movie trilogy. In my first argument, I will separate each of my reasonings as to why Star Wars is better than Lord of the Rings. Star Wars is much more creative. This cannot be disputed. No one can disagree that Lord of the Rings is simply ideas from Old Norse Scriptures compiled with Ancient Mythology, with some alternate names in there. I will, of course, separate these ideas into different sections. Firstly I will explain why Lord of the Rings is not so original after all. ~The Setting~ The famous, or perhaps infamous Middle-Earth, the land of men. The world that Tolkien is so famous for 'creating'. In actuality, however, Middle-Earth is just another name for Midgard- The land between Heaven and Hell. So this is simply a recycled idea, in which Tolkien touches upon by introducing many races - And these can be presented as metaphors; I will elaborate in my next section. .. ~The Species~ As famous as The Land of Middle-Earth is, perhaps even more notable is the reputable species that roam Middle-Earth: From the Savage Orcs to the Chivalrous Elves. I'll break them up into categories, which will explain why these races are not so original after-all. The Orcs: The infamous Orcs; The brash yet loyal servants of The Dark Lord, Sauron. These beasts would make even the bravest Gondorian shiver with fear. .. But did you know that "Orc" is simply another word for an enemy in Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon? With this, we could understand another reason why Peter Jackson did not comprehend Tolkien's writings - As far as I'm concerned, Tolkien's depictions of Orcs, or Orqai, may have been simply from the viewpoint of the Men, these "creatures" could have been human-like and not disgusting zombie-things like in the trilogy. They could have simply been depicted as such because of their barbaric ways; Like the Picts were to the Romans. Now don't get me wrong, I never believed that either until I thought - "Maybe that's just a metaphor! " Or maybe that's what he planned in his early writings. . or maybe I'm wrong completely. Who knows. The Elves: Ahh, The Elves. All that's good in Middle-Earth. Or is it? Did you know the Orcs are simply corrupted elves? Nonetheless, these ideas date back to the farthest reaches of the German barbarian tribes. Also, in Old Norse, Men were said to transform into Elves upon their death if they were pious during their lives. The Hobbits: Ahh, the goody two shoes of Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit. One of the most annoying creatures ever created. My opinion aside, Tolkien's concept of hobbits seems to have been inspired by Edward Wyke Smith's 1927 children's book The Marvellous Land of Snergs, and by Sinclair Lewis's 1922 novel Babbitt. In my opinion, a hobbit seems to be a mix of the main races in LOTR - The Humans, Elves, and Dwarves. The Nazgul: The dreaded Nazgul, or Black Riders alternatively are the Wraiths of Lord of the Rings. A Wraith is a demonic ghost or spirit; Which is what they basically are. There are 9, they were once all kings and received rings but couldn't wear them or touch them. .. eventually they became overcome by greed and envy and were transformed into these hideous abominations. Does anyone think "King Midas" here? ! I could list many more, but I've already used up almost half of my characters. So I'd like to, now, get on to the magic part of LOTR. Before that, however, let me just say that the beloved Gandalf is taken from a Dwarf from Old Norse. Directly. ~The Magic~ In The Lord of the Rings, there is magic much like any other fairy tale. There are Wizards and Witches and Bad Wizards and Bad Witches. .. but it's all pretty typical and not too impressive, maybe it would be if Tolkien would've explained magic in LOTR a little better - Like, certain people are born with it or it stems from a source. .. or something. But Nope, Johnny (i. e. Tolkien, no disrespect btw) leaves us with nothing. Too bad. All right, I've wasted enough space - Onto Star Wars. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If I haven't already convinced the Audience, let me explain some things to you about Star Wars, and why people take it for granted. Star Wars is by far the most expansive universe ever, bar none. More than our own universe, more than all the other fantasy universes combined. Why is this? Three words. The Expanded Universe. [Before the viewers or my opponent says that I didn't count the Lord of the Rings expanded universe, if it has one, I did. I used to be obsessed with LOTR and I know every species that exists in Middle-Earth. ] The Movies did a very good job of detailing the main species of Star Wars, but the EU is just fascinating. You could explore for hours and hours or days and days. .. And you could never know all the species, and planets, and crime lords. . etc. So, I will do basically what I did with LOTR. ~The Setting~ This and the various Species are the most amazing parts of Star Wars. Star Wars' setting, unlike Middle-Earth's is not just one planet ( or, in LOTR's case, one region. ) -- It is an entire Galaxy. Yes, Galaxy. Filled with thousands of planets, species, space stations, factions, etc. This Universe contains so many different things it would take a lifetime to name. The Planets are all original with a different history and different natives - From Hoth to Tatooine. ~The Species~ Another doozy. The Species in Star Wars are all original and for the most part are not inspired at all by other writings or figures - unlike The Lord of the Rings. Some of the truly unique species are: The Hutts: A race purely meant to form crime organizations, the Hutts are grotesque, slug-like creatures. George Lucas created this race purely from his and his associates' noggins, and it is one of many truly. .. unique species in Star Wars. . http://starwars.wikia.com... The Rodians: The stereotypical Martian, which is what they were called on-set. These grubby Aliens are another unusual yet really cool species of the Star Wars galaxy. One notable Rodian was Greedo, the poor sap spaced by Han Solo at the Cantina. . http://starwars.wikia.com... The Herglic: This Pokemon-looking beast has only been seen in the Expanded Universe; Although IMO it deserves a bigger role. It is one of the weirdest-looking species in Star Wars. . http://starwars.wikia.com... The Sullustans: These Primate-like creatures look like they'd be more at home swinging on a tree than piloting a ship (a la Admiral Ackbar). They are one of the oddest-looking things in Star Wars. . http://starwars.wikia.com... See? All these species are very unique yet fit into the galaxy perfectly. The only race that might have been inspired by another creature is: The Wookiee(Two E's! ): The furry, Bigfoot-like beasts that you just wanna give a big ol' hug! These friendly creatures native to the Jungle planet, Kashyyyk, are one of the best known species in the Star Wars Galaxy. Chewie is an example. (gotta love him). . http://starwars.wikia.com... Like I said above, they may have been inspired by Bigfoot/Sasquatch, but that's a myth whether that monster even exists. ~The Magic~ (AKA The Force) The "Magic" in Star Wars is not really magic at all, but the Force; A natural-born ability that actually stems from bacteria inside the body. Sound cheesy? It's not. This shouldn't be underestimated - from performing a little bit of Lightning on your enemy, to tricking Stormtroopers, this is the ultimate power in the universe. I await my opponent. |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00000-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Higgins, I concede that you may have been my most challenging opponent yet... However I agree that voters should vote based on the validity of our points, as WELL as the number of points we can creatively come up with to support our position. Voters should also take into account the logic and reasoning behind each of our arguments, our gift of persuasion and articulation, and the overall presentation of our ideas to support our claim. With that being said, I would like to point out that not only have I refuted each and every one of my opponents main points, but also provided a sufficient and succesful rebuttal to actually prove him wrong, or at least put a spin on his point to show that in fact his argument really does support the notion that basketball is in fact better than basbeall. Thus in my conclusion I will provide a re-cap of these examples, as well as include a brief summation of the additional points that I have made to which my opponent failed to prove me wrong. Here we go... 1. My opponent argued that baseball was the better team sport, because it put more emphasis on individual success and therefore pressure to perform at one's best, and then collectively add up each teammate's contribution... or something. I replied by reminding him that a team sport is and should not be about individual performance, but rather working together towards a collaborative goal. Win: Me 2. My challenger attempted to argue that a slower paced sport is preferable over a fast paced game; not only do I disagree (as it is, afterall, a matter of opinion) but I trumped his argument by reminding him that with basketball you have more leeway in determining the tempo of the game, whereas with baseball there's really not much you can do to speed up each individual play Win: Me 3. My opponent agreed that baseball and basketball are both equally easy to learn and accessible to play. However I then won this argument by pointing out the fact that baseball players have to invest in gloves or mitts, while basketball players only have to utilize the two "hoops" and one (less easy to lose) ball. Win: Me 4. Pro contends that baseball is a better sport than basketball because it provides less room for injury. On the other hand, I argue that the athleticism necessary to play basketball provides for better, more talented and well-rounded athletes to play the game. Plus, basketball is a greater source of exercise than baseball on all levels. Win: Me, Me 5. It was a good idea to contest that a baseball's playing field is better than a basketball court due to the fact that baseball is played outdoors and typically in fair weather. However my argument is that not everyone enjoys being outdoors - especially people with allergies; the cancellation of baseball games due to weather conditions can be disappointing, dissatisfying and annoying to players, fans and those that head particular organizations; basketball can in fact be played indoors and outdoors whereas baseball cannot effectively be played indoors Win: Me, Me, Me 6. My opponent claims that baseball has the most interesting increase and decrease of stats (thus providing for a more exciting Fantasy team experience), as well as the most compelling trades in professional sports. My argument is that the topic of debate is baseball vs. basketball, not Fantasy Baseball vs. Fantasy Basketball. Also, while baseball may have interesting trades going on, basketball definitely has superior free agent makets, so. Win: Me, if anything 7. My opponent discussed the adrenaline rush received from baseball; I argued that beating the the time clock as opposed to playing the set number of innings provide for a greater rush. Win: Me 8. Pro mentioned that more people can play baseball than basketball at a time, because there are 9 people on a team as opposed to 5. However I argued that basketball includes the consistent rotation of players, making it probable that 9 or more players can and will participate during the duration of an entire basketball game. Win: Me, if anything 10. My challenger states that baseball and softball are not sexist. I feel like softball being considered a "sissy version" of baseball has a mental impact on people's assumption of the sport, especially young kids (girls). Also, the fact that there is a WNBA is a plus for women's involvement in professional sports. Win: Me 11. As far as strategy goes, my opponent successfully argued against my point that there is more implmentation of strategic planning in basketball than in baseball. However, he did not make an argument for baseball having MORE implementation than basketball, so this point results in a tie. Win: Tie 12. My challenger suggests that a sport bing more lucrative does not necessarily make it better, per se, and I agree. However to come people it DOES make it better... or more enjoyable... so. The win goes to me, but I'll consider it a tie. Win: Tie 13. Pro attempted to refute the fact that basketball requires athletes to play a more equal and engaging part of both offense and defense by stating that you never know which part of the field the ball will be set to play. Or something. And while that is true, it still does not make it less true or more okay that basketball requires more skill and whatnot. Win: Me? 14. My opponent stated that basketball discriminates against shorter or smaller people. I argue that many people have overcome that stereotype and give hope to young people who would also like to overcome adversity for a sport that they love. Win: Me? I believe there were even more arguments in which I have out-debated Pro, however, I will conclude for now due to the fact that my challenger has not beat me on one single point throughout this entire debate. So while I do admit that this debate was (the most challeneing, actually) extremely interesting and well-rounded, and that my opponent gave me a decent run for my money, I would also like to point out that I clearly "won" on every single point, and therefore deserve the win. I not only successfully argued against all of my opponent's claims, but also made many of my own that he could not refute. My points were all well though out, carefully constructed, and outnumber my challenger's. In addition they were all pretty clever... heh... so happy reading, and vote Con! Thanks :) |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00001-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Again it becomes apparent that the differentiation of the two games only lead to a matter of opinion. .. While I think a slower paced game is more enjoyable, you have argued that the opposite can be said of other people. And since more people do enjoy basketball over baseball according to statistics, I suppose you do have a good point. However I ask that voters vote not based on the number of reasons that one challenger provides the other, but rather the validity of our points, and our ability of one opponent to outtalk the other and provide for a more convincing argument. On a final note I would like to state for the record that I do believe my points have more relevance and certainty than my opponents, and I would like to take this final opportunity to argue some of her last points. Here we go. .. A. Basketball does NOT in fact allow for more strategy implementation. There is an equal or more amount of strategy that goes into baseball. This is because a batter can choose a number of routes that he wants to go, for instance, attempting to hit the ball to a particular side of the field, bunting over swinging, intentionally being hit by a pitch, intentionally walking or striking out, etc. A player can also choose to steal bases, go for a double play over a single play, attempt to run home after a catch is made in the outfield, and more. A pitcher has a variety of pitching options to choose from, etc. And managers and coaches alike have to use their smarts to come up with the best route to receive the best result, so don't give me any of that crap that basketball rquires the most strategy or plays because that is simply not true. B. Basketball might be more lucrative than baseball, so what. That doesn't make it better. C. This much is true, basketball players do definitely have a chance to play more defense than baseball players. However baseball players still always have to be on their toes just in case a play comes to them. The suspense is that you never know where the ball is going to be in play. |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00002-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Almost ALL arguments made on either of our parts are going to be a matter of opinion due to the nature of the debate topic at hand. It is our job to refine our points and exemplify that our arguments are stronger than our respective opponent's; the better competitor will (hopefully) win the most votes. With that said, I will begin by again refuting your argument that baseball is a better sport because of its slower pace laid-back nature. I disagree, sighting the fact that sports in general became popular and celebrated during the time of the Ancient Greeks, in an era where men participated in the first Olympic games and attempted to display superiroity in various aspects of athleticism. Using their bodies, men came to compete and win against their opponents by methods of paramount strength, agility, speed, talent, wit, etc. Generally, when people are able to move and think at a faster pace, it is deemed a more challenging feat. An example is a timed game of chess; people who perform at top-speed or play chess with a time clock are said to be better chess players. Thus a sport that requires a more fast paced tempo can arguably be considered more challenging when using the logic that I have put forth. More challenging means consistent room for improvement, and a better way to exemplify talent and superiority in various areas practically synonomous with sports (i.e. strength and stamina). Also, not every game of basketball has to be fast paced. There are many teams, in fact, that are actually known to both prefer and excel during a more "laid back" game of basketball. However, the benefit of basketball over baseball is that one can always choose to either increase or decrease the level of intensity (tempo) of a game, whereas baseball is pretty consistent with its timing and pace. In regard to a time clock vs. set number of innings required for a game, my point was not to argue that a timeclock is of greater value than a set number of innings or plays, but rather to provide an example of why having to "beat the clock" provides a greater adrenaline rush. Like I said, you can't really do much to change the tempo of a baseball game, whereas with basketball you can say, "Ok - there's only a little time left - we have to pick up the pace!" The game gets more exciting that way for both the players (who have to think on their feet and perform), and the fans who watch in anticipation to see if their team can overcome the pressure, and prevail by outsmarting and outplaying their opponents. I can also provide a more than sufficient rebuttal to your claim that it's beneficial for everyone on the team to have equal at-bats, whereas basketball consists of various players taking different amounts of shots. My main point is that the concept of teamwork doesn't have to do with individual performances being put together to create one result, but rather a collaborative effort to virtually ignore individual success, and focus instead on the achievements of the TEAM as a whole. In other words, people on basketball teams aren't *supposed* to take the same number of shots. The beauty of it is that each position is equally important and consists of different "tasks" and responsibilities. For instance, I would expect a Shooting Guard or a Forward to take more shots than a Point Guard. Reason being that the PG's "job" isn't to make baskets, per se, but rather to find an open teammate to pass the ball to in order to complete the play and make the shot. A PG's role is different than a Center's job -- that's the beauty of it. It's different positions consisting of different players working together towards a common goal. I love it. I would also like to argue your stance that baseball encourages more kids to play than basketball does. First of all, basketball players do not usually play for the duration of the entire game. In fact, it is common to see a frequent rotation of players going in and out of the game, thus making it not only possible but actually probable that 9 or more kids can participate on a basketball team. Additionally, since you brought up a sport's accessibility to children, I would like to point out that basketball is in fact a cheaper and easier sport to play than baseball. This is because someone would have to buy a glove or mitt to play baseball, whereas you only need 3 pieces of equipment (two "hoops" and a ball) to play b-ball. ALSO, due to the smaller ball and overall nature of the game, a baseball is easier to lose than a basketball, thus making basketball the better bet for kids who worry about losing equipment. Again I argue the superiority of basketball to baseball due to its more demanding physical attributes to play the game. I believe that sports were designed to exhibit superior athleticism, and you clearly most be in better physical shape and have more refined skills to play basketball over baseball. Plus, a lot of people play sports as an alternative to straight-up exercise, and basketball provides a MUCH greater work out than baseball, obviously. My opponent is correct in stating that there are neither no co-ed baseball or basketball teams; however, there is at least an official professional level agency for women's basketball, whereas baseball remains off-limits to women once they reach a professional level of their careers. Thus many girls choose to participate in basketball over baseball, because they know they have a better chance of making a living as an athlete if they chose one route over the other. And finally, your argument that it's "nicer" to enjoy a sport in sunny weather rather than indoors is lacking, to say the least. First of all, just because you enjoy being outdoors does not mean that everybody else does. What about the millions of people who have allergies and prefer being in a place where they don't have to worry about the downsides to their condition? Second, the cancellation of games due to weather conditions can be both disappointing and a huge inconvenience. This goes for both the players, the fans, and the organizations that run the games. Third, the weather outside - for instance the variation of hot and cold - has an impact on a player and their ability to perform. In an indoors arena, the level of playing field is typically very consistent, and therefore does not deter an athlete from performing at their best. Lastly on this point, you forgot that basketball doesn't HAVE to be played indoors -- there are many, many games and events that actually support and/or mandate that basketball be played outside, where players and fans can enjoy all of the "sunny weather" that you promoted in regards to the playing field of baseball. Thus where you can and cannot play a sport and when definitely gives basketball the advantage over baseball. To wrap up this around, I would also like to include several key points, including: A) Basketball allows for more strategy implementation B)Regarding professional sports, the average basketball player earns $5 million; the average baseball player earns $2 million C) Basketball requires more skill because a player must always play both the positions of offense and defense during the duration of a game. With baseball, a player can go an entire game (or even season!) without ever having to be on the defensive end of a play. With basketball, all players are resonsible for equal talent and performance on both ends of offense vs. defense; even if they fail in stealing or rebounding a ball, they still must guard their respective assignment or zone to the best of their ability to prevent their opponent from scoring D) Basketball promotes self-esteem and the notion to try and never give up. This is because small players such Muggsy Bogues stood at just 5'3" tall and weighed a mere 136 lbs, and still made it to the NBA as one of the franchise's most successful players << No more characters :P |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00003-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Based on you turning my position of basketball's flaws being assets, I think it's fair to assume that it is simply a matter of differing opinions and therefore neither can be regarded as fact. So for instance, I say that baseball's slower paced tempo of the game is of better value than the upbeat pace of basketball, because it provides for a more relaxing sport to watch and laid back sport to play. You get to compete athletically without too much exhaustion which can and does make the game more enjoyable for certain people. To refute your point that basketball is greater than baseball because there is a "time limit" per se, my argument is that there is also some kind of limit on baseball as there are a set number of innings (unless the game goes into extra innings, the way basketball can go into overtime). To argue that basketball is more of a team sport because there is less individual responsibility, I also say nay... I feel as though each individual performance collectively adds to the team as a whole; everyone has equal amount of at-bats to make things happen, whereas in basketball not everyone takes the same amount of shots. I agree that both baseball and basketball are of the same accessibility to play- touche. However on that note I would like to point out that baseball encourages more kids to play, be involved and participate in a team sport because each team requires 9 players instead of just 5. Thus more kids can play in the game without having a lot of people "sit out" or whatever. I also think that the lesser "athleticism" you need to play baseball is actually a good thing. People who want to have the option to train their bodies, work hard, stay in shape, etc which will undoubtedly improve their performance in the game. But those who want to remain physically unfit also have the option to play (ie: a position like 1B where there is little amount of running or moving required). Softball is not that popular, but just as there are no co-ed basketball teams, there are no co-ed baseball teams; that doesn't mean that baseball discriminates against women. And the less popularity of a sport doesn't make it less awesome, you're right. For example most people would argue that soccer or "football" is the best sport, but if you look at the numbers in this country, soccer doesn't even come close to being considered the favorite or most widely played. I personally enjoy the fact that baseball has to be played in nice weather. It provides a nice atmosphere for players and fans alike, plus it gets people outside and enjoying the sunshine for a change. And that's about it for now. |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00004-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Basketball is the more popular sport world-wide in comparison to baseball, with basketball being ranked as the 2nd most popular with 400+ million participants, and baseball being ranked 7th with 60+ million participants. Because both sports are played in the Olympics, countries all over the world have had exposure to both games, and by the amount of participants that engage in each we can assume that more people are fans of basketball as opposed to baseball. However I will not assume that more participants worldwide = a better sport. Well, maybe. But not necessarily. Thus I will continue on to state that a lot of basketball's assets, in my opinion, you recognized as flaws. For instance I feel that the fast pace of basketball in opposition with baseball is one of the many things that make it a more exciting game to both watch and play. Each 'play' in baseball can be dragged out and even seem monotonous after awhile (foul ball after foul ball after pitch after pitch after pitch with many seconds and pointless minutes in between). However basketball keeps both the athletes and viewers on their toes, and more plays mean more opportunities for the tone and pace of the game to shift. This gives the opposing team a better chance of coming back to regain the lead, thus making it a more exciting and fun game to engage in or spectate. Plus, having a time limit for a game increases the intensity and adrenaline much more than the rush you speak of in your argument for baseball giving you that same feeling. Another aspect of your argument that I disagree with is when you claim that individual responsibility is *benefit* of baseball. Instead I argue that mistakes are more forgivable in basketball, and thus more emphasis is placed on cooperation and teamwork rather than showing off or stressing over the fact that your performance can either make or break the team's record. How often does a baseball player get blamed when he strikes out in the bottom of the 9th and therefore ends his team's chance of winning the game? However in a game of basketball, even if someone misses the winning shot in the 4th quarter, there were many more shots taken in the game of basketball than at-bats in a game of baseball, making it more apparent that a team's win or loss is not thanks in particular to one individual, but rather the team as a collective unit working together effectively and scoring points. I would also like to take this opportunity to disagree that baseball is a cheaper and easier alternative to basketball. This is because kids can make "baskets" out of anything just as you can turn any instrument into a "bat" of sorts. For instance, you can use a trash can, basket or even drawn-on square box to serve as a "hoop" and just about any ball that bounces as a ball. You can even play by yourself if you had to... Furthermore, I would like to elaborate and correct you on your argument that baseball is a safer game than basketball to play. While it's true that you will probably sustain more injuries in a game of basketball than a game of baseball, I would like to point out that basketball is in fact a more physical game, and with that intense level of athleticism being demonstrated you are bound to come across both pros and cons in terms of rewards and potential risks. For example, you may be more likely to strain a muscle while playing basketball; however, basketball is a sport that requires more physical activity and stamina. Thus the benefit to this "risk" is the fact that basketball keeps you in much better shape than baseball does. This becomes apparent when you take a look at the physical fitness of basketball players vs. the physical health of baseball players. Basketball players have to spend long periods of time running back and forth, and constantly moving various parts of their body at the same time. It provides a great cardio work out, and keeps the muscles flexible, loose and strong. Due to the easy-going and less strenuous nature of the game, baseball players can get away with being less agile and less healthy individuals than basketball players. Thanks to an organization like the WNBA, basketball has become a more popular sport due to its mass appeal geared for and towards women. Instead of creating an "inferior" sport like softball (many people feel like it's a sissy version of baseball), women are actually encouraged to participate in a sport like basketball, and can now even go Pro. Additionally, college basketball programs are FAR more successful than their baseball and softball programs (times ten). In response to a ball park being an ideal place to hold a sporting event, I disagree based on the reasoning that you can play basketball in any type of weather condition during any particular season. Whereas a baseball game can be rained out, or ended early on account of drizzle or snow fall, basketball is played indoors and is therefore more convenient/consistent. You mentioned that baseball was relatively easy to learn; I'll argue that basketball has rules and goals that are just as simple. At the same time, a certain amount of planning and strategy (not to mention practice, training, strengthening and conditioning) goes into basketball While you contend that baseball has the most compelling trade aspects in any realm of professional sports, I'd like to point out, "The Larry Bird rule that gives NBA teams the right to match deals in order to keep their stars gives basketball the advantage" -- Baseball America. With that, I think I'll go to bed for now. I feel like I have sufficiently responded to each and every one of your points, and in turn made some arguments of equivocal or greater value to prove that basketball is in fact the superior of the two sports. I now leave it up to you to respond, and in my next argument I will be glad to refute any of your additional points as well as provide some more of my own for a final rebuttal in the third round. Thank you and good night :) |
197ac9b-2019-04-18T19:47:57Z-00005-000 | Baseball is a better sport than basketball. | Although both baseball and basketball are both popular team sports, there are many advantages that baseball has over basketball making it the better of the two games. For instance, while both sports promote teamwork and a collective effort by all athletes on their respective teams, baseball allows for a greater aspect of personal responsibility. Each member of the team has the opportunity to literally "go to bat" for their team and make an impact on their teams standing and the entire game. Also, teamwork is necessary to complete many plays such as the double play, triple play, 2B or SS cut off on a throw to home plate, or even to get a guy out at 1B. But at the same time, each player has to do their part in order to complte the play, thus putting a certain amount of pressure on the player and creating a good kind of stress or adrenaline rush that makes the game more exciting and fun for both the athlete and the audience. The slower paced game of baseball is one of the main reasons why it remains such a popular sport and "America's favorite past time" ... because you can sit back, relax, have a beer, and enjoy the game without always having to be so riled up all the time. Though baseball definitely has its exciting moments, and the thrill of your favorite player hitting a home run or grand slam never gets old, its definitely a more chill game that provides for a different type of viewing experience. For people (kids) who want to play baseball at home, but don't have a lot of money for equipment, they'll be happy to know that you can make a bat of just about anything... a stick (stickball), a paddle, a raquet, etc. And just about any type of ball... wiffle ball, hand ball, tennis ball, etc. can be used for a baseball. You can make bases out of just about anything too, even draw them on. And gloves may or may not be necessary depending on the type of ball and "bat" that is being used. But my point is that it is not a terribly expensive game to play. The rules of baseball are pretty easy to learn, making it easy to grasp and a fun time for both beginners and champions alike. Baseball is one of the safest sports you can play; there is little wear and tear on an athlete's body (that's why baseball players have a longer career that athletes involved with other sports) and there is a lesser chance of injury than say with basketball which is known to give its players knee problems, ankle injuries, and more. Professional baseball is played in a ball park, which is a traditional gathering spot for friends and family to meet up and have an infamous ballpark frank, or spend the day together taking in a good game. Professional baseball also has the most compelling trades and interesting increase and decrease of stats, also making it the most fun Fantasy pro sport game. Baseball has been around longer in the United States than basketball, and it has earned the title of our National Pastime because so many Americans are fans. It is a fun game on any competitive level, and the better of the two sports by far. Your turn! |
12bb7847-2019-04-18T11:34:03Z-00000-000 | Bitcoin is a smart investment. | Bitcoin can be an amazing investment.If you do it wrong, however, even though it's not a very complicated system, it can be less beneficial.Am I saying to go dump all your money into cryptocurrencies no, but never the less it can make a poor man rich.And as to what you linked it's completely subjective. |
12bb7847-2019-04-18T11:34:03Z-00001-000 | Bitcoin is a smart investment. | Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies 'will come to bad end', says Warren Buffett. Read more. Investing means buying an asset that actually creates products, services or cashflow, such as a profitable business or a rentable piece of real estate, for an extended period of time. https://www.theguardian.com... |
2eb9da00-2019-04-18T12:20:27Z-00000-000 | Jar Jar Binks is the Dark Lord in Star Wars | I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here. I assume the dark lord is reference to Harry Potter, but I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that JarJar Binks IS Voldemort, or that JarJar Binks has a high status in the world, and he uses this status for evil? Please let me know. Ps: you should probably link the specific videos you are speaking of. |
2eb9da00-2019-04-18T12:20:27Z-00001-000 | Jar Jar Binks is the Dark Lord in Star Wars | Jar Jar has powers that are shown in the movies but look like he is dumb. Look up jar jar theories on youtube and u will see. |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00000-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | Your last comment about redundancy is an excellent description of this debate. 1. A baby's innocence. "punishment for sin(i.e. murder, hell), is something that should not be applied to a child." This is statement is correct if saying it from the viewpoint it is looked through, a human society viewpoint, civilization and acts of human being towards other human beings. It is simply not correct if viewed through the awesome sinless, perfect authority of God's Just and Holy Sovereignty. "examples of where god commits genocide for the sins of the adult population." <------The bibles position is that all have fallen short, and all are sinful that "deserve" hell but (I know, I know) were given something they didn't deserve, that is, Jesus Christ. ================== [2.] 100% of people who are educated on the Hebrew and Greek translations will all shoot you down on this. Job is THE perfect example of God's ultimate authority in the old testament scriptures because they understand what the original writer was in fact portraying, not what the reader thought it was portraying. To interject your own opinion about what was happening to Job and ignore the person that was experiencing it, not to mention, actually talking to God, heck... to believe that the events were not false and that Jobs knowledge (because that's what the bible says it is) is false is a fallacy in it's own merit. I'm sorry I'm breaking my rule: "Simple summary: God kills Job's family, livestock, and steals..." <---- Steals? The Bible states that all the wealth people own already belongs to God, so God cannot steal what has always been his. ...all his wealth. Then proceeds to hurt Job personally with illness. All this time Job is begging for an answer,..." <------ Not once did Job ever beg or even ask for an answer... his mistake (not sin) was challenging God to dare accuse himself of sinning(and dare use that as an explanation for his actions against Job), because Job KNEW he was not guilty of sinning. "...asking what he did wrong, what he did to deserve this(talking to his friends)." <---- I'd hate to say it but this is simply not in the biblical story. It was Job's friends who accused him of sinning, and it was Job who openly challenged God to prove that sin was a cause of these events, because again Job KNEW this was not the case. "Meanwhile God started all this because of a bet with SATAN..." <----- You have this 100% backwards, it was Satan who started this all because he wanted to wager a bet that Job would curse God. "...(you know, the most evil entity ever). At the end, God shows up and instead of explaining to Job why all this has happened to him, he goes on a rhetorical speech asking him "where you there when the earth was born?" <---- Again, the mother of all explanation being ignored(Sorry to say it like that, really I'm a nice guy!), God can do anything is pleases... even Job knew this... and was terrified because of it! Job 23:13 - "But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases... 15 Therefore, I would be dismayed at His presence; When I consider, I am terrified of Him. ================ [3.] "How is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God?" 1. I am not obligating god. I am merely stating that by human standards, what god did and the system he created was/is not fair. 2. "Again, not everyone was "constantly sinning". The bible states that everyone constantly sins... 3. "Nor do we have any proof that God's law was known to them." There is also no proof that Abraham became righteous as a result from God speaking to him, on the contrary, it simply said that Abram obeyed God's command to start his Journey, nothing more. "(btw: Romans-1 says this for the believers in the sense that "god was all around them" in the argument for his existence. Not his Law.)." <----- I agreed when I put it there and even now! Hence "So people are without excuse." I realize you are logical person... all of the "no proof" arguments are canceled out because of the basic logical standpoint that "the absence of proof does not prove anything". "The point is that you are assuming that these people had full knowledge of their actions"<------- Not at all, I did note that Numbers and Leviticus accounts for unintentional sins and even unknown sins! Honestly, do you know anyone, like in Lot's case that wanted to rape other men by breaking down Lot's door, and didn't know it was wrong? Even aborigines know to respect a man's home! 4. Unintentional Sin is again, for the believers of the religion. Those who could not know of the religion could not know of the concept of Sin, be it unintentional or otherwise. <---- you are right with the word "sin" but are wrong with the action of sin. This is ultimately shot down with Romans 2 that says: ""13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"" [4.] God's "right" to choose. "[NOTE]Con: Did not deny God chose a group of people and condemned all others." <----because I was busy making that case that this is not true...I am being redundant now, guilty! "Also Mathew 20:1-16 Is a good parable for work, but for the souls of a human? That's taking it a bit too far." <----Now I know your not reading your bible... Jesus took it that far by starting this parable with "For the kingdom of heaven is like..." C: God's "right" MkII "No. Creation of something does not imply ownership, especially when free-will and sentience are concerned." <------ You mean the free-will and sentience that... God created...? Also implying that God is above morality is implying the appeal to authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org...... Please, do not argue that because God is perfect, the system must be perfect. That is beneath you." <--- First off, I genuinely accept that compliment! That made me feel special coming from someone yourself. And I would never dare to resort to such childish tactics that unstable Christians resort to[yes I said that]. I must add though... to be fair... that the bible...which is true for this debate... does say "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." - Psalms 18:30. I didn't argue that... technically the bible did that one! Thanks again! |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00001-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | Ah. I did not intend to pull a "fast one" on you, but it's hard to phrase the "rules" correctly in the start. 1. A baby's innocence. -Now first off I was not making the argument that a child is not sinful from birth, or that bible does not state so. What I was saying is that the punishment for sin(i.e. murder, hell), is something that should not be applied to a child. -This cuts back to the "sins of our father" point. We are all paying for the sins of Adam in general, but there are examples of where god commits genocide for the sins of the adult population. ================== [2.] Oh boy. Yeah Job is one of the few examples I would never, EVER use in reference to his "knowledge" of the Lord or his morality. Simple summary: God kills Job's family, livestock, and steals all his wealth. Then proceeds to hurt Job personally with illness. All this time Job is begging for an answer, asking what he did wrong, what he did to deserve this(talking to his friends). Meanwhile God started all this because of a bet with SATAN(you know, the most evil entity ever). At the end, God shows up and instead of explaining to Job why all this has happened to him, he goes on a rhetorical speech asking him "where you there when the earth was born?" -Then God proceeds to replace that which Job had lost, but not in originality. God replaces everything by quantity. [The story of Job shows entirely that God punishes unfairly and to those undeserving.] God effectively murdered innocent people to prove a point to Satan. That's probably the worse example you could have given for your argument. ================ [3.] "How is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God?" 1. I am not obligating god. I am merely stating that by human standards, what god did and the system he created was/is not fair. 2. Again, not everyone was "constantly sinning". We have no proof that all of mankind(even the children) were committing outrageous acts against God for the story of Noah, or that the slave/Egyptian children sinned so heavily, or that any of these acts of complete genocide were Justified. This is another problem with the system and it's fairness, God does not state what sin or what acts lead to the genocide of these people. 3. Nor do we have any proof that God's law was known to them. (btw: Romans-1 says this for the believers in the sense that "god was all around them" in the argument for his existence. Not his Law.). -No proof that God came to them as he did Moses. -No proof that God's law is available to everyone in a way they can comprehend it. -No proof that Jesus has shown himself to everyone either.(for the argument of after). The point is that you are assuming that these people had full knowledge of their actions, the consequences, and the system God presented. The bible never mentions this, nor does reality support it. Even now you can easily prove that God does not present his system to everyone. [Note]: I get that we are arguing with the bible = true rule,but when it aligns with modern reality I think this has relevance. 4. Unintentional Sin is again, for the believers of the religion. Those who could not know of the religion could not know of the concept of Sin, be it unintentional or otherwise. ============= [4.] God's "right" to choose. [NOTE]Con: Did not deny God chose a group of people and condemned all others. Also Mathew 20:1-16 Is a good parable for work, but for the souls of a human? That's taking it a bit too far. --------------- C: God's "right" MkII No. Creation of something does not imply ownership, especially when free-will and sentience are concerned. Also implying that God is above morality is implying the appeal to authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org... Please, do not argue that because God is perfect, the system must be perfect. That is beneath you. Note: [Redundancy]: Of course god is "void of sin", since to sin is to disobey him. Alrighty, having fun so far and thank you for participating. Lets go to round 3! |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00002-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | Before I begin, I would like to say how much I admire your constant stable minded attitude toward responding. A true logical mind indeed you are... something I aspire to attain to perfection if that were possible. I do accept the note of not correcting your responses but just responding to them. I do have to admit that I did not attack or even touch the topic of God dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, and unfortunately must decline the opportunity again because, like others, this "problem" can automatically be answered by addressing underlying issues. One of these underlying issues that was accidentally assumed, and not picked up by myself in the opening of this debate, was "a baby's innocence". 1."A baby's innocence" I am almost afraid that if this point is not fairly discussed and unskewed, then this debate will reflect the same direction. I must bring this debate back to the rule of "for the sake of this argument the Bible is true." That means that for the sake of this debate, even cute, innocent looking, tiny, can't-make-proper-decisions-for-themselves babies are in fact just as sinful as us adults who can and do sin on purpose. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin my mother conceived me." - Psalms 51:5. "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. They have venom like the venom of a serpent; like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear, So that it does not hear the voice of charmers, or a skillful caster of spells. O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth; break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord" - Psalms 58:3-6 2. "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1:21) If there is anyone in the Bible that has the right to complain about God being immoral, it is Job! He had his own children taken away amongst other horrible things, and yet he states that the Lord has the right to do so hence, him praising God after. I am compelled to reinstate that this is not Jobs opinion, but KNOWLEDGE of the Lord. 3. The idea that "God NOT giving people a second chance is not fair." I formed this educated assumption by "P1" which says "God does not give a "second chance" in the old testament to many groups of people. He simply writes them off as "too far gone" and murders them." To say that God didn't give them a second chance is to automatically admit they did something that is deserving of some sort of punishment. Plain and simply put I will answer this in the form of a question...how is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God? And just in case this turns into a "well, they didn't know they were sinning against God" issue... Romans 1 says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes " his eternal power and divine nature " have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse." Levitus and Numbers, as you know, even goes on to talk about even 'unintentional sin' or unknown sin must also be offered a sacrifice. 4. God's right to choose. "P3: God's chosen people(the jews) were the only ones God continually spoke to before Jesus. Leaving primarily them alone to know of God and how to avoid the fate of Hell." This is simply God's right to choose, in this case, he chose to keep a promise made to Abraham, because God is faithful in his promises. Let me fairly remind you that he almost broke this promise as my previous argument shows [which is another debate in it's own]. Matthew 20:1-16: 9 "The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 "These who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day." 13 "But he answered one of them, "I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn"t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don"t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" C: One of the most common mistakes that happen when humans question God's moral compass is to imply that God is not the creator of the morals. God alone has a right reserved to take away anything and everything according to the bible. Unlike us, he created everything and according to the bible IS everything. God also, unlike us, is not only sinless but void of sin. These are major contributors, when understood, to God's "seemingly immoral, genocidal, murderous" ways. |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00003-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | I feel that any addition to the original post I made might push the debate farther than it should in terms of simplicity and a "simple read", although it is already very long. My response in accordance to the points brought up: 1. I'm not exactly sure how to go about saying this so I will try to make it as clear as possible. If you are making the point that God is seperate from humanity and that god is holy, seperated, and a different entity: I accept that as per the bible stating it.(I thought this was by default accepted once you accept the bible as tru per the opening). However, your math was off. The punishment of sinning is not only that you are sent to hell, but that God may take your life before that(and then consequently you would go to hell). I want o make this clear because to say that the only punishment God has given for sin in the bible is to to got to hell, is not true. 2. "Sins of our fathers". I'd like to address the acts that we are all born sinful and that is becaue of the original "fall" of Adam and Eve. Romans 5:18-19: 18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. -Let us ignore the Jesus stuff for the sake of the debate. This verse states that all were condemned for the sin of Adam and Eve. The "father" of all mankind, made many sinners. Note: You did not respond or explain to people why God killed the several groups of people in the stories of Noah, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amalekites, where in each the entire group of people were wiped out because they were deemed "sinful" or "corrupt" in the eyes of God. -You assume that the verses stating that the child will not pay for the sins of the father prove that no child was punished in these genocides unfairly, but that assumption is false. Not only in the sense that all mankind has paid for the sins of Adam, but that these groups of people(children included) were punished for the sins of the mature members. Innocent children were punished (killed) in these acts. Note: I am not proposing that the bible is false, but that the verse was meant for a different interpretation. That being The son shall not bear the responsibility of the father according to the law.(i.e. the 613 commandments in the Old Testament). So that if a father broke the law, the son could not be punished for this. I believe this verse was intended in such a way. -God did kill children. In accordance with the story of Noah, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amalekites, all died for their sin(from birth) and the sins of their father. To think that not one child existed in these examples is rather naive, but for an example we can look towards the story of Moses: Exodus 11: 4-7: "4. So Moses said, "This is what the Lord says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt"worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal." Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel." -I'd like to note that there are examples of where God himself killed the innocent and where he ordered the Israelites to do such. There is a difference, but I find that the overall effect the same. [On the topic of Born-Sinners] The Bible repeatedly tells us that we are born sinners thanks to adam and eve. In the first part I opened with the assumption that both parties would accept children as being "innocent". I make this assumption based upon the notion that children do not fully understand or comprehend the acts that they do and their consequences. I realize that this can also apply to more mature humans, but for children I think we can agree that "innocence" is among them to a certain age. This presents a conflicting view. We percieve children as innocent though the bible does not and from birth gives them the effective sentence of Hell, though they could not have possibly disobeyed god. This is effectively "the sins of the father", that father being Adam. 3. Deserving of Hell. I'd like to make the point that the verse you listed(1corinthians 10:4) is talking aobut the Jewish religion. I.e. the same "spiritual drink" and "unto Moses" relate to the Old Testament. Of course within the belief that Jesus was God(the trinity), those who already believed in the Jewish God(i.e. the jews), would have technically been believing in Jesus before he came to Earth. However that leaves us with John 14:6 "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." So the original meaning of the Corinthians verse is that the Jews would continue their religion by believing in Jesus. This does not apply to the non-jewish people before Jesus, but ot assure the Jews that Christianity is a continuation of their religion. ============================================= The whole point of 3 was that those who could not know of the Law, Jesus, or of the bible were sent to hell, regardless if they are "Good" by moral or even biblical standards. It is in accordance with 2, where they are punished not by something they did, but by the sin of Adam. Meaning: People go to Hell for circumstances that are outside of their control. ========================================= In response to your edits on P1-3(I'd rather you not since this makes it harder to read through later.) P1-3 1.Noah can be called a preacher and Abraham can plead for Sodom, but that has no effect whatsoever on the decision made by God and what it stands for. In response to your assumption that God "morally" executed a killer, I deny that. God committed genocide. (Genocide definition: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.) This is entirely different from the moral justification of killing a specific person or group. The justification for genocide is non-existent. 2. The good people? The people who are for the most part good. Humanitarian, peaceful, non-violent. I'd presume there is a general definition of a "good" person we can agree on. 3. It is founded on all the scripture, in fact the entire story of the Old Testament is of the Jewish people. To clarify, I was talking of the time before Jesus. Genesis 17:7 "7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." ==================== Note: You did not edit the closing correctly. You left the phrase "and punishes those undeserving of punishment" ========= To summarize: 2."Sins of Our Father" - Adam and Eve: mankind pays the price for generations because of their Sin. The are (according to the bible) the parents of all. -God also murdered select groups of people for the sins of the whole. -God did kill children(listed examples). [Children are innocent] -Yet the God has killed them in the act of Genocide. -Yet God condemns them to hell from their birth. 3. People go to Hell for circumstances that are outside of their control. P1: God does not give a "second chance" in the old testament to many groups of people. He simply writes them off as "too far gone" and murders them. P2: See 3. P3: God's chosen people(the jews) were the only ones God continually spoke to before Jesus. Leaving primarily them alone to know of God and how to avoid the fate of Hell. C: The system of sin is one that punishes those undeserving of punishment and for circumstances that are beyond a person's control. |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00004-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | As a preface to anyone who is viewing this debate: 1. Whether you are Christian or Non-Christian, please view the facts as they are presented as unbiased as possible... otherwise the voting could never truly reflect the facts 'not opinions' presented as they are for THIS debate. I thank the Pro for providing the only ground work for this type of debate... and something that even you the reading must agree to for the sake of voting properly. 2. "Note: For this debate you must assume the bible is true." <--- As per the Pro. 3. Also reader, please note that he does use the term 'true' and not 'real'. So you must accept, for the purposes of this debate that EVERYTHING the Bible says is 'TRUE' and not false. The definition of sin is: To go against or disobey god. First Rebuttal: 1. "The system in the bible for sin and it's punishment, is not fair in regards to humanity." -Surprisingly this was actually my first statement that I was locked into and I realized that there is actually flaw to this statement. The flaw is the word humanity! The definition that is. You see if I were to take your rules seriously about this debate than this statement is done out of ignorance. I could literally use basic math to rephrase the sentence to see it a little more clearly by using your given definition of sin. "The system in the bible for [disobeying God]and it's punishment[of going to hell], is not fair in regards to humanity." For you to fully understand the Bibles arguments that God is in fact being "fair", you must understand God's attributes. There are many, but the main one is God is Holy. Many Christians surprisingly don't even know what this means! The bible says God is "Holy, holy, holy" (Revelation 4:8), it's saying that He is separated, separated, separated (Old Hebrew language would repeat something that is important rather than modern English using BOLD or exclamations) which is referring to God being so very separated from the world, people, evil and sin that it is not even funny. Again not by choice, it's just what he is. So when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commandment of not eating from the tree of good and evil, they chose to disobey God's commandment and because they had knowledge like God ABOUT sin, unlike God, they had freewill to act upon that knowledge. And again God is Holy and sin has no part in God or his actions whatsoever, God simply has knowledge of it just like Satan told Eve. The end result is a disobedience woman and man who passing their "corruption" to their descendants "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." -1 Corinthians 15:50 THEN ENTERS MY NICE FLOW INTO YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT... 2. "Sins of our Fathers" "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalms 51:5 - To be absolutely clear, their is nothing in the bible that says God has ever or will ever give a death sentence to a baby whose (according to your example) parents are terrible role models when it comes to following God. "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of THOSE WHO HATE ME, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those WHO LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS." Without going into a lot of detail, there is nowhere here that says God will kill or send to hell the sons of sinful parents. You'd have to reach petty far to get it there. Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." Lastly your remark about us being "moral" is also ignorance because according to the rules the Bible is true, so if I were to take that and rephrase your remark it would read... "We as [Sinful, disobedient people] do not in good moral conscience blame the [psalms 51:5] for the father's mistakes. We do not give [psalms 51:5] death sentences because the father murdered." <---- How can immoral sinful people have a good moral conscious? I'm just trying to follow your Rule about the Bible being true! "And we do this for a reason, that being that someone who did not participate in the crime should not be blamed or punished, regardless of genetic similarity." <------ I agree and God does too! 3. Those "undeserving" of Hell. -For the sake of readers getting bored I will correct some Biblical areas as per your rule, as to bring about a quick non-biased approach from the reader: "In the bible there is the belief that whoever sins and does not [ask for] forgiveness goes to Hell." "This is both before and after Jesus, with Jesus being the way to salvation after he ascends to Heaven." Not so my friend according to the Bible which is true for the sake of this debate "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4 "P1:God punishes many people throughout the bible without a chance at redemption. This is shown in the Flood [Noah is called a Preacher of Righteousness - 2 Peter 2:5], Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18:16-33 says that Abraham pleaded for the safety of Sodom]"the Amelekites(the list goes on). These people(men, women, and children) all [were killed] thanks to God's actions [I don't get this, so if an executioner, in your words "morally" executes a killer then the executioner is wrong?]. "It sets the standard that God can kill anyone at anytime and send them to an eternal torture." <-----This is actually very surprisingly biblical. Psalm 115:3 says "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." and 1 Samuel 2:6 says "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up." "P2: Those who could not have known of God or his religion went to hell regardless of they were "good" according to the bible's system." <---- I just have to ask, who are these so called "good" people your are referring to specifically? "P3: God selects his chosen people, and condemns all others to Hell. <---- This is simply not founded in any scripture although Israel is God's chosen people God even wanted to wipe out Israel at one point [Numbers 14:11-19]. "According to the Bible, the Jews were God's "chosen people", meaning he had forsaken all others to Hell until the time of Jesus and the opening up of the religion thanks to Christianity."<----please refer to previous C: The system of Sin-and-Punishment the bible presents DOES IN FACT present a fair chance at salvation for all of humanity and punishes those undeserving of punishment. I hope I've been fair in my rebuttal. |
ab67c808-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00005-000 | The system of "Sin" is not fair. | Hi I'll be on the side of "Pro" and will be debating on the subject of Christianity's sin-and-punishment being fair to the human race as a whole. Note: For this debate you must assume the bible is true. The definition of sin is: To go against or disobey god. The definition of Hell is: A place where the souls of mankind who enter are eternally tormented/tortured. I base this on the things god has punished for.(i.e. the forbidden fruit, going against his commands, etc.). ============================ If you wish to post something to this or against it, please do so, but I am not hoping for this to be the main topic. ============================= The system in the bible for sin and it's punishment, is not fair in regards to humanity. 1. "Sins of our Fathers" -This applies to the concept in Christianity known as "our fallen world" -This applies to God's punishment of people throughout the bible for the sins of their father or great grandfather. The belief of paying for the sins or disobedience of our fathers is unfair. We as humans do not in good moral conscience blame the child for the father's mistakes. We do not give children death sentences because the father murdered. And we do this for a reason, that being that someone who did not participate in the crime should not be blamed or punished, regardless of genetic similarity. 2. Those undeserving of Hell. In the bible there is the belief that whoever sins and does not acquire forgiveness goes to Hell. This is both before and after Jesus, with Jesus being the way to salvation after he ascends to Heaven. P1: God punishes many people throughout the bible without a chance at redemption. This is shown in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amelekites(the list goes on). These people(men, women, and children) all went to hell thanks to God's actions. It sets the standard that God can kill anyone at anytime and send them to an eternal torture. P2: Those who could not have known of God or his religion went to hell regardless of they were "good" according to the bible's system. P3: God selects his chosen people, and condemns all others to Hell. According to the Bible, the Jews were God's "chosen people", meaning he had forsaken all others to Hell until the time of Jesus and the opening up of the religion thanks to Christianity. C: The system of Sin-and-Punishment the bible presents does not present a fair chance at salvation for all of humanity and punishes those undeserving of punishment. I await the con, hope you have fun! |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00000-000 | yo mamma jokes | Fandom round! Yo mama so fat, she's bigger than both the outside and inside of the TARDIS. Yo mama so ugly, she makes Umbridge look like Fleur. Yo mama so stupid, when she heard "the pen is mightier than the sword", she thought it was a quote from Percy Jackson. Yo mama so slutty, she's slept with more guys than Irene Adler. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00001-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mama is so fat that when she turns around people throw her a welcome back party. Yo mama is so stupid that when the computer said "Press any key to continue", she couldn't find the 'Any' key. Yo mama is so poor that I went to her house and tore down some cob webs, and she said "Who's tearing down the drapes?" Last but no least BONUS: Yo mama so stupid she brought a spoon to the Super Bowl |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00002-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama so poor, she can't even pay attention. Yo mama so fat, her boggart is Jillian Michaels. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00003-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama is so poor that she can't even put her two cents in this conversation. Yo mama is so stupid that when she read on her job application to not write below the dotted line she put "OK". Last round (a minimum of 4 yo mama jokes) |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00004-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama so sexually promiscuous she's like a lemonade stand- ten cents a squeeze. Yo mama so ugly her mother had to be drunk to breastfeed her. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00005-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama is so poor that when I saw her kicking a can down the street, I asked her what she was doing, and she said "moving." Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00006-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama so stupid, she sold her car for gas money. Yo mama so stupid, she didn't get an abortion. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00007-000 | yo mamma jokes | Yo mama so stupid, she got fired form the m&m's factory because she threw away the w's Yo mama so stupid she thought Taco Bell as a Mexican phone company |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00008-000 | yo mamma jokes | I accept. |
bd4972ff-2019-04-18T17:01:27Z-00009-000 | yo mamma jokes | Please keep it appropriate. Also 2 yo mamma jokes per round. |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00000-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | BE INSPIRED http://www.youtube.com... |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00001-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | Partly my fault too, but yeah thanks for understanding, and sorry again. >.< |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00002-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | Its ok, real life gets in the way sometimes. |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00003-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | Damn it all. I'm very sorry but I won't be able to finish this debate. Very sorry for the horrible conduct. |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00004-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | Thanks for the debate Phantom. I'll refute your case in the next round.==Case== FrameworkObservation 1: The primary purpose of punishment prima facieis retribution; rehabilitation is a secondary concern. Crimes are, after all, acts of aggression against victims where as rehabilitation is an act of restoration towards the criminal; it must thus be regarded as fundamentally unjust to put the benefits of the criminal (IE rehabilitation) above the benefits to the victim (IE compensation and retribution). As Michael Moore put it: “We are justified in punishing because and only because offenders deserve it.” Retribution needs to be valued above restoration. Observation 2: Consider only the effects that the implementation of Capital punishment has on the deserving--victims and law abiding citizens (civil socety). Observation 3: Abolish means to do away with entirely. If there's one forseeable case in which Capital Punishment in needed, you negate.Observation 4: Ignore all objections the CP that address issues with the current system (can be reformed). C1: Capital Punishment deters crimeMethodology: We need to apply ceteris paribus when looking at the Death Penalty. We can't compare Texas to New York, or New Jersey to Louisiana for obvious reasons; consider only the relationships between crime and capital punishment in specific places. Empirics: Westley Lowe observed that between 1991 and 1999 there was a 700% increase in the number of executions, along with a drop of 33% in the murder rate. More specifically, in Texas the resumption of executions in 1982 resulted in a 60% drop in the murder rate; within Texas, the Houston area (Harris county, where the polunsky execution unit is housed) the area with the most aggressive death penalty prosecuters reside, experienced a 72% decrease in the murder rate between '91-99[1]. This is significant, because it shows not only that nationwide murder decreased but as we get into areas that aggressively impost capital punishment (Texas executes more people than any other state, and Harris county more than any other county) the results are even more substantial! I could bring in more empirical evidence for this, but I don't think it's needed. Academics: Lowes findings on deterrence have been held true in at least three major academic studies, namely: Studies from Emory University stating that each execution prevents between three and eighteen murders. [2] A 2006 study from the University of Houston, stating that the Illinois moratorium on the Death Penalty led to 150 additional homicides [3] A University of Colorado at Denver study showing that for each execution five muders were prevented.[4]. Logic: Of course, not all of the observed decrease in the murder rate is the result of Capital punishment, but there can be little doubt that a just society and "tough on crime" laws discourage criminal behavior. A study from the Criminal Justice Statistics Center found that a decrease in violent crime resulted from harsher penalties[5] (specifically defined as "Increase in, higher probability of, and longer duration of incarceration."). The result is you negate since the lives of vicious murderers can't outweigh the lives of innocent civilians. C2: RecidivismCapital Punishment carries with it one incredible advantage, and that is that no executed murderer has ever harmed another individual again. As a matter of fact, of Death Row inmates held in 2009 over 5% committed their capital crime while in prison or on escape, and an amazing 2/3rds were previously convicted of a felony[6]. The last time Capital Punishment was abolished in the United States (1972), dozens of inmates were given sentences of life imprisonment and were later paroled, many of whom killed again, over 25 known victims are the result of these post-furman cases, along with dozens more from escaped or paroled murderers[7]. Two things must be drawn from this: 1. Laws change, parole boards change, rulings change, and people forget the past. The only way to forever ensure that a a murderer doesn't strike again is to kill him. 2. An immediate abolition (as the resolution calls for) would lead to more disasters. To use Texas as an example, life without parole was not implement until late 2005, so all inmates who committed their crimes before then (the vast majority) would be eligible for Parole and one day released[8]. Affirmation leads to deaths by historical precedents. Even behind bars criminals manage to strike again. For example, Clarence Ray Allen, serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (the likely alternative) still managed to cause the deaths of still more people: he got a paroled inmate he knew to kill one who testified against him, along with 2 completely innocent bystanders[9]. In an uncharacteristic act of justice and logic, the state of California executed this filth in 2006. He will never harm anyone again. C3: Justice.Refer back to my framework, we can only justifiably punish people because they deserve it, to deny this is absolute insanity! I will lay out two hypothetical (although not unrealistic) scenarios where the Death Penalty should surely be implemented. I have little doubt that my opponent will accuse me of making an "appeal to emotion" but since Justice is an emotional construct, theres little use in such an objection. One:How should our society respond to evil?Imagine a pedophile. He has fantasies about little girls, and constantly stalks them on the internet and in person. Constantly. Finally one day he snaps, and kidnaps an innocent little child, around age 6 or 7, takes her into a secluded area, pulls off her clothes, and brutally rapes her as she screams in vain for mercy and help. Finally, because he's a sick and twisted animal, he smashes her head with a rock and runs away. Now, we have two options. We can send him to prison for the rest of his life. We can pay to feed, clothe, protect, entertain, and "rehabilitate" him for the rest of his life. We can look the little girls parents in the eye and say, yeah your innocent child had to die, but her killer gets to live off of your dime because we dont want to "sink to his level". Sorry. What justice is that? The parents will have to deal with the constant nightmare of knowing that somewhere that predator still lives, and can still harm others; he can potentially escape, or they could (God forbid) have to go through to biannual nightmares of his parole hearings because of a change in sentencing laws (as happened in the sickening James Moore rape/murder case[10].). At the very least they know that he will be sitting in his cell watching television and pleasuring himself on the memories of what he did to their beautiful daughter for the rest of his days, all payed for by them and their fellow law abiding tax payers. Wonderful.Or, we could hang/electrocute/shoot/euthanize/gas him and end it once and for all. It seems that anyone with any moral sense what so ever knows which option is preferable. Two: Imagine for this scenario we have a leader of a militant personality cult, convicted of rape and murder. His followers are fanatic and will fight to the death to protect him, and commit suicide on his command. In the Aff world, he's imprisoned and his followers fight to get him out--they kill dozens of gaurds and lesser inmates in the process before they are all shot. In the Neg world, the man is rightfully executed and his followers commit suicide with him This might be a strange scenario, but recall that even one example where CP is needed is enough to negate. Also imagine a war criminal such as Adolf Hitler. My opponent must prove his system outweighs mine in:1. Deterrence2. Justice3. Recidivism preventionAlong with showing compelling reasons to change the status quo. Before then, the resolution is completely negated. The Death Penalty is a just consequence for those who choose a path of evil. http://www.debate.org... |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00005-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | First I would like to say it is a pleasure to be debating thett3 once again on this topic. Judging from our last debate I'm sure this will be worthwhile. My arguments: Short Overview:I will be using three basic contentions to support my case. The first will show the unnecessary and major risk that will always exist with the death penalty, but does not exist with life imprisonment. The second will show the physchological societal shaping of ones personality and character traits brought about by events in ones life that leads to the fact that certain persons are not at fault for the way they turn out and thus imposing the harshest penalty against them is unjust and we must bend our efforts towards reforming these persons rather than terminating them. The third will show that capital punishment is inefficient in accomplishing the goals of the state, in that there are three main purposes for the state in taking action against law-breakers and capital punishment only performs two of those, while with life imprisonment we have the possibility of accomplishing all three. C.1 As long as the death penalty is in use, there is always the risk of killing innocents. Everyone should agree on the fact that every risk of note existing in our form of punishment aught to be diminished if possible. What about the utmost risk? The risk of the state killing innocent inhabitants of its own jurisdiction? Sadly this still exists through the use of capital punishment. Every time we send someone to their execution there is the possibility that we are sending an innocent man too his death. Why on earth should we allow these risks to take place when there is no need? For there is indeed not much need. Life imprisonment is effective and never includes the chance of killing an innocent man. Those sentenced to life imprisonment have the chance to be proven innocent before they die. Despite what advocates of the death penalty say, innocents being executed are not at all a rare accurance as evidence shows. Well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution. [1] This source shows detailed accounts of eleven innocents being executed. [2] One researcher says he has found at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place. [2] 69 inmates on death row have been released since 1973 (Source is from 1997 so it would be allot higher now).[3] This clearly shows the risks of the DP. Risks which are completely unnecessary and should be gotten rid of immediately. These men were lucky to escape with their lives. I should add that there have, undoubtedly, been cases in which innocent people have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know. With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man. It is a horrible thing for an innocent person to be killed at the hands of the state. It is also completely unnecessary. C.2 Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development theory [9] This theory clearly shows that the way people turn out is based much on their life events. Thus it is not entirely their fault but corrupt society's. Rather than just executing criminals we should realize that one, they are not solely at fault, and two, we have the possibility of reforming them. Now obviously the death penalty is reserved for only the most extreme crimes, and I think it is logical to believe those people who commit these crimes are just products of our corrupt society. This theory demonstrates my argument. Imposing our harshest punishment against those who are not entirely at fault is clearly unjust.Many people are dealt with less harshly due to mental disorders. This follows the same lines. C.3 Those executed cannot be be reformed, or rehabilitated. Capital punishment does not achieve maximum purpose.Why do we take action against law breakers? Punishment Segregation Rehabilitation The ideal form of state action against criminals is one that accomplishes all purposes. This is an obvious fact. Thus whatever accomplishes all three purposes most effectively we must consider superior. With the use of life imprisonment we have the chance of accomplishing all three of these. However with the use of capital punishment the third is impossible, unless they are reformed before they are executed. But it is much more likely they would be reformed if they have their whole life to be reformed. Thus it is safe to conclude life imprisonment is superior too capital punishment. The death penalty deprives criminals of a second chance which SHOULD be given to them. The question is, why would we be using a form of punishment that only accomplishes two of its three main purposes, when there is another option that may accomplish all three? Though it's not completely necessary, here are a few examples. Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions.[7] If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent. Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence.[7]With the use of the death penalty the State is not accomplishing what it is supposed too. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and await his response. Sources:[1] http://www.the-slammer.org............ [2] http://www.justicedenied.org............ [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org............ [4] http://www.debate.org......[5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org............ [6] http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org............[7] http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu.........[8] http://www.vincenter.org.........[9] http://www.electrical-res.com...... |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00006-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | I accept. |
62106601-2019-04-18T18:24:49Z-00007-000 | Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States | I am a bored man.Please only accept if you have won 10 or more debates.Too the voters! Please only vote on arguments! Do not vote on sources, conduct or grammar. If one paricipant performs poorly in those catagories that will take away from his arguments, but do not give either side those points. In accepting this debate my opponent is required to agree with this rule. Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished in the United StatesI will be affirming the resolution.Burden of Proof:BoP is shared.Definitions:Capital Punishment- a punishment in which the person who committed the offense is put to death by the state. [1]Structure:1st round: Acceptance.2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal.4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.Terms:1. A forfeit results in the loss of the debate.2. If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section.If there are any questions please feel free to leave a comment or pm me.Sources:[1] http://en.wiktionary.org......... |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00000-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | My opponent failed to fulfill his burden of proof from the Bible. Vote for me |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00001-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | Ok Truth_seeker. Here you go. Your first one liner is false because the Church of Thyatira was following a false prophetess. A false prophetess cannot be Christ because 1 Christ had to be a male to fulfill the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah being a King. 2 Christ as the Lamb of God had to be without spot or blemish. Here is what Christ said about Thyatira: "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead." Revelation 20-23a NIV) Concerning your seconded one liner- Humans are complicated. For instance, I have only been at this here website for a week or two and have come across several posters who claim to have been Christians for years and then after some sort of problem became non-believers, (agnostic, atheistic, etc). So we can easily tie your two one liners together and come up with- (1) Christians are one dimensional. (2) They are incapable of changing their minds or making mistakes. (3) They are mindless robots who follow Christ like zombies. (Sorry about the third one liner at this point but you got one more coming and I wanted to for sure address your last one.) Thanks for the debate. |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00002-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | We weren't discussing the kinds of Atheists, we were discussing the kinds of Christians right? |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00003-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | Truth_seeker, Are you familiar with the study on non-belief that the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga did? Part of the study was to figure out how many different types of atheistics (is this a word?) there are. Here is the list that the University came up with- 1 Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic (IAA) 2 Activist (AAA) 3 Seeker-Agnostic (SA) 4 Anti-Theist 5 Non-Theist 6 Ritual Atheist/Agnostic (RAA) Question: How does this list of Atheists relate to the types of Christians? There are only two types of Atheists- 1 Client-Atheists 2 Non-Client-Atheists The Client-Atheists don't believe in Christianity. But the Client-Atheists are controlled by the Christians. On the other hand- The Non-Client-Atheists refuse to be controlled by the Christians. |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00004-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | The Bible clearly states there is 1 kind of Christian and that is a follower of Christ |
9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00005-000 | There are only two kinds of Christians | The two types of Christians are: 1 Client-Christians 2 Non-Client-Christians A Client-Christian is more than a defeated Christian. A Client-Christian is guilty of aiding and abetting. A Non-Client-Christian refuses to submit to the will of the enemy. All other modern day descriptions of Christians is camouflage. |
aa880c2-2019-04-18T18:46:26Z-00001-000 | Mountain Dew is the best soda | R1. Prove it. R2. That's your opinion. R3. Not to me. R4. Nah. I hate caffeine. R5. Green and red are both better R6. Prove Taco bell is awesome My opponent's arguments are pure opinin. |
aa880c2-2019-04-18T18:46:26Z-00002-000 | Mountain Dew is the best soda | A short and sweet debate. Goodluck. xD Mountain Dew is the best soda for many reasons: -They have the greatest variety of flavors/types of drink. -Every one is awesome... they put time and effort towards the taste of each one. -It gives you a more refreshing feel than do other sodas. -More caffeine = more happiness. -Mountain Dew Voltage, the best one, is freakin blue. How can you beat that? -And lastly, it helps out Taco Bell, by letting them own the rights to Baja Blast, the 2nd best flavor. |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00002-000 | life | It can be whatever you want it to BEE. |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00003-000 | life | Why would you use the bible as your example. There are other books out there that are special to other people. |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00004-000 | life | Boi I only have 10,000 characters. The Bee Movie is like the bible to some people you are insulting an entire religion. Im very disappointed in you |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00005-000 | life | The Bee movie script is not an educational document because it was decreed by the high court in 1945 that no Bees could every be in a script so that is not a logical argument for life, philosophy, or anything else. Furthermore you didn't even put the whole thing. I don't see a "The End" at the bottom. I feel very insulted that you think of me so bad that you won't even include the whole script for me to read. This is not OK. I will be calling my lawyer about this. Expect to get some very upset letters in the mail soon. |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00006-000 | life | Bee Movie Script According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00000-000 | life | Space, Time, these are the voyages of the star ship enterprise |
42c0fb3a-2019-04-18T13:13:51Z-00001-000 | life | Come on BEE nice?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!yo?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! |
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00000-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his response. However, it seems that a majority of his points are new arguments rather than the rebuttals that we had agreed on for round 3. I will, though, respond to them anyway even though the arguments provided by opponent ultimately shouldn"t be given much weight (due to their not meeting the criteria set for the round). I would also like to note, that my opponent offers no evidence for any of his arguments. [For the purposes of space, I have included only the first and last few words of some of my opponent's longer arguments; the full arguments can be seen in the previous round] 1-"[I]t"s glorified infidelity." This is not the case. Infidelity is described as "marital disloyalty; adultery."[1] Voluntary polygamous marriage (VPM) certainly does not meet the prior criterion; one partner is never being disloyal to a married partner by being with another married partner of the same marriage; it is the same marriage. The second criterion should probably be defined in its own right. Adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse."[2] So, VPM also fails to meet the second criterion of infidelity because a partner would be having sex with someone who is his or her lawful spouse. 2-"It would be difficult for the government to tax." Taxation is already a difficult process, but I suppose my opponent is suggesting that VPM would make taxation even more difficult. I agree that this would likely be the case, but I would also point out that this is merely because it is currently a practice that is not recognized by the state. Marriage reform tends to necessitate tax reform. Introducing either interracial marriage or same-sex marriage into a system that criminalized and discriminated against them would likely force some kind of marriage-related tax reform. My opponent"s argument here can only be taken seriously if s/he also discourages interracial and same-sex marriage. 3-"Relationships should be between two people." This is entirely without grounding or warrant. To use an earlier example, it could be just as easy to say "relationships should be between two people of the same race" or "relationships should be between people of different sexes." Merely stating these things is not a good reason to criminalize interracial or same-sex marriage. 4-"Couples have to... there"s multiple people." Following my opponent"s logic here would yield disastrous results. For example, families also have to make decisions and compromises together. It is harder to agree when there are more people. Having children increases the number of people in a family. Therefore, people should not have children. Of course, if everybody did this, it would result in human extinction. 5-"Polygamous relationships can... is already overpopulated." Actually, because the female reproductive system can only create a single child at a time (discounting multiple births), any form of polygamy could not increase the population more than monogyny could (assuming a roughly equal proportion of men and women in the world). 6-"Polygamy is almost... being owned by men." Remember, this is VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage. If the woman"s act is not voluntary, then it is not relevant to this debate. 7-"Marriage is a... a cattle drive." A VPM can also be a partnership and a relationship; it is simply between more people. 8-"Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women." This is true. I fail to see how this is necessarily disadvantageous. 9-"Most people agree... to older men." Again, this is VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage. Joel Feinberg classifies the choice of a child as "substantially nonvoluntary."[3] I think many people would agree. 10-"Spouses can have... it creates tension." This is true. Marriage is difficult, but I fail to see how this justifies laws against VPM. 11-"The established needs... around the house." My opponent has offered no evidence to support this. Even if s/he had, it would not provide a convincing justification for laws against VPM. 12-"In all polygamous cultures, women have extremely low status." This seems unlikely, especially when you consider that there are societies in which polyandry is the predominant form of polygamy.[4] Even if this were the case, my opponent would also have to show that polygamy is the cause of this lower in each of these cultures for this argument to have much weight. 13-"True love is a bond that is only possible to be shared between two people." Even if this were the case, it is not a good justification for laws against VPM because "true love" is not a prerequisite for marriage. 14-"Most North American... or food stamps." That is unfortunate, but unless my opponent is suggesting that VPM is the cause of this, the argument does not hold much weight. If s/he is suggesting that VPM is the cause, then the argument seems to be guilty of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 15-"Polygamy is a choice, while sexual orientations are not choices." I agree. 16-"Legalizing polygamy would... on women"s rights." This is completely unwarranted; I could just as easily say "legalizing VPM would not give more power to religions and would not infringe on women"s rights." Also, in terms of women"s rights, I would also like to remind my opponent that the resolution deals with VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage and that a woman has just as much right to marry multiple men. 17-"Legal polygamy would... to such marriages." My opponent assumes that nations are obligated to grant citizenship to immigrants merely because they are married to a citizen of that nation. However, my opponent offered no reason for us to accept this assumption. Some final notes: I-While my opponent offered a larger number of arguments, a multitude of arguments should not be confused for acumen. II-Though I have argued against my opponent"s new arguments, s/he offered them in a round dedicated to rebuttals, and because of this, I was given far less opportunity to rebut them. III-My opponent did not refute my initial arguments. This is incredibly important because it means that my final syllogism, which firmly negates the resolution, stands. 1-Paternalism is either strong/hard or weak/soft (by definition) 2-Strong (or hard) legal paternalism is not just (by C1) 3-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are not weak/soft paternalism (by C2) 4-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are strong/hard paternalism (by disjunctive syllogism 1, 3) 5-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just (by identity 2, 4) Also, any new arguments against this portion of my initial argument would be incredibly unfair to the spirit of this debate as I am now completing my final round and would be unable to respond to them. So, ultimately, my syllogism has been unrefuted and its ultimate conclusion that laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just must stand. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for his or her participation in this debate. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Feinberg, Joel. "Legal Paternalism." Seattle: U of Washington. Print. (Pg 8) [4] Miller, Alan S. and Satoshi Kanazawa. Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. New York: Perigee, 2007. Print. (Pg. 81) |
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00001-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | Can my opponent counter ay of the following points in any way? t’s glorified infidelity. It would be difficult for the government to tax. Relationships should be between two people. Couples have to make decisions and compromises together, and it’s harder to agree when there’s multiple people. Polygamous relationships can end up with too many children. The world is already overpopulated. Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It’s not about women’s freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have- it’s about women being owned by men. Marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive. Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women. Most people agree that countries that practice polygamy live in an oppressive, abusive society with fanatical, religious men- especially when they marry young girls to older men. Spouses can have animosity, jealousy, etc towards other the other spouses and it creates tension. The established needs are impossible to meet in a polygamist marriage. These needs include- ongoing affection/attention, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, and help around the house. In all polygamous cultures, women have extremely low status. True love is a bond that is only possible to be shared between two people. Most North American “families” in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps. Polygamy is a choice, while sexual orientations are not choices. Legalizing polygamy would give more power to religions, and would infringe on women’s rights. Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to, say, the US. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages. |
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00002-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | It is unfortunate that my opponent was unable to respond to my arguments, so I will try to make my arguments this round briefer. I would first like to address my definition of polygamy, which has gone unrefuted. Talbott"s definition of legal paternalism is "the enactment and enforcement or paternalistic laws," which can be either weak (also called soft) or strong (also called hard).[1] This definition is important because it supports the first premise of my syllogism in C3. Next, my argument in C1 went unrefuted as well. This Millian argument showed that a certain type of legal paternalism (strong/hard) is not just. This argument is significant because it proves the second premise of my syllogism in C3. My opponent also failed to refute my argument in C2. This showed that laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are not weak/soft paternalism because they fail to meet the criteria of such forms of paternalism. This argument is important because it supports the third premise of my syllogism in C3. Finally, with all of the premises of my syllogism warranted, my conclusion (that laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just) necessarily follows. As a reminder, the following is the syllogism to which I am referring. 1-Paternalism is either strong/hard or weak/soft (by definition) 2-Strong (or hard) legal paternalism is not just (by C1) 3-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are not weak/soft paternalism (by C2) 4-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are strong/hard paternalism (by disjunctive syllogism 1, 3) 5-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just (by identity 2, 4) I have already supported 1-3. 4 follows from a disjunctive syllogism of premises 1 and 3. Because laws against polygamy are a type of paternalism, which is either strong/hard or weak soft and laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not weak/soft, they must be strong/hard. 5, which disproves the resolution, necessarily follows because of the rules of identity on 2 and 4. Laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are strong/hard paternalism, strong/hard paternalism is not just; thus, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just. This relies on the same reasoning that tells us that when A=B and B=C that A=C. [1] Talbott, William. "Weak and Strong Legal Paternalism." Which Rights Should Be Universal? Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Print. (Pg. 53) |
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00003-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | As far as I can tell, the only mention of polygamy in debates here so far have been in passing, so I hope everyone can enjoy looking at it a little bit closer. With debates concerning same-sex marriage currently taking over cable news channels, quite a bit has been said about "the sanctity of marriage. " People have questioned whether marriage should only be between one man and one woman or if it can also extend to one man and another man or one woman and another woman. While a great amount can be said about this subject, I turn my attention instead to a single word used in the rhetoric; that word is "one. " It seems that whether groups are advocating same-sex marriage or rejecting it, they believe that marriage is a commitment between one person and one other person only. On some level, this reflects the anti-polygamy sentiment of modern society. In fact, Edward Stein states "that polygamy has never been legal in any [U. S. ] state. " He adds that the U. S. Supreme Court "effectively denied that there is a right to marry more than one person at the same time" in Reynolds v. United States. [1] In this debate, I will argue that is no just basis for laws against voluntary polygamous marriage. Before progressing any further, it would be beneficial to actually define polygamy. Generally, polygamy can be defined as marriage between more than two partners. Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa note that polygamy is often confused with polygyny. They add that "polygyny is the marriage of one man to more than one woman. " On the other hand, polygamy can also include polyandry, "the marriage of one woman to more than one man. "[2] It should be mentioned that both polygyny and polyandry require that the relationship be heterosexual; I will not give much consideration to homosexual polyamory in this debate because doing so would require even more complex distinctions than those already made and does not even meet the technical definition of polygamy. Additionally, I would no like to define an important term in my arguments, which is legal paternalism. In "Weak and Strong Legal Paternalism," William Talbott explains that "[a] law is paternalistic if it is enacted to promote the good of the target audience by overruling their own judgment about what is good for them. " He adds that "[l]egal paternalism is the enactment and enforcement or paternalistic laws," which can be either weak (also called soft) or strong (also called hard). [3] C1-I would like to first explore why some kinds of paternalism (strong/hard) can be considered unjust. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes a convincing argument against legal paternalism being just. Mill claims that "neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. " He explains that this is because "[h]e is the person most interested in his own well-being, the interest which any other person… can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has" and "with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by anyone else. "[4] So, Mill suggests that a fully-capable adult is the most reliable judges on what is good for her because no other person is as interested in that person's good as she is. Of course, this means that other people as well as governments are less reliable judges. Thus, legal paternalism is generally not justified. Mill does provide some exceptions to this; such exceptions are weak/soft paternalism. C2-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriage do not meet the standards of either major theory of weak/soft paternalism. A-They do not meet Mill's standards. In fact, Mill directly addresses polygamy. He explains that the particular Mormon belief "which is the chief provocative to the antipathy which thus breaks through the ordinary restraints of religious tolerance, is its sanction of polygamy. "[5]. Mill admits that he strongly disapproves of the practice, but he concludes that polygamy should not be prohibited. He notes "that this relation is as much voluntary on the part of the women concerned in it, and who may be deemed the sufferers by it, as is the case with any other form of the marriage institution; and however surprising this fact may appear, it has its explanation in the common ideas and customs of the world, which teaching women to think marriage the one thing needful, make it intelligible that many a woman should prefer being one of several wives, to not being a wife at all. "[6] Whether or not the latter claim here represents an outdated worldview, the prior is certainly still relevant today. B-They do not meet Joel Feinberg's standards. In "Legal Paternalism," Feinberg describes a weak form of paternalism. According to Feinberg, "the state has the right to prevent self-regarding harmful conduct when but only when it is substantially nonvoluntary or when temporary intervention is necessary to establish whether it is voluntary or not. "[7] Such an intervention is certainly paternalistic, but it is a weak form of paternalism and, as such, is justifiable. Feinberg describes a voluntary act as one that "represent[s] the agent faithfully in some important way… [and] express[es] his or her settled values and preferences. "[8] If the agent is somehow ignorant, uninformed, or misinformed about the particular circumstances of his or action, that action would not be considered voluntary. So, another person would be justified in preventing the agent from acting if that person believed the agent is somehow ignorant, uninformed, or misinformed. However, such an intervener would be justified in intervening long enough to establish whether the agent's action is voluntary or not. Of course, the resolution deals with voluntary polygamous marriage, so laws against it certainly are not weak/soft. In Harm to Self, Feinberg addresses polygamy more directly. He asserts that "there are no convincing liberal reasons for the" prohibition of polygamy. Feinberg then makes the slightly stronger claim "that there should be no such crime [against polygamy] at all". [9] This seems consistent with his account from "Legal Paternalism. " If an act is clearly voluntary, then paternalistic intervention is not justified. C3-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just. To prove this, I offer the following syllogism based on my arguments so far. 1-Paternalism is either strong/hard or weak/soft (by definition) 2-Strong (or hard) legal paternalism is not just (by C1) 3-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are not weak/soft paternalism (by C2) 4-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are strong/hard paternalism (by disjunctive syllogism 1, 3) 5-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just (by identity 2, 4) Sources: [1] Stein, Edward. "Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage. " Washington University Law Quarterly 82.3 (2004): 611-685. PDF. (Pg. 633) [2] Miller, Alan S. and Satoshi Kanazawa. Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. New York: Perigee, 2007. Print. (Pg. 81) [3] Talbott, William. "Weak and Strong Legal Paternalism. " Which Rights Should Be Universal? Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Print. (Pg. 53) [4] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. New York: Prometheus, 1986. Print. (Pg. 86-7) [5] Ibid. (Pg 103) [6] Ibid. (Pg 104) [7] Feinberg, Joel. "Legal Paternalism. " Seattle: U of Washington. Print. (Pg 9) [8] Ibid. (Pg 7) [9] Feinberg, Joel. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Vol. 3, Harm to Self. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Print. (Pg. 265) |