_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00003-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | Rebuttals-My opponents first arguement is that facilites can only be set up efficently by a Democratic State. Not only is this wrong but the opposite. In many democratic systems people lie and try to get what they want. If a facility was to be ordered then people in congress would try to add pork barrel projects to the bill in order to get what they want. Not only is this wrong and a waste of money the whole bill could be abandoned because of disagreement of the parties. In a totaltarian state this would never be an issue with a totaltarian state. They could just sign the bill and the facility would be up -My opponent makes the claim that since the government is for the people it should be made up by the people. While this is with good will my opponent fails to understand that most of the time most of the people, sometimes even the majority, are ignorant and dont know whats best for the country. A ruler, or set of rulers, would be able to efficently govern with advisors if they dont already know the inner workings of the governmentNow onto the arguement1. Efficency of RulingIn a democratic society we see disturbances and disagreements all the time. Its part of democracy right? Unfortunatley somtimes these disagreements can be hurtful to citizens. An example is disagreement over spending on body armour. The republican party might want more funding on body armour but democrats might want less spending. Meanwhile those troops in foreign countries dont have ANY armour. This could mean more casualties and deaths. Another example is funding issues. Somewhat recently the 2 parties had a disagreement over the budget. This almost led to Homeland Defense to being defunded. Think about it the security agency tasked with keeping our citizens safe almost defunded thanks to disagreement. This issues will always pop up with democracy2. EconomyMy opponent hasnt rebutted on why totaltarian governments are so economically effective. The 3 totaltarian governments in world war 2 were economic superpowers. In fact if Germany didnt invade Russia the combined power of all 3 of those governments would have surely won World War 2. Unemployment was down in all of these countries and their economies were booming. If the Soviet Union didnt turn into a communist nation they would also still have a thriving economyI will talk about more points in the next round.Sources:http://www.auburn.edu...https://en.wikipedia.org... |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00004-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | I think Totalitarian system makes people fall under a dictatorship through which a country's progress could come to an average speed, because people could work effectively only if they have all the proper facilities. And all the facilities are provided by government only, so it's very important to have an effective government. Since government works for the welfare of its people, the people have a right to choose their official, who make decision on their behalf. In this way, the citizens have a second hand control on the government, which I think is beneficial for most of the countries. These elected officials work and make decisions based on what people want and is best in interest of the people. This also help people to get their work done more easily and in correct way. This system makes a very fair and effective way to govern. |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00005-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | Since you have not specified which system of democracy you prefer i will just assume it is representative democracy. This is because both in the U. S and India we have those democratic systems. BoP is shared since i didnt specifyMy arguement will center around 3 key points1. EffectivenessA moderate Totalatarian state does not require the authority of a Senate and House. This means that desicions can be made quick. This is especially important in a time of need. A prime example of this is the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill. Because republicans and democrats were wasting time putting their own pork barrel projects spending in the bill people were being injured and losing homes in the devastating wake of Sandy. Neither party wanted to affirm the bill in either houses of congress because they did not want to let the other party have their ways. A Totalatarian government would be able to send help right away and not have any delay. Things like pork barrel projects and hiding laws in bills wouldnt exist because they wouldnt be needed. Needless spending of tax payers dollars wouldnt be fought over. Many of the projects that republicans and democrats were proposing were donations to keep muesuems running. Because of this the relief money came very late to those who were in need. http://www.newsbusters.org...2. No deceitLike i briefly mentioned in point one hiding laws into bills is a very common thing to do in the USA. When democrats and republicans worked together on a sex trafficing law everything was looking good. Then it was seen that the republicans hid a Hyde Amendment to stop federal spending on abortions. Not only was this uncalled for but created more distrust between the parties. This is again another example of people decieving each other to get their way. Because of this the sex trafficing law was extremely delayed because of the upset in the Democratic party. . http://www.newsmax.com...3. Economically beneficalIn a totaltarinstic state the surivival of the fittest rules the market while those who are without are provided for. A key example of this is Benito Mussolin's and Adolf Hitler's rule in their own respective countries. The process inclues a nationalzation of mostly all items in the country. This creates a huge surplus and money flow into the country. Right now democracies rely on the global trade. While this is good it is only is small amounts. Leaning too much on the back of the globe can backfire. For example the US is heavily reliant on China for the exchanging of goods. Because of this everytime they go down in their economy we go down too. However a fascist economy is extremely benficial. Unemployment under hitler fell below one percent and their economy was shown as an economic super power. Reliance on others in the world is a terrible mistake because it leads to a domino effect of everyone falling down except for the domino that is by itself. https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...I will provide more points and add rebuttals next round. Back to you ConSources:. http://www.newsbusters.org...http://www.newsmax.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org... |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00006-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | I accept the challenge of reformist. |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00007-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | I am challenge samaya to this debateThe resolution: A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic StateI will be arguing for the stance of a moderate Totalatarian state where people still elect leaders but it is only one party. This party controls everything but has some exceptions to its power such as rights of the individuals. It is somewhat constrained by things like the U.S constitution. However it can bypass things such as a senate and a house.My opponent will argue for a Democratic State. She has not made up her mind on which one and will need to do so since i was specific on my ideal State.Rules:1.FF is an automatic loss2.Round 1 is acceptance only3.Semantics to misconstrue intro to your advantage is not allowedHappy to debate |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00002-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | Before begin my rebuttal, I must clarify a debate-breaking mistake. My assertion is the claim that no traits inherently characteristic of either sex make them unequal, and the claim "men and women are equal" is pragmatism based on this. This blatant goal-shift is not tolerated in any respectable debate forum, and I apologise to con for this mistake and any confusion it may have caused. I find your first point on biology a bit misleading, but I understand what you meant to say and why you said it. Not every difference makes an inequality. Nowhere in the definition of difference is there anything to link it to inequality [1]. Take that ball metaphor; they are different colors, but their color is just a quality, not a metric. Now, if you were to measure their diameter, mass, and surface texture and find them to be the same, then they'd be quite equal for playing catch. Any other distinction would be arbitrary. "Equal in colour" is quite a confusing way of putting it, as colour isn't any kind of quantity or measurement. Now, if you could prove, for example, that the red ball's manufacturer made balls that were more rough and massive than those made by the green one's manufacturer, then you could use color to infer that there was an inequality. In that case they wouldn't be equal, but the difference in color isn't what made them unequal. Onto the next point. Yes, women are very much more likely of developing breast cancer, men are infinitely more likely to get testicular cancer (not taking into account trans people, that is.) But this particular disease statistic doesn't account for mortality or the overall probability of getting seriously ill at all. For example, men are the only ones capable of dying of testicular cancer, but it can be treated. In addition, while there are different body parts the sexes can get cancer in, they still both get cancer. Onto your next point- breastfeeding fights infections. So do antibiotics. And dietary supplements. And a myriad of other modern health products that don't come from female glands. I also don't like the way you're treating the data, and that leads me into my next point. The data you're using does not confirm your point. All these numbers definitely correlate, so it's tempting to conclude in favor of con. However, an important fact of logic that con seems to forget is that correlation does not imply causation. I'll suspend this thought process, as I need to advance into my next point before I can do this topic justice. You stated that we both could agree that there were mental differences between the sexes. Well, I for one can't. I would very much like con to present evidence of these mythical differences. Or is that what Con's statistics were supposed to prove? I beg to differ. The study demonstrated a trend. It didn't account for anything else, such as surveyor errors or school population by sex, and even then it wouldn't prove anything other than the obvious; Among students polled, women scored higher. There's no answer to "Why" or "how," and such my confusion with con concluding "because they are male/female." You said that this might be due to personal preference and that the sexes prefer different things, but the data you showed doesn't say anything to support such speculation. So then, Con, I bid you- prove your assertions and speculations. Where is your evidence that these are related to sex? [1] http://i.word.com... |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00003-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | Thanks, SirCrona. Biology I don't want to say this... but right off the bat you say "different" sexes, implying we aren't equal [1]. Although I do know what you mean, saying "Men and women are equal... here's why men and women are different" isn't too good for your argument, lol. But back on point. There are physical differences between the sexes, thanks for clarifying. You're right that a self-replicating animal, or one that reproduces asexually, would not pass on any real advantageous genes, and the only real form of change from the parent to offspring would be slight adaptations to the environment. However my point is not that one sex has an advantage over the other or that one sex is better than the other - my point is that they are different/unequal. If I have a red ball and green ball, they aren't equal in colour, but they're both useful for playing catch with. Similar =/= equal. You're right that we both have nipples, however a woman's nipples have a much different function than a man's. She uses hers to produce milk to feed her offspring, whereas a man... well, he doesn't. There's not much use at all for the male nipples, whereas there's plenty of arguably important uses for the female nipples. Another point since we're talking about nipples and breasts, women are about 100 times more likely to develop Breast Cancer than men. There's a 1 in 8 chance of a woman developing Breast Cancer [2], while there's about a 1 in 1,000 chance of men developing Breast Cancer. 8 =/= 1,000. Women having the ability to breast feed does not make them "superior" caregivers, however they do have an advantage, and to say men and women are equal caregivers is just not right. Women produce "food" for their offspring, men don't. Although men can go buy milk, "Breastfeeding helps defend against infections, prevent allergies, and protect against a number of chronic conditions" - taken from KidsHealth.org [4]. So it's better for a child to be breastfed then fed from a bottle with a formula. It's also shown that women who give birth after 33 tend to live longer [5]. Do men have this option? Nope, so I wouldn't consider that equal, would you? Staying on the biological track, I stated that women tend to live longer after they've given birth, but it's also a well known fact that women tend to live longer than men in general. Women also tend to weigh less and stand shorter than men, weighing in at about 166lbs, and 5'4" [6], whereas men tend to weigh about 195lbs, and stand about 5'10" [7]. These numbers are based on long-term detailed studies, do you think these height and weight differences are equal? Men and women grow differently, this is not a negative thing, just an inequality between the sexes. Also, as you can see, male babies and female babies are different in weight (on average), with males tending to be a bit heavier, and grow a bit faster [8]. Now I've got more points on Biology but I'm keen on jumping into mental development of the sexes, so let's just get into that. Mental Development You claim that the only reason men and women develop different skill sets and different levels of intelligence is due to societal expectations, or external influences. I say the development of the brain and neural capabilities falls into similar growth patterns as our biological growth patterns. Since we can't really give an IQ test to an infant, when no external factors have influenced them, we have to do the next best thing - Study overall grades in different subjects. Whether differences be attributed to societal norms, peer pressure, any type of outside source, I'm sure you and I can both agree that there are in fact many differences between men and women, mentally. A study spanning from 2005-2010 shows that men excel in some areas where women excel in others, and are relatively similar (not equal) in others [9]. For example, if you chose to open the .pdf I provided you, you will see that women achieved A's seven percent more than men in Microbiology & Immunology, whereas men scored A's twelve percent more in Biochemical/Biochemistry Principles. Throughout most of the other subjects, men tend to score a bit higher than women overall. Is this attributed to societal pressure or standards? Maybe it's attributed simply to what those people are interested in, and it just happens women are more interested in Microbiology than Biochemistry. Maybe there's no "societal standard" at all, and it all boils down to personal preference, which happens to relate almost directly to sex. It's also shown that women are now scoring higher than men on IQ tests [10], after men have scored higher for the past century. So whether outside factors are a major influence or not, it doesn't change the fact that men and women are not equal in every area when it comes to mental capabilities. I think next round (considering we have plenty of time) I'll get into job performance and what influences men to excel in some fields, and what causes women to stay put in positions they're comfortable in, instead of taking risks and moving up. I'll also try to bring social groups (such as Feminism) into the picture. Conclusion So far we've found out several things - men and women are biologically different from birth. Men tend to grow a slight bit faster, and continue growing after women stop, to achieve a bigger frame than women. Women are able to produce natural food for their offspring, while men can't, however this trait also raises the chance of Breast Cancer in women, and lowers it in men. And of course the same applies for male sexual organs - testicular and prostate cancer is much higher in men than women. Mental capabilities differ through different topics, and simple differences in interests between the sexes can play a role. There isn't a definitive answer as to why there is a difference, but the main thing we know is that there is a difference, aka inequality. Thanks for a good first round, looking forward to the rest! Sources [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.cancer.org... [3] http://www.cancer.org... [4] http://kidshealth.org... [5] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [6] http://www.livestrong.com... [7] http://www.livestrong.com... [8] http://www.cdc.gov... [9] http://www.google.ca... [10] http://newsfeed.time.com... |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00004-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | My first point is on biology. Different sexes evolved in animals because having two sets of genes to inherit was more advantageous for the offspring. This accounts for the few physical differences in the sexes. However, if binary gender sexual reproduction created other differences, such as a lower tolerance for pain in one sex than in another, that would not be advantageous and natural selection would make short work of such a species. Evolution also mandated that the sexes be as similar as possible. To give an example: this is why both sexes have nipples, but only one makes use of them. This contradicts the misconception that women are superior caregivers. When the human race first evolved, life spans were short. Mothers did not always survive to raise their child, and often a male member of the group would have to raise it. The parental instincts existed in both sexes, so that children had a better chance of survival. My second point is mental development. There exists no difference between mental development or natural talent based only on sex. Most large differences in skills come from nurture and nature (i.e. the conditions one was brought up in) instead of biology. The fact that men and women appear to have different natural skillsets can be explained by this fact. Society arbitrarily places different expectations on the two, and as such they tend to develop different skills because of this external influence. |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00005-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | How did I know as soon as I saw your response to my statement on that poll that you'd challenge me to this? thanks for the challenge, I appreciate it - I'd prefer a "formal" debate over an argument on a poll topic. I agree to the terms and conditions, sign my life away. For clarity, I'll give the definition of equality from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, as you wish. Equality - The quality or state of being equal [1] Equal - Of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another [2] Thanks for challenging me to this debate, good luck to you too! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00006-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | My opponent made statements on this topic that I feel deserve a full debate. First round is for acceptance. I will be taking the pro position in this topic, and as such will argue that men and women are equal. My opponent, should he accept, must take the con position and argue that men and women are not equal. A few rules for this debate: -No arguments from sexism or other forms of bigotry. For example: "This argument my opponent has made is biased because he is a bigot." would not be OK. However, "This argument my opponent has made is biased because [Reason other than 'he is a bigot']." would be OK. -No begging the question, nor circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is bad because it makes your argument weaker. Circular reasoning makes your argument weaker because it is bad. -Semantic arguments are frowned upon. Merriam Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) English definitions will be used in this debate. If a definition other than Merriam-Webster's is used, that definition should be justified by the arguer and its source should be properly cited. Good luck. |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00000-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | Unfortunately we don't have much of a final round, so I'll sum up my arguments quickly here. Absolute equality is achieved when all aspects of two subjects are equivalent. A man and woman can appear to be equal at first, both sharing many similar or even equal traits, much like different coloured pens, however when we delve deeper into the separate traits and characteristics, we find that it's very hard for two things to be absolutely equal. Take my pen example, once again. Two pens, a green one and red one (because it's almost Christmas, #yoloswag420), and we study them. They are both pens, they are both used for writing, with the same amount of ink, same shape and weight, and can be used for the same things, however they both aren't equally red or equally green. So back to men and women - they can achieve very similar accomplishments, they can think relatively the same, however biologically, they are very different. This fact alone is enough to say men and women are not equal. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs... they don't equally produce sperm or equally produce eggs. I won't get into the intelligence parts of this again. Thanks for a good debate, hopefully we'll be able to have a similar one in the future! |
df2931dd-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00001-000 | Men and Women Are Equal | Thanks, SirCrona. I understand your assertion, but you must understand that unequal does not mean better or worse. it simply means different. Take my ball example, Red and Green balls. They're both balls and can be used for mostly the same things, however are they equally red? No. Are they equally round? Yes. Are they equally enjoyable to play with? Depending on personal preference, but you can do equal activities with each ball. But they are not equally the same colour. Red =/= green. It is not a bad thing that one is red and one is green, just like one sex has breasts and develops different parts of the brain at different speeds, and one sex has no breasts and also develops different parts of the brain at different speeds, they are unequal, but one isn't superior to the other. Biology Yes, every difference makes an inequality. My definition of "difference" is "not alike in character or quality," [1] emphasis on quality. Not alike in quality is also said as inequality. Your definition doesn't have the word quality anywhere, so if anything we should just leave it up to the voters to decide which definition is more reliable. "The colour of the ball is just a quality..." And what happens when the qualities are different? We get inequality. You're right that the balls would be equal for playing catch with, however they would not be equal in colour. Having one equal aspect does not make the two objects 100% equal. That's like saying one man and one woman both scored 121 on an IQ test, therefore men and women are equal. No, they aren't completely equal, we just have one situation where they scored an equal score on a test. This does not make the whole of the two sexes equal. The difference in colour is in fact what makes the balls unequal. It's the only unequal quality of the two balls. To say a red ball and a green ball are the same, or equal, just... doesn't make sense. Cancer You bring mortality rates into it, but those seem to be on my side. "Men are the only ones capable of dying from testicular cancer." - Women are not. This is an inequality. Women cannot develop testicular Cancer, this is an inequality. Men are much less likely to develop breast cancer, this is an inequality. Although both gender get cancer, 700,000 more men die than women due to Cancer, in 2013 anyway [2]. So to say Men and women are equal when it comes to diseases such as Cancer.... doesn't make sense. Breastfeeding The only difference is that breast milk is naturally produced by a woman. Antibiotics are not produced by men or women. Are you implying that the man-made medicine is equal to naturally produced "medicine"? Because it's not naturally produced, so I don't see how it's equal. Data Usage Where's my evidence that these are related to sex? By the outcome of the studies themselves. I see your point, however to say sex is not a factor when women score higher than men on tests... once again, doesn't make sense. A woman scoring 102 and a man scoring 100 is not equal. I'm sure we can agree on that. Is it strictly because they're just different sexes? I'm sure no, but when these scores are different within the sexes, doesn't that mean something? I showed you that infant boys and girls grow differently from birth, so it's safe to assume their brains also grow differently. The scores are a reflection of intelligence, and considering women score slightly higher than men as a whole, isn't that enough to show men and women aren't mentally equal? They grow differently (unequally) from birth, so what says their brains don't too? Actually, nothing says their brains don't, [3]. So what have we seen in this short time? Men and women are different, biologically and mentally, this is not a bad thing, and neither supports a "better" trait, however this does show there are many inequalities between men and women, during their mid life crisis, or from birth. And please keep in mind that one difference in one area shows that men and women as a whole are not equal. They can share as many traits as you can count to, but if one thing doesn't add up between the two, the ability to produce natural milk, for example, that just goes to show that men and women, as a whole, are not equal. Thanks, looking forward to a great conclusion. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.cancer.org... [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com... |
b0659314-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00000-000 | Sweatshops | My opponent hasn't provided a reasonable argument and has failed to counter mine. |
b0659314-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00001-000 | Sweatshops | First of all, many sweatshops are coercive in nature. People work in them, often under abusive conditions [1], because they have no place else to turn to. Secondly, sweatshops help create a cycle of poverty and ignorance that prevents people from advancing themselves. If we as a species seek to improve the welfare of other people then we should place our emphasis on giving people an education, not subjugating them in sweatshops. (Resolution negated) ---References--- 1. http://www.businessweek.com... |
b0659314-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00002-000 | Sweatshops | The humans there arent force to be in the sweatshop. They chose to be in a sweatshop so that they can make more then !$ a day instead of making money 0$ cause of the low imployment and education rate |
b0659314-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00003-000 | Sweatshops | The continued use of sweatshops represents a violation of basic human rights. Therefore, no degree of utility that can be achieved from running them can justify their maintenance. (Resolution negated) |
b0659314-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00004-000 | Sweatshops | Sweat shops are extremely important for this economic market that we are intraped in. The young man and women in this factory aren't inforced by the owners of the factory. There not like those dirty black slaves the have a choice. Another thing is if they didnt have the sweat shops, there would be NO jobs in china. Who would want to employ a bunch of TARDS. The sweat shops are imploying people. |
fffb2f76-2019-04-18T12:54:48Z-00000-000 | The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism. | I would say the idea of the environment started with Charles Darwin in 1859. "The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring. " [1]"In 1848, Marx and fellow German thinker Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto,” which introduced their concept of socialism as a natural result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system." [2]As you can see the idea of the environment came out after the idea of Karl Marx in 1848. So this idea isn't completely impossible. If the idea of the environment came before Marx was born I could show this as impossible. Instead, I will show how unlikely this idea that the environment is a socialist plot. Now Karl Marx and Darwin had contact, again I can't show impossible, but can show improbable. "Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl MarxOctober, 1873" [3]As you can see Marx and Darwin did not have contact until 1873 which was well after the idea of the environment was developed. Of course it is possible that Marx influenced Darwin to create the theory of evolution as a socialist plot to destroy capitalism, yet I find this absurdly improbable. Sources1. http://www.livescience.com...2. http://www.history.com...3. http://friendsofdarwin.com... |
fffb2f76-2019-04-18T12:54:48Z-00001-000 | The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism. | Hello, loyal comrades. As a devout socialist (coughs and splutters- apparently the word communist is illegal nowadays) I can confirm that the idea of an environment is a plot to destroy the capitalist infidels of the west, the idea is to push their focus so far into ideas of global warming and the environment that they will not see the coming revolution. Before they know it, the means of production will have been seized and the bourgeoise crippled. The master plan for the environmental decoy was first formed by loyal soviet Leonid Kzyladskystok, who's idea was taken by Comrade Stalin, and it's creator purged. The mighty Stalin then locked the idea away in a secret KGB chamber for later use. It was discovered years later, after the 'fall' of the mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, by loyal communist Hai Chi Zendog, who took the proposition to Xingping of China, who put the idea into action. In more depth, the plot is to pull the focus of weak, populist politicians such as Barack Obama to the issues of global warming, and how to prevent it, while secretly building up a force to crush the bourgeoise and initiate the revolution. Machines of war, such as tanks and planes, will be cut down due to their 'environmental cost' by the U.S. and other western infidels, while the loyal socialists in the east grow in strength for the revolution. Movements such as that of the infidel Donald J Trump have threatened to destroy the plot, so the spy Bernie Sanders was placed to win the presidency and continue to disillusion Americans and other westerners with the Global warming lie, in order to weaken the Bourgeoise for the upcoming revolution. So there you have it, capitalist pigs, from an insider. The idea of an environment is actually a socialist plot to initiate the revolution and destroy capitalism. Your loyal Comrade, Harry |
fffb2f76-2019-04-18T12:54:48Z-00002-000 | The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism. | I'm not sure where some people get these ideas from, but I think this is so crazy I can't even see the other point of view. Burden of proof will be 51% on Pro and 49% on me. Since I can't even see the other point of view, I'll let Pro go first. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... |
3d1ba219-2019-04-18T17:47:34Z-00000-000 | Everybody should tell the truth all the time | I have no further arguments, and has no more arguments to refute. |
3d1ba219-2019-04-18T17:47:34Z-00001-000 | Everybody should tell the truth all the time | It's true that reality is sometimes brutal, but it doesn't mean we should ignore it because it's unpleasant. It also might be true that the most mentally stable people are those who lie, but you should keep in mind that kids are also telling the truth all the time. You can't really say that kids are less happy or unstable. Moreover, I think that an honest person will feel better about himself if he'll be able to tell the truth rather than lie. If everyone were always telling the truth, it will be socially acceptable to tell the truth even when it's unpleasant, and the honest people will be the more mentally stable and happy. I'll now respond to my opponent:1. My opponent claimed that you lie in order not to hurt or get hurt. If you ask your partner about how you look in this outfit, you want to know what your partner really think about it. If you don't look good in that dress, and you'll go outside wearing that dress, than everyone will see you looking bad in that dress. 2. My opponent claimed that people will keep asking the same question until they'll get the answer they want to hear. I say, if we'll tell the truth all the time, in order to get the answer we want to hear, we will actually have to make a change. If I had a bad speech and everybody tells me I went good, I'll never get better, But if when I ask, I'll be told I was bad, next time I'll do my best to improve myself.3. My opponent claimed that knowing the truth might cause depression. Even in our world today, sometimes you fail, and people get to tell you that whether it's a test, or a job interview or a date. And it happens to everyone. There's no single person who had never experience failure. I even believe that some of this failures happens because of lying. Your mother tells you that you sing beautifully, you go to American Idol, now everyone can hear how badly you sound, laugh at you and it's on national TV. That may cause a bugger depression than if your mother would have told you from the beginning that you don't sing all that good... |
3d1ba219-2019-04-18T17:47:34Z-00002-000 | Everybody should tell the truth all the time | Honesty isn't always the best policy. Nobody wants to hear that they look heavier or less attractive. People who are honest all the time are considered blunt, antisocial, and pathological. Modern society is all built around lies. The movies you watch are people acting, and acting is a person pretty much lying to make people believe he/she is another person. There has also been studies that prove that depressed and mentally unstable people are more honest that mentally stable and happy people, meaning lying is actually good for a person. People who are masters of deception are proven to be more socially accepted than people who are honest all the time. Now to attack my opponents arguments. My opponents first argument was “if we tell the truth we will have better relationships.” My first answer to that is that people even in the most honest relationships have to lie sometimes. Maybe its your anniversary with that special somebody and for some reason you totally forgot and they ask you if you made the dinner reservations. You cant lie so you tell them that you forgot about it, because remember lying is not telling the full truth. They will be mad at you, while if you had lied you would still have time to make those reservations and enjoy your anniversary. My next answer is, if your loved one asks if they look fat (and they do in that horrid dress) you cant lie and will have to say “yes you look fat, and by the way I hate the dress” they WILL get mad at you. If you had lied, they would love you for at least a few more hours. My opponent second argument was “we save time” it is a proven fact that humans know what others want to hear, lets say someone gives a speech and they did okay and they come up and ask you if they did good. If you cant lie you will say “no” because they did in fact do okay not “good” they will keep asking until they hear what they want, whereas if you had lied and said “yes” they would be pleased and stop asking questions. My opponents last argument was “we will be calmer” that is a lie. If we tell the truth all the time well it leads to depression. If you are honest with yourself about everything, you will end up depressed. Just think about it, you did this wrong, you failed a test. You forgot that assignment, you aren't all that bright. If you are truly honest all the time, well lets just say that your thoughts will be flooded with the bad things you did. Why because you cant lie, no even to yourself. Which brings me back to my argument Honesty isn't always the best policy. |
3d1ba219-2019-04-18T17:47:34Z-00003-000 | Everybody should tell the truth all the time | This debate is inspired by the movie: "The invention of lying"http://www.youtube.com...Think of a world where no one ever lies. People don't even think it's a possible thing to say something which is not true.I think, for a change, it will be nice to live in this kind of worldHere's why I think it's a good thing:1. If everyone always tell the truth, we will have better relationships. Most of the arguments you have with the closest people (family, close friends, love partner) consider lying and hiding the truth. Once you are not able to lie - your relationship gets better !2. If everyone always tell the truth, we will waste less time. When you go to a job interview, or a first date - if the other side doesn't think you are right for what they need, they will immediately tell you, that way you won't sit at home, waiting for the phone to ring, or go to a second date when there is no chance.3. If everyone always tell the truth, we will be calmer. Every time you meet a new person you get worry - what if he is not what he claims he is ? For guys - Having sex with a girl, she tells you she's on the pill - and what if she's lying? For parents - Your kid tells you he goes out with his friends to a movie. and what if he get there on a motorcycle which you don't approve, or he goes to smoke cigarettes far away? No more worries ! What they say - it's all true ! |
2653d38e-2019-04-18T15:18:14Z-00000-000 | club peguin is bad | The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the bad-mouthing of Club Penguin and the tyranny of people who are wrong about Club Penguin being bad. Blessed is he, who in the name of an awesome hangout place, shepherds the dumb losers who don't want to be social through the heaps cool internet, for he is truly radical and a wicked. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my sick hangout place. And you will know my name is Zarroette when I lay my vengeance upon thee. |
2653d38e-2019-04-18T15:18:14Z-00001-000 | club peguin is bad | Despite my opponent forfeiting the opening round, I will still make an opening argument. For the purpose of this debate, "Club Peguin" will be assumed to be "Club Penguin", which I think is a genuine interpretation of the resolution's subject.Negative CaseA1: SemanticsA chief concern of my opponent's resolution is that "bad" is a very loose term. Further concerning is that bad is not defined. To illustrate my grave concern, according to Dictionary.com, bad can mean:1) causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful2) invalid, unsound, or falseNow, with regards to Club Penguin, it is true that Club Penguin, or at least participating in Club Penguin, can render a participant injurious wherein the participant dislocates a thumb in clicking the mouse too hard. However, in the other sense of bad, it is not true that Club Penguin is "false", due to the nature of Club Penguin not being a question or something that is of "false" nature.Therefore, according to "bad" definitions, it is possible that Club Penguin could be both bad and non-bad at the same time, which breaches the law of non-contradiction, and is thereby a logical fallacy [3]. Therefore, the resolution is inherently fallacious, due to its poor terminology.Counter-arguments"the reason why is because for alot of reasons like the membership the events and last but not least the community"This is a bare assertion, as my opponent provides no sources, statistics or anything else to prove these assumptions [1]. Hence, due to the logically fallacious nature of these arguments, they need not be further addressed.References[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.spurgeon.org... |
2653d38e-2019-04-18T15:18:14Z-00002-000 | club peguin is bad | I await my opponent's opening round of arguments. |
2653d38e-2019-04-18T15:18:14Z-00003-000 | club peguin is bad | the reason why is because for alot of reasons like the membership the events and last but not least the community |
20146ada-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00002-000 | People shouldn't judge music on genre alone. | I totally agree that weak musicians should not define a genre. If that is the argument you want to make then I am at a loss. The topic, however, wants to claim that people shouldn't judge music based on genre. I think this is generally false. The examples you give are of musicians and instruments, rahter than bands and genres. Each genre has a particular kind of sound. This is increasingly true as we specify the genre. All country music has a similar sound (to an extent), classic country more so. This similar sound gives people insight to the musicians/bands in the genre. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as genres or that band/musician would not belong in that genre. Given this insight, people can make a generalized decision as to that similar sound and determine, in extreme cases, whether or not to listen to that particular genre. If I look at a bunch of grapes and see that the first few grapes are soured, I can make a generally correct inference and safely assume that the rest of the grapes will be similar. |
20146ada-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00003-000 | People shouldn't judge music on genre alone. | There are many, many talented musicians in every genre. Whether it is pop, rap, R&B, rock, indie, jazz, etc; there are great musicians. Of course, there are the not-so-good musicians as well, but more times than less, the less popular or less talented musicians tend to be spelled out of the genre than the more popular or more talented ones. For instance, when it comes to the saxophone in general, more people think of Kenny G than they think of Ornette Coleman. When it comes to bassists, people know about Pete Wentz way more than Victor Wooten. It's the same in every genre and every instrument, but it shouldn't be like that. Genres shouldn't be defined by just the weaker musicians that found their niche in their particular style. |
20146ada-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00000-000 | People shouldn't judge music on genre alone. | Yes, bands in a particular genre are different, to a degree. But, as I stated before (and you seem to agree with me here) the bands in a particular genre all have a SIMILAR sound. Without that similar sound, there would be no genre. Yes, each band is different, but these similar sounds are what define the genre, and ultimately people's tastes. Avenged Sevenfold and Cradle of Filth are different and have different styles, but can be lumped into the same genre. If someone has an extreme dislike for one, they will most likely not like the other. It is the nature of the genre that groups bands together. Though all bands have slight differences, bands in the same genre have a similar sound. This similar sound equates to similarities in the band, which people can either identify with or not. Though it is a generalization, it is safe to say that I can make a judgement on a set of bands, based on the genre they are classified into, because the slight differences in style, technique, etc. will not be enough to effectively or drastically change my opinion between two bands in the same genre. If I don't like a handful of country musicians, I can safely say that I don't like country music, eventhough other country musicians are slightly different than the ones I have heard. The only exception here would be if I liked and disliked two bands in the same genre. However, if I specify the genre enough, this problem would be resolved (as I stated in round 1). For example, if I liked one rock band, and disliked another, I could specify my genre into screamo rock and classic rock which would divide them and allow me to make a decision based on genre. In general, I think it is obvious that this is the very purpose genres serve. Genres allow us to make these sweeping judgements safely because, by defintion, all bands in a particular genre will have the same likeable or dislikeable characteristics that will determine whether or not we like them. Even though the bands may have slight differences, that can either 1) put them in different genres if the difference is significant enough or 2) not be enough of a difference to change our opinion. These two options let us use genres, solely, to make our musical judgements. You obviously have a lot of musical insight and I really enjoyed the debate. |
20146ada-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00001-000 | People shouldn't judge music on genre alone. | Just because a lot of genres have artists that make the genre sound the same, it doesn't necessarily mean that the genre is good or bad. For instance, you could have two metal bands: Avenged Sevenfold and Cradle of Filth. While Avenged Sevenfold has undeniable talent and musicianship while still keeping the base of metal in their music, Cradle of Filth has the base of metal down well, but they don't go anywhere with it. Another example is the debate on who is better: Blur or Oasis? Both are huge in the 90's Brit Pop scene, and both absolutely hate each other. Both have their great songs and songs that just don't seem to make the grade. Oasis got to the public more with songs like "Wonderwall" and "Champagne Supernova", but Blur's only really big song was "Song 2", which was featured on a lot of commercials. Also, What about pop? You have a lot of pop artists like Alicia Keys and Christina Aguilera that are tremendously talented and artists like Britney Spears that give the pop scene a bad reputation. Is pop a bad thing? Absolutely not, but that of course is a whole different subject that is up for debate. There are a lot of great "emo" bands out there, but they get a bad reputation because of their tactics and behaviors. This probably isn't the greatest topic to have a debate on, because everyone has a different taste in music. That's what makes music great, but the way people choose their music isn't right. |
6bd41a70-2019-04-18T17:29:38Z-00000-000 | If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill. | to keep this debate from having absolutely no content at all.........................................JOHN WESLEY BELIEVED IN FREE WILLenough said. I win. |
6bd41a70-2019-04-18T17:29:38Z-00002-000 | If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill. | I'm sorry had a few unexpected personal issues i had to see to this past weekend. Could we possibly schedule a rematch? |
6bd41a70-2019-04-18T17:29:38Z-00003-000 | If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill. | well if you dont want to play than I dont guess I do either. |
6bd41a70-2019-04-18T17:29:38Z-00004-000 | If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill. | I accapt this debate.It's worth quoting just once though in a debate with a title like this Martin Luther who said "In non-essentials, Liberty. In essentials, Unity. In all things Charity."this topic does not qualify as an essential doctrine, and thus all christians accapt each other as fellow christians even if we disagree on the topic of Free Will. what makes us reject that another person is a fellow christian is if they deviate in an essential doctrine like instead of saying Jesus is the son of God if they say he was instead Michal the Archangel, or if they say the power of the Jesus sacrifice was not enough to save us from our sins, but we have to earn our way in to Heaven to some degree.Pro would have to establish that doctrine about Free Will is essential to truely uphold the resolution, however thanks to his clarifying remarks it's clear he doesnt want to argue it really means your not a christian brother if you believe in free will, he just wants to make a case that from our doctrine Free Will is not logical. and I will hold that debate with him just as well as the other.I look foward to my opponents opening round. |
6bd41a70-2019-04-18T17:29:38Z-00005-000 | If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill. | Definitions: Freewill: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Christian: Following Christian teachings. I. E. your god is a personal god (Joshua 3:10) The Christian god possesses all three qualities: Omnipresence (Psalm 139:7–10), Omnipotence (Revelation 19:6) and Omniscience (Psalm 44:21). **These are not the only verses to that the bible claims god has these qualities, just the ones off the top of my head. I feel there will be no argument on this point but just in case I cited. ** As I am making the claims that if you hold to Christian beliefs you cannot believe in free will, I hold the burden to prove that. I realize that you may actually believe in free will. My goal is NOT to show that you do not believe we have free will, but to show that Christian beliefs by nature do not allow you to believe it. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00003-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why I should accept your pathetic debate with all of the spelling errors in it. This is not kindergarten. If this was in college, ALL professors, No exceptions, None would easily give you an F on every single paper that you were to hand into them. AND it is not my job to weed through what you are trying to say considering the fact that you do not even know how to use a simple spell check. Now my English is not that good. But I do know how to use a spell check. Or I invent a word. Now first of all you cannot even prove that YOUR god even exists. "1. In order to love the entire word. . . " So that means right there by your own wording and statement you are guessing and you don't know and there is something that is out of YOUR god's power and that this god of YOURS simply doesn't care. Continuing "he must genuinely want the health of the world in good shape for its eternity. " Well then gee with a golly, Since this god of YOURS inception, Its been promised, But its ---never--- happened, Not even close. AND according to YOU and YOUR bible, In which YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible, Here's YOUR god's actions. . . * Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, All serial killers, All rapists, All tortures, All pedophiles, All sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, Disgusting, Repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, Diseased, Abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all. . . The great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count was there? 3, 000 EX 32:27-28, 14, 700 NU 16:49, 24, 002 NU 25: 1-11, 12, 000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10, 000 JG 1:4, 120, 000 JG 8:7-10, 42, 000 JG 12:3-6, 1, 000 JD 15:14-15, 3, 000 JD 16:27-30, 25, 101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34, 002, 1 SAM 6:19 50, 070, 2 SAM 8 65, 850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100, 000, 1 KI 20: 30 27, 000, 2 KI 19 35 -37 185, 000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500, 000! , 2 CHR 28:6 120, 000, Esther 9:5-18 75, 813, 2 CHR 14: 9-14 1, 000, 000! Etc * god hates gays in his bible and wants them stoned to death LV 20:13 * god hates anyone that blasphemes and wants to put you to death LV 24:16 * god hates anyone that does not believe in him in his bible 2 CHR 15: 12-13, ESPECIALLY if someone worships another god/ idols other than himself, Thus wants to kill them DT 13: 9-10 and 17: 2-5 * god endorses slavery in his bible EX 21 the entire chapter especially 20-21 which is truly sick and disgusting, LV 25:39, LV 25:42, LV 25: 44-46, DT 15: 12-15, DT 23: 14-16, MT 18:25, EPH 6: 5-8, COL 3: 22-24, TIT 2: 9-10, 1 PET 2: 18-21 * god gets jealous in his bible EX 20: 3-5, EX 34:14, DT 4: 23-24, DT 32: 16-17, DT 5:9, DT 6:15, JH 24:19, PS 79:5, PS 78:58, 2 COR 1:2, * god wants you to die in his bible if you work on the sabbath EX 31:14, NU 15: 32-36 * god issues death warrants on those that curse at their parents (they are probably children) EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4 * god wants to put you to death in his bible if you commit adultery LV 20:10 * god has freely admitted in his bible numerous times that he IS evil IS 45:7, 2 SAM 12: 11-14 sick and disgusting, EX 32:14, 1 KS 1 22: 22-23, 2 CR 18:22, JM 19:3, JM 19:15, JM 23:12, AM 3:6, DT 30:15, 2 KS 22:16, JU 9:23, PV 15:3 * god in his bible knowingly and truly hates children through numerous passages such as LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, 2 SAM 12:11-14 which is truly sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16, 2 KS 15:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, (EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21), JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, 2 KS 6: 28-29, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, 2 HS 2: 23-24, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, 2 KS 8: 9-15, LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23 * god hates women in his bible LM 4 9-11 sick and disgusting, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, JD 21:10, 2 SAM 12 11-14 sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31 17:18, LV 26 21:22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, DT 2 32-34, 2 KS 8: 9-15, 2 KS 15:16 sick and disgusting, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, 2 KS 6: 28-29 sick and disgusting, JD 19: 24-29, LM 2 20-22 sick and disgusting, 1 COR 14:34, 1 TY 2:12 * god loves rape in his bible NU 31: 17-18, 2 SAM 12: 11-18 sick and disgusting, JD 19:24-29, JD 21: 10-24, DT 20: 10-14, DT 22: 28-29, DT 21: 10-14, JD 5:30, EX 21 7-11, ZE 14: 1-2 proving that he is evil, Pure evil and nothing but, Is filled with hate and thus cannot be involved with love. * god commits abortions who knows how many times within several verses in his bible, So that means that christians do not follow their god which is extremely hypocritical and contradictory from his bible HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, 2 KS 8: 9-15 sick and disgusting, 2 HS 15:16 sick and disgusting, HS 9: 11-16, And perhaps the biggest acts of abortions were committed in the great flood according to this so-called god of the bible in the great flood (which never happened btw) so who knows how many pregnant mothers died there in his bible * god loves yummy cannibalism in his bible LM 2: 20-22, JM 11: 22-23, LV 26:29, 2 KS 6:28-29, LM 4: 9-11, Proving this god to be truly sick and completely whacked out thus is evil, Hates, And thus cannot be involved with love. . "2. We are all as living beings connected by a collective concious. . . " What you are speaking of right there has nothing to do with your god of the bible. You might want to recheck that. Its a nice invented excuse though. However if true as you state, Then it proves that you, If YOU believe in YOUR god then you have no free will. "We were all given the same oppurtunity to being as morally good or bad. . . " Oh absolutely 100% false. Where do you dig up your pearls? Try reading Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 and then get a clue and then come on back to me. K? Until then I'm ending this debate. AND if you are going to respond, Use a spell-check. Sheesh. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00004-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | I argue god cares about the whole world and not just a small group for 3 reasons. Tough love, Collective consciousness and free will 1. In order to love the entire word he must genuinely want the health of the world in good shape for its eternity. Which means not every group can be treated the same ubless they all act the same. Example, If i love my 2 children and one gets in troublw at school, If i tell the other not to play with him as punishment is that favoritism? No. Its setting an example by giving consequemces to bad actions. 2. We are all as living beings connected by a collective concious which means, We were all given the same oppurtunity to being as morally good or bad as we think is best for us to be happy. The fact that others are not as happy as others doesnt mean god doesnt love thwm, It means they are not apreciating his love as much as others. 3. Free will is why god lets people make mistakes evem though he know they will. I get it, Sounds flawed morally but think about this. If i know the outcome to a movie should i tell you? No! Because the answer isnt enjoyable, Watching the movie is. So god would have to know we would not enjoy being all good. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00005-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race - not just part of it. . . Which means this god is a superior ego god complex (in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else) who loves to sandwich in people for his own private little affairs. And since this god doesn't care nor love the ENTIRE human race, Then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that uprisings and bloodshed will occur especially when it isn't necessary which is not love nor care, That is if god is a true god in which he is not, Because nobody can prove that this god even exists. And why be evil and hate in the first place rather than bringing in peace, Harmony, Love, Care, Kindness etc in which has never happened for any length of time anywhere on this planet since his inception? Nah. So either way its a losing proposition for those that believe. But have at it. And another question that remains is. . . Why believe? Top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive (youtube) dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00000-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | Here on this site you have no authority to dictate how grading is based, Plus there is no grading only public voting based on whatever the voter decides I accepted the debate becuase the question asked is debatable. I dont believe in god but i can debate for or against his existence because i am a debator. As for the question of, What proof have I shown? Lets ask what point(s) have you ignored? MUSLIMS! A koran IS my proof. I didnt bother to cite text because THAT point is so debating that i thought you would have valid points AGAINST it and instead you responded unfocusedly. Look if you want to debate, Then debate. If you want to judge, Criticize or persuade someone, Then create hereiswhyyourewrong. Org and allow no responses from anyone with out credentials validating their grammatical fluency. I also argue, Christianity, Flawed as it may be, Is the REbirth of the brutal god your'e talking about. It is their way of coping with the faith in my eyes. But christians dont show as much dedication to the character god as much as they are devoted to the character jesus christ. Acknowledging newer ideas like "turn the other cheek" instead of god's version "eye for an eye. " Ergo, Not the most ignorant nor religion of the ignorants. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00001-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | "1. This is not school, Its real life. On the internet, On a free site, Open to the public. " Here on this site, Debates are graded on grammar and spelling. "2. Im not christian, I dont believe in god, " Then you should not have accepted this debate. Continuing "I only argue the point christians are NOT the MOST ignorant compared to muslims. Escpecially compared to you. " In which you failed to do because you brought in no proof or evidence to support your claims. "3. You yourself show massive ignorance. Ignoring my point" and what point was that? "Closing: im sorry you hate god so much". Well I showed you one helluva lot of evidence. What have you shown? Nothing. Tell yah what? Don't bother. I'm not going to thumb through your riddles that are unreadable through your maze of ABC's. |
54adaef3-2019-04-18T11:21:10Z-00002-000 | Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race | 1. This is not school, Its real life. On the internet, On a free site, Open to the public. 2. Im not christian, I dont believe in god, I only argue the point christians are NOT the MOST ignorant compared to muslims. Escpecially compared to you. 3. You yourself show massive ignorance. Ignoring my point and focussing on spelling because you were triggered by my atheist statement. Haha it is even more so ignorant to label me a god believer because i took the PRO side of YOUR debate. Closing: im sorry you hate god so much and hate how furstrating it is to have an open, Fact based discussions with christians. However, You are focussing that energy ineffectively. Your quotes are accurate from the bible, But i argue that the koran has even more non tolerant and distructive beliefs. I. E. Ignorance. |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00000-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | 1. But the point is that we are suppose to convince them. And even then, injuries have different degrees and retirement is based off of that. Someone may get no or petty injuries in every sport. Especially since the site only listed types of problems, but not numbers of injuries from each sport and the degree of each injury. Therefore we don't know which sport has more injuries. Therefore that point has been refuted. 2. That's one person. You can't say one person accounts for all. And how do you know? If it's because she said it then you are neglecting that people can lie. 3. I know who you were referring to, but yet you are still not a mind reader and you still can't possibly know. 3 Again. Yea but in swimming they don't have cooperation. In soccer you directly work with them by passing the ball to each other. In swimming you are by yourself, even if your team gets judged overall. No one can aid or cooperate with you like they do in soccer. 4. Really? You can't just copy a thousand links and paste them and expect me to read every single one. You are support to quote your evidence and provide it, then list your source. Extend my teamwork, portability, and money arguments. |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00001-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | 1. I wasn't talking to you when I said I'll let you decide, I was talking to the viewers because they can decide on their own without being told by either one of us. 2. I know Missy Franklyn and she swims for all the reasons I stated 3. when I said" like most athletes who play sports for the money," I was referring too profetional athletes like Michalle Jordan, and Michael Phelps. People like that who don't care about the sport anymore just the money. 3.swimming has teamwork, propably more than any other sport. Though you are judged on your own score in the race, in the end it is about who's team has the overall high score. Me and my team are like family, and so is the USA Olympic swim team. 4.I would like you to rethink that health fitness stuff about swimming, and why you should choose swimming over soccer, it is all in these sights. http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... and when you read this one don't stop at the first sport, keep reading through all of them. http://www.answers.com... and FYI this is not me. http://www.answers.com... hthttp://www.humankinetics.com... http://www.active.com... http://www.medicaldaily.com... theses are just some of the reasons swimming is better than soccer. |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00002-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | My opponent provided me with two links saying that she"s not going to say which one is more dangerous, and that I get to pick after reading both of the links. So I decide that swimming is more dangerous. And my opponent obviously doesn"t understand anything about health so I will put it simply. If someone is anorexic and plays soccer which burns less calories, this person will die later than if someone was anorexic and swimming. Unless they build muscle, but to build muscle you need to eat. Therefore it depends on the person. It depends on the diet, health issues,... Etc. So my point has not been refuted. Then my opponent points out that most swimmers don"t do it for the money, but pro has conceded that there are some people who do. But how does my opponent know if someone does it for the money or not, pro isn"t a mind reader. Therefore pro has no proof that more people swim because they love it rather than for the money. And even if some people do it for the sport, money is still a benefit. It"s not mutually exclusive. People can still do it because they love the sport and love the money they get as a result of it. "See most swimmers are not big headed like most athletes who play for the money" So basically my opponent is saying that most athletes do their sport for money, but only swimmers do it because of the love of the sport. How can my opponent possibly know that? " I don't know what I would do if I wasn't allowed to swim anymore. I have tried tons of sports but none of them compare to swimming. I believe that's what the other swimmers feel as well." This is basically my opponent saying that because pro feels this way about swimming, that everyone has to as well. There is no valid evidence for pro to assert this about athletes, but not about swimming. Teamwork "While fitness goals are generally very personal, we can all benefit from sharing common goals with others who push us towards them. The lessons that players learn on the field translate to the rest of their lives and the camaraderie teammates share in unparalleled. The ability to work with others to reach a common goal is powerful when related to everyday life- in other words, join a team!" In soccer, people need to learn to work as a team, therefore they learn the important skill of cooperation. Portability "Soccer is not an expensive or prohibitive sport. All that is needed is space and a ball. It is a relatively simple sport to catch onto and is played mostly outdoors, which we already mentioned as being healthy here." In swimming, you realistically need a big pool to swim. But in soccer all you need is a space and a ball. I can play in my room, but it would be hard to swim in it. Source- http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00003-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | https://www.verywell.com... http://www.enjoy-swimming.com... Con asked me to prove that soccer is more dangerous than swimming through a link. Well I have put in 2 different links. The first on is common soccer injuries and the second is common swimming injuries. I am not going to tell you which is more dangerous, I am going to let you decide after reading them both. Con also says it is a bad thing that swimming burns calories for people under weight, but actually it's not. http://familydoctor.org... This link is a doctors view of underweight people. It says you should build up muscle strength, and that is what swimming does as well. When I started swimming I was underweight and now I am all muscle, and healthy as ever. So I would love to hear your explanation for that Con. And I would also like to point out that most swimmers don't swim for money. They do it cause they love when they dive in,the water surrounds them in total solitude, and the water and their body work as one organism, and they love when they get out of shape and go back to swimming and feel their muscles ache from the 2 hour practice and how they feel their muscle tone coming back. See most swimmers are not big headed like most athletes who play for the money, they swim cause it is part of their life I don't know what I would do if I wasn't allowed to swim anymore. I have tried tons of sports but none of them compare to swimming. I believe that's what the other swimmers feel as well. |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00004-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | So my opponent has conceded that in swimming people don't compete against other people, but only themselves. But the thing is that in soccer you compete against other people and yourself. Soccer players compete against themselves so they can compete against other players and win. It's not like Messi or whomever you think is the best soccer player, stops practicing. Soccer players practice so they can improve their skills. They also compete against themselves by, for example, juggling. Soccer players push themselves to be better at the sport. Then my opponent says that there is a more of a chance for people to get injured in soccer than in swimming, but I see no evidence presented for this assertion, therefore I ask pro to provide it with the link. Then my opponent claims that you burn more calories in swimming, but that's good depending on the person. For example, that would be bad for someone who is underweight and is trying to gain weight. Therefore that point is futile. Pay If you look at one of the top paid, I don't even know if he is the top paid, Messi has a net worth of 218 million. The richest swimmer I found is Michael Phelps, and he has a net worth of 55 million. http://www.alux.com... |
8840debf-2019-04-18T13:05:37Z-00005-000 | swimming is a better sport than soccer | swimming is a sport where you compete against yourself not other people, so it pushes you to do better than you did before. and if you swim you have less of a chance to get injured so you don't have to retire as soon as you would in soccer. plus swimming is the fastest way to burn calories. |
2137152b-2019-04-18T18:10:20Z-00000-000 | Solar Power Plant vs Investing | /end debate |
2137152b-2019-04-18T18:10:20Z-00001-000 | Solar Power Plant vs Investing | Based on my opponent's new feed, he has been fairly active over the last 2 days, yet did not post an argument. I will extend my own and hope that he posts something next round. |
2137152b-2019-04-18T18:10:20Z-00002-000 | Solar Power Plant vs Investing | There are a number of things that will need to be mathematically worked out, so this is going to be a long post, full of numbers. I do apologize in advance for this, but ask my opponent and readers to work through it. First, we need to isolate all the factors for both a new solar power plant. From those factors, we can then focus on finding out costs, efficiencies, lifespans, and so on. Remember that we are looking at the total starting cost of the facility, the operating costs, and the money that it generates from the sale of electricity. So let us take a look at what we will find. The Solar Power plant that we will look at will be considered large by solar scale, but fairly small compared to Coal or Nuclear. Our setup is looking at a 140 MW plant (I believe the current largest in the US is around 550 MW). Unfortunately, the power-plant grade solar panels are not as readily available to the open public as personal solar panels, so getting exact prices per panel and finding a large number of them to compare prices to find the best deal is not realistically possible. However, it is safe to say that they are a better deal than the smaller home grade ones (otherwise, they'd just use the home grade ones). So what I'll do is use the price and warranties of the home grade ones and I accept the handicap that comes with it. The panels that we'll be using shall be these [1]. They come to $0.95 per watt, so a 140 MW plant will cost $133 million dollars just for the solar panels, a large chunk of change. Let us also note that the panels come with a 25 year warranty and estimate that their efficiency will drop about 0.5% per year [1]. The next thing to look at will be our construction costs. New innovations from Europe have removed nearly all of the labor (replaced with machines that can install in nearly any terrain) [2]. They show that the cost is only about $1 million for a 14 MW system. Expand this out and we find an installation cost of about $10 million for a 140 MW system. That brings our total cost to $143 million. Next we need to look at the land to place all of this. 140 MW for panels that get 146.1 W/m^2 [1], means that we'll need 958,247.8 m^2, or about 0.96 km^2, or 236.8 acres. Let us take a look at how much land goes for when you get away from the city. Looking at [3], we can see that land is selling at about $500 an acre. This means our land cost is going to be about $120 thousand, which comes to less than 0.1% of the total cost (but we need to consider it). Next we need to look at the annual expenses of maintaining this plant. Since the sun does not charge us for sunlight, there is no fuel cost. However, there is still your standard operating costs (maintenance, personnel, etc). Large Photoelectric plants have an O&M cost of $16.70 per kW [4, page 7]. For our large facility, this will come to $2.34 million a year for our O&M. Now, this will be an annual cost, and so subject to rising costs of labor and inflation (3% per year). This ties up the solar power planet rather nicely. Before we start number crunching the solar power plant, let us look at if we took that initial $143 million investment, and stuck it in some bonds or something at 5% per year. Over 25 years, we find that it has grown to $461.2 million. For the sake of fun, let us also look at if we had 10%. That would yield $1,408.5 million, or almost ten times the initial investment. So now that we have a measuring stick, let's take a look at how solar pans out. The electric rate in Arizona can vary from place to place and month to month, but the average $0.1029 per kWh (or $102.9 per MWh) [5]. We can do the math that for 6.5 sun hours (annual average, there will be more in summer and less in winter), the plant will generate 332,150 MWh, which comes to $34.18 million. After the $2.34 million for labor, we find ourselves with $31.84 million. Of course, this money will not just be sitting in a mattress, but it will be invested into the same 5% (or 10% or whatever rate the other one is getting) option that is available. The next year, we find that the solar panels are slightly less efficient (now down to 99.5%), labor is up 3% and electric costs are up 3% and the $34.18 million just made 5%. And we repeat and add for 25 years until the solar panel warranty ends (though the panels will still be good for decades after, we need some concrete ending point). What we find is the solar panels end up making over $1.94 billion over their 25 years. Over four times the amount that the investment would have. But 5% is pretty low, right, so what about 10%? Well, with that, solar would have made (from its profits going into that very fund) $3.795 billion, still well over twice as much as the investment. Where is the balancing point of where the investment finally overcomes solar? With these inflation rates, it is currently at 31.718%, in which case both investments would bring in over $106.35 billion over the 25 years. Of course, if you could find a fund that provided 31.718% annually for 25 years, you could put in $10 a week for 25 years and have $1.6 million by the end of it (sounds like a solid retirement plan). What we can see is that the rates for solar panels has dropped incredibly throughout the years and the labor costs (especially when done in large scale and not fixed to a roof) have dropped due to new technology. Solar is now effective enough that it will be a viable power source in many southern regions and we will continue to see more and more of them appear. Thank you. [1] . http://www.affordable-solar.com... [2] . http://www.technologyreview.com... [3] . http://www.landandfarm.com... [4] . http://www.eia.gov... [5] . http://www.eia.gov... |
2137152b-2019-04-18T18:10:20Z-00003-000 | Solar Power Plant vs Investing | Investing in solar panels is essentially investing like one would with a check one gives to the bank to earn interest. The interest in this case is the accumulation of sun hours converted into energy. The state of Arizona would still be trying to save money, just through the medium of alternative energy sources. I believe using this undeveloped medium is less effective than if they just invested the money traditionally. Solar panels are EXTREMELY expensive when compared to other sources of energy. Newer technologies will develop making the solar panels of today look like the room-sized-computers of the 1950's making the investment bad by design as it will take a long time for it to pay off. |
2137152b-2019-04-18T18:10:20Z-00004-000 | Solar Power Plant vs Investing | First and foremost, BOP is split between both members (each has the BOP for their side). Second, a few assumptions that are not challengable in the debate. 1) Flat inflation rate of 3% per year. 2) In Arizona, we are looking at an annual average of 6.5 sun hours per day [1]. 3) Labor rates and electric rates will follow inflation rates. 4) Solar will last for the duration of it's warranty and deteriorate at 0.5% per year. 5) Investment rates will be at a flat 5% 6) Since we are talking about an existing Power Company, things such as power lines and other infrastructure is already in place and outside of this debate. And on to the debate. .. It is 2013 in Arizona and with growing populations and the manufacturing picking up. As such, the state government has gotten together with a large power company XYZ, to get a new Solar power station built. Unfortunately, in order to balance the federal government, all energy tax credits have have discontinued and all green energy needs to sink or swim on its own. The government will ensure that property is sold for market value (after all, if people know that there is a sudden huge demand for land, price will skyrocket). My opponent and I will be arguing to the board members of the company (the voters) on what to do. I will argue for a large scale solar power plant, while my opponent will argue that it would be better to just take the money and invest it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.affordable-solar.com... *if anyone would like to argue some other fossil fuel (such as natural gas), please PM me and we can work something out. |
48d33cc1-2019-04-18T16:05:13Z-00000-000 | Professional athletes make ideal role models | No further arguments. |
48d33cc1-2019-04-18T16:05:13Z-00001-000 | Professional athletes make ideal role models | Rae Carruth, Robert Rozier, Evangelos Goussis, Leslie Hylton, Bertil Fox, were all professional athletes convicted of murder.http://www.ranker.com... |
48d33cc1-2019-04-18T16:05:13Z-00002-000 | Professional athletes make ideal role models | Pro's resolution implies that all professional athletes make ideal role models for all people. Therefore, my burden is to prove that there are professional athletes who do not make ideal role models.My character limit is 500, so I can't provide my arguments. I will provide examples of athletes who do not make ideal role models.O.J. Simpson murdered 2 people http://bleacherreport.com...Mike Tyson raped a girl and went to jail.*No room for link |
48d33cc1-2019-04-18T16:05:13Z-00003-000 | Professional athletes make ideal role models | Professionalism in sport I believe professional sports people make ideal role models. The definition of role model is "A person who serves as an example of the values, attitudes, and behaviours associated with the role. Role models can also be persons who distinguish themselves in such a way that others admire and want to emulate them." Professional sports people do just that. whether the person who looks up to them is looking at doing the same career choice when their older or even transferring the skills they learn from them into their everyday life. Professional sportsman train hard and repeatedly try to do their best effort which is a good skill for those who look up to the professional sportsman to pick up that skill. |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00004-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | Ok, this was kinda funny so i decided to take a stab at it. I'll admit that old Al is a bit of a blow heart but a terrorist.....thats more than a stretch. My opponents argument is that Gore's movie, An Incovenient Truth, was essentialy terrorist propaganda meant to "scare the masses into a panic about global warming". Remember, his burden is as stated: "I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist." I think this debate fundementally boils down to the notion that words have meanings. My opponent wants to open up the word terrorist to include anybody that has something to say that might cause concern or worry in another person. Is your mother a terrorist for telling you to put on sun screen because you may get cancer (although like global warming, that is disputed by some scientists ;) He claims that this has "Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming". So in effect, his argument is not even hinged on the claim that the panic inducing warnings expressed by Gores movie Arent true...He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful. If you believe that a terrorist is anybody that makes you worry about something than you should vote pro regardless of the following rounds. My opponent asks you to vote on simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court. but assuming that his (not so)"simple definition" will allow us to better understand whether or not Gore is one lets examine it: "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I really dont even know what my oppenent is talking about. Here he outlines the criteria for a terrorist....which clearly exhonerates Gore. I'm eager to hear his rebuttal... btw my aunt called me this morning a told me to watch out because the flu is going around....does anybody have the number to homeland security?...i want to report her as a terrorist |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00005-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist. This is not about global warming, this is about a simple definition. Please do not vote based on opinion, vote on the debate. Now while I await an opponent to accept, I will bring up some of my main points. Here is the defintion fo terrorism the United States government uses: "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." By this definition Al Gore is a terrorist. I Believe Al Gore used his film, An Incovenient Truth, to scare the masses into a panic about global warming. He showed images of some of the countries largest cities being destroyed by flooding as they were lower than sea level. Doomsaying as this could do much more than just worry people about global warming, it could even affect things like housing prices in the area! Although I am not saying he would have caused these other affects intentionally, would he not have intimidated, and in doing that, coerced a civilian population as the definition of terrorism states? Even Richard S. Lindzen, a writer for Wall Street Journal, wrote in the June 26, 2006 issue that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Here we have the definition of terrorism used by the European Union : "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." Now I will shut down at least one argument I know will come into use by my opponent if they dont have common sense, that is that he didn't commit any violent acts, so no he can't be a terrorist. Here is the definition of terrorism used by the United Kingdom: "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." Here violence is a possible method of terrorism, but not necessary for the act to be committed. I hope this will be a good debate. |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00000-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | Bada bing...... [At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's." I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another.] ...thats pretty funny...in the future i wont respond to claims you qualify with COULD....my bad.. |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00001-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | I am afraid I must concede. I have found that the defenitions I have used are incomplete, and taken out of context. I did not realize this... When looking at the definitions in their entirety I see that none implicate Al Gore. I am afraid you must vote con. But there are still points you made that are mute. "My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate." When you said this you're completely incorrect. At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's." I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another. And when it comes to, evidence that Al Gore used his film as a method to scare the public, my evidence should be sitting in the "obvious" column. Fear is the most efficient form of control, it is used constantly by governments and organizations. It is woven into the very fibre of the documentary. Anyone would be afraid if someone came at them with images of their homes and businesses being washed away in an immense flood. And yes the main goal was to tackle the issue of our inability to define what we mean with language, without actually tackling the issue. I may have gone about it the wrong way, in attempting to get attention to my issue by making a big astounding statement that would shock people. Maybe next time, I should actually tackle the issue itself... So, while I do concede defeat with this topic, your rebuttle still had many incorrect points, and I do stand by the underlying message of this debate about language, although it was not proven...TODAY. I lose my first debate =P |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00002-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | Where do I even begin. My opponent wants to confuse you by taking word after word out of context and manipulating it to fit his silly arguement that Al Gore is a Terrorist. Lets examine the evidence he provides. "I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism." "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I ask my opponent to source and link this information because it appears to be incomplete. As I understand, any definition from subsection 1 has to have an action that falls into subsection 2 to qualify as terroism. My opponent is claiming that by definition of the US Government anyone who attepts to "advance a political, religious or ideological cause" is a terrorist. This is a gross (and a bit silly) mis-interpretation of the law. He points to another uncited definition of terrorism as: "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." and goes on to say: "He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not." My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate. Now...superflous claims and botched definitions aside, my opponent was begining to touch on something kinda interesting towards the end of his argument: "In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists." subtract the fist sentence of that paragraph and your actually on to something there. |
2c5282d9-2019-04-18T19:39:34Z-00003-000 | Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. | We have a challenger. "My opponent asks you to vote on a simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court." Well the United States Government disagrees with you, there is a very simple defenition and it has been stated. I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism. "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I will also point out that even if Al Gore did not fit this defenition of terrorism in the United Kingdom, he would still be considered a terrorist by the European Union, and the United States of America. Earlier in the debate you stated: "He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful." This is not what I am saying, you are being misleading. I point you once again, to the defenition of terrorism used by the United States of America. "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not. In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists. This is a statement by Edward Peck, the former U.S Chief of Mission in Iraq. "In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities." He is a testament to the failure of us to explain what we mean. He attempted to define terrorism, and it implicated the United States Government itself. Now it implicated one of that countries upstanding citizens, Al Gore. We face the ultimate challenge in defining our language, and we fail often. This is one of our failures. |
95469715-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00001-000 | The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480. | Rats! My opponent ducked out. Okay, here's what Thomas Woods, an academic I admire, says about foreign aid: "Western aid programs (have) proved disastrous for the Third World. Among other things, since they took the form of government-to-government grants they entrenched in power some of the most brutal and economically repressive regimes in the world. Thanks to infusions of U.S. and other Western aid, these regimes could prosper without having to institute market reforms." In addition to being unconstitutional, I think the history of foreign aid shows it has done virtually nothing to lift living standards, and instead, has gotten in the way of modernization and establishing productive free-market economies. |
95469715-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00002-000 | The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480. | You assert that the U.S. government should repeal PL 480 AND IN ITS PLACE, purchase locally grown food for aid purposes. I will agree that the U.S. should repeal PL 480, but only along with all foreign aid to all nations. The primary reason is that all such foreign aid is unconstitutional. The Constitution exists to limit the government's power and to defend its citizens against tyranny. Only things specifically authorized or mandated in the Constitution are acceptable activities for the federal government to engage in. There is no such authority for the federal government to give foreign aid. Secondly, foreign aid is immoral and arrogant. It is immoral because it is wrong to collect taxes -- by force -- of money earned by American laborers and then put them to supposedly charitable use elsewhere in the world. If you disagree, then are you willing to advocate 100% tax rates wherein the government would make all of the purchasing decisions for its citizens? If not 100%, then what is the appropriate amount of money that can be taken from the wage-earner, against his will, and put to "good use" by the government? And it is arrogant because it assumes that the governing elite are smarter than the working people, who should be free to give to the charities of their choice. Individuals making decisions with their own money make better decisions, in the aggregate, than even smart central planners. This has been proven in several studies outlined in the book, The Wisdom of Crowds. Thirdly, the best way to create agricultural jobs in Africa and other Third World regions, is to eliminate the appalling levels of welfare doled out by the U.S. government to America's farmers. Agricultural subsidies for rich American farmers make it impossible for Third World farmers to compete on the global market. What you are advocating for is continued welfare to U.S. farmers, along with more welfare for African farmers so they can compete with the welfare queens in the U.S. This all assumes that the marketplace will not work -- that people will not buy food without the government's subsidies. This is a false argument. The poorest areas of the world are the least capitalistic, and least connected to the modern global economy. They are also the heaviest recipients of aid. These are not coincidences. The world as a whole will benefit when the Third World finally joins us in the first, based on the classical economics principles of comparative advantage and division of labor. But the key to getting there is less government, not more. I look forward to the day when Africa is the leading exporter of agricultural products, but every interventionist effort by the U.S., the IMF, and the World Bank, etc., only prolong the misery of the African people. |
95469715-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00003-000 | The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480. | The restriction on PL 480 that requires that 3/4 of all food aid purchased must come from US sources, should be removed, in its place the United States Federal Government should purchase food aid locally. This would benefit poor agrarian nations by providing agricultural jobs, and breaking cycles of famine. "A dynamic 'agriculture for growth' agenda can benefit the estimated 900 million rural people in the developing world who live on less than a dollar a day, most of whom are engaged in agriculture." -Robert Zoellick (World Bank President) |
95469715-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00000-000 | The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480. | 1. Foreign aid is unconstitutional. 2. Americans are generous and, if they had more money (less taxation and inflation), they would gladly -- voluntarily -- part with their money for legitimate good causes. 3. But they would NOT, by and large, support dictators; which is what foreign aid has been demonstrated to do. 4. History shows that foreign aid hurts the people it's (supposedly) intended to help. Not only be entrenching dictators, but also by creating a cycle of dependency. 5. My opponent argues that changing this law would help Africans export agricultural products. The truth is that taking away the "domestic aid" to U.S. farmers would just as much (probably more) to help African farmers compete. Why add on another layer of welfare when you can achieve the same effect (or better) by stripping away a layer? Why make global food prices higher -- is this really a solution to starvation and poverty? I think not. |
bfe8d3ab-2019-04-18T17:54:26Z-00000-000 | polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous | My opponent has forfeited the last round. I have nothing new to add. |
bfe8d3ab-2019-04-18T17:54:26Z-00001-000 | polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous | humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage? con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples. First off, yes, in fact it does reflect the natural state. Birds are highly monogamous(1). However, even if this was not the case, what my opponent is claiming is purely a naturalistic fallacy(2). What is done in nature, doesn't necessarily mean that we ought to do it in human society. Secondly, my opponent never actually responded to my argument that this is only jumping around from sex partners. I would like a response to that argument. and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together. I never said it was impossible, and my opponent has ignored the probable scenario involving divorces. If two of your wives divorced you, and you have to pay alimony and child support to both those wives, and you have another wife at home, is it the same as having a single wife divorce you with 4 kids? Clearly not. and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it. First off, nothing prevents bill from having more children with his current wife. Mormons are a great example, in which, even when they live a monogamous relationship, they still have dozens of children. Secondly, with this argument, my opponent has switched the point of marriage not from sex or relationships, but rather, to power. A rich man who can afford more women, would have more wives. A poor man who could not afford more wives, would have less. This demeans and lowers women, bringing back bronze age belief systems regarding how the rich and powerful covet and horde more women. in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too. My opponent keeps bringing up nature, but ignores the fact that most instances in nature that practice polygamy are polygynous. In nature, it is the alpha male that hordes most of the females, and females cannot have multiple male partners because a female requires more investment in rearing and producing children.(4) This also ignores our understanding of current psychology and societies that exist today. Currently, polygyny is the most common with 83% of people practising it worldwide, whereas polyandry is the least common, with only 0.47%(5). as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them. If by "Necessarily", my opponent is referring to the fact that we could not uphold the rights and equality of all partners in the relationship, then yes. Is Pro suggesting that equality and rights are simply mere "preferences"? Also, yes, I would like Pro to address the problem regarding equality and rights that I presented. So please, pro, address them. Now, I shall add an argument of my own. Monogamy has shown to reduce social problems over polygamy. Polygamy has been shown to produce more problems such as crime, due to the fact that there are less women to marry, and therefore more single men, who take more risks since they have no investment in their family. The studies have shown that monogamy reduces rape, murder, robbery and assault(6)(7) as well as a myriad of other social problems. Lastly, someone in the comments asked for this, so I shall deliver. Here is a source for how polygamy produces unstable relationships due to multiple partnerships.(3) Sources: 1. http://www.stanford.edu... 2. http://courses.csusm.edu... 3. http://www.jstor.org... 4. http://www.stanford.edu... 5. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 6. http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca... 7. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org... |
bfe8d3ab-2019-04-18T17:54:26Z-00002-000 | polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous | i argued polygamous marriage is more normal than gay marriage. but i'll take it one step further and say the fact of the matter is it's more normal that traditional opposite marriage itself. humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage? con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples. and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together. and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it. in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too. as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them. |
bfe8d3ab-2019-04-18T17:54:26Z-00003-000 | polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous | Now, I will address some of my opponents arguments before going into some of my own. but it's at least as natural, or even more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state. they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc. .. and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either The problem with this argument here, is that the examples of "polygamous" animals in nature is: a) Almost exclusively polygynous, I. e. One male with multiple females, and b) Has nothing to do with long term relationships, such as those seen in marriage, and everything to do with simply having multiple sex partners. The problem with A, is that this type of polygamy is extremely limiting in equality and rights of women. With B, clearly the problem here is that this is not only legal in most human societies, it is also counterproductive to the very reason of marriage. Also, it is spelled "Shoulder", and I am unsure as to why you spelled "polygamous", differently, twice in the same sentence. but with the gay marriage coming first in society. .. . it opens up the question of marriage, it is fair to argue, that to be fair or equitable to those who aren't monogamous we allow it. some call it a slippery slope appeal. .. . but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage. Please explain how it is more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage. Do not forget the fact that homosexuality exists in nature as well. (1) Now, I shall present my own arguments. 1. Polygamy would create a logistical nightmare. If we allow polygamy, it would create a logistical nightmare for the government to keep track of both the spouses, children, family, etc. Assuming that we allow both Polygyny(A male taking multiple wives) and polyandry(A woman taking multiple husbands), we would have multiple people with multiple wives and husbands. Your wife could have three husbands, and 2 of those husbands are married to 2 other women, and so forth. Marriage provides various benefits that are shared throughout the family, and polygamy would seriously cost the government time and money to both track down, confirm, and provide equal benefits to all wives and husbands. 2. Polygamy produces problems in court. Consider this scenario. So, your husband is on life support. You want to take him off life support and pull the plug. Three of your fellow wives agree. Your other 2 wives, do not. Clearly, the rights of the wife, will be violated, whichever action is chosen. The problem is clearly outlined. Where do the individual rights begin, and others end? It's not possible to give equal rights to all partners in a polygamous relationship. Another problem it produces in court, is during divorce proceedings. If 2 of 4 wives divorce their husband because he was being abusive, the wives suffer, because the husband could not possibly pay for child support for 2 wives, while caring for 2 other wives. 3. Polygamy hurts the marriage. How is a husband supposed to provide care and attention to their wives, when they have 3 wives? Furthermore, polygamy can also produce jealousy and resentment, not to mention the fact that marriage is built on compromise and partnership, yet, if one wife does not agree, the husband does not need to compromise; he has 2 other wives who will fulfill his needs, doesn"t need to do anything to the other wife, and just has to wait to get her to come around. I now await my opponents response. Sources: 1. . http://www.news-medical.net... |
bfe8d3ab-2019-04-18T17:54:26Z-00004-000 | polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous | really, gay marriage doesn't in itself presuppose polygamous marriage. but it does open the question...if we are willing to forgo tradition and allow gay marriage... why not just reexamine marriage altogher? why keep marriage defined between two loving people? Polygamists just need to say "why only two?" Europe and Canada have massive polygamy campaigns. And, it's well known that mormons had and in some sects still do multiple marriages... and if you look in histoiry, it's not without basis in other places too. so the appeal to merely the way things are usually done doesn't really amount to much either, espeically if we're opening up the question for gay marraige/ the same reasons we allow gay marriage we could use to allow polygamous. some gays want to say nature made them that way, so its' natural.sure maybe whatever. but it's at least as natural, or even more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state. they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc... and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either there's no reason gay marriage should have more recognition and respect than polygamous marriage. in fact, it's far more natural, as i've stated, for there to be multiple relationships ebtween opposite sexes... than gay couples. polygamous marriage should come before gay marriage. but with the gay marriage coming first in society.... it opens up the question of marriage, it is fair to argue, that to be fair or equitable to those who aren't monogamous we allow it. some call it a slippery slope appeal.... but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage. i could see allowing gay marriage etc as a token to others... "we allow people to marry one mate, so we extend the one mate rule to others". it's not unreasonable for this to be a basis for restricting marriage to only monogamous couples as an insittution. but, if we're being fully equitable, especially basing things on natural law, if we allow one thing, we should allow more. (this isn't even getting into ridiculous arguments about mating or marrying animals... that's not a natural state, while polygamy etc is) soem say we shouldn't change the laws because of its practical effects. we can always adjust the laws to accomodate many people though, even if it does cause more of a ripple than merely two gay people marrying. i'd also argue that if we can restrict marriage to polygamous couples, we could restrict it to gay couples as well. but my main contention is if we do allow to gays etc, we should to polygamous etc. |
bdcc5be-2019-04-18T14:24:07Z-00000-000 | no fear | Fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.Looking at this definition we can also tell that fear is not necessarily based on knowledge. Fear is primarily based on the fear of danger. All I need to do to win this debate is to provide an example of when no fear can be equal to someone not being certain. An example of this is: a boy is doing an exam, he does not know the answer to many of the questions. He is not scared like his friends are, he had no fear. This example shows that the boy was not certain about anything (as my opponent claims that he has to). Since there is no 2nd round to this debate I have won since I can refute what my opponent staes and my opponent cannot refute my arguments. Vote Con! Sourcehttps://www.google.co.uk... |
bdcc5be-2019-04-18T14:24:07Z-00001-000 | no fear | NO FEAR=answers being certain, seeking based on doubt, to find is to not seek emotionally you show me why i am wrong con |
6cd6fbd6-2019-04-18T17:03:50Z-00000-000 | students from grade 1-8 should be allowed to fail | Especially Your brother is an example of unique situation, thus, We can not judge only by the problem Your family has. In general, the opportunity to fail for students from grades 1-8 will serve as a motivation for them to study and for the parents to pay more attention over the process of studying. Even the fact of that children will know They can fail forces Them to study harder and to feel the answer of why should They study good much more better. Talking about an extraordinary cases, such as Yours, I think that children with dyslexia should take a bit another system of education with an especial individual approach. |
6cd6fbd6-2019-04-18T17:03:50Z-00001-000 | students from grade 1-8 should be allowed to fail | no they should not my brother could not read until grade three for example because he had dyslexia and he would have failed grades 1 and 2 if this was true |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00002-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | Considering that the resolution states that Daenerys Targaryen should win the Iron Throne, this debate is about what should be the case, not necessarily what will be the case.In other words, this debate is not about who will be most likely to win the Iron Throne, but instead who is:A) The most rightful choice and most deserving of sovereignty B) The better person to ruleI argue that King Stannis Baratheon is the most suitable ruler of Westeros because he is superior in both A and B, but mainly B.*Spoilers Ahead*Rightful ChoiceIn terms of inheritance, it is clear that Stannis is the rightful king. The previous King was Robert Baratheon, and he left no legitimate sons at the time of his death (1). If there are no legitimate sons, then the line goes to brothers. Robert has two brothers; Stannis and Renly (2). Stannis is the elder brother so is closer in line to the Throne.As of Robert's death, Stannis is the next in line to the Throne, and hence he should rule Westeros by all the laws of Gods and Men.In contrast, Daenerys is an extremely remote relation to Robert. Their families were only joined long ago when Aegon the Conqueror's bastard brother Orys was legitimised and became the founder of House Baratheon (3). Hence Daenerys is not in place to inherit the Iron Throne because she is not immediately related to Robert.Quality of rulerThere are two aspects to this factor:C) CharacterD) Ability to ruleStannis has a superior character to Daenerys for multiple reasons:1. Stannis strives for the Throne not for his own sake, but for the realm's and for his family's. In contrast, Daenerys only seems to want the Throne for her own ends and for personal power.'I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm.' (4)2. Stannis appreciates the threat beyond the wall. All the other claimants are more obsessed with becoming King/Queen than actually protecting the realm. He recognises that the threat of a Wildling Invasion and, even worse, an incursion of White Walkers in the next Winter.3. Stannis has an inspiring sense of justice. He has never punished anyone out of anger or spite, unlike Daenerys, but out of duty and justice. This inspires fierce loyalty and respect from the likes of Davos Seaworth and Eddard Stark respectively. Daenerys is very inconsistent with her sense of justice, mostly because she makes most of her judicial decisions in a state of anger and pride.Stannis also has a better ability to rule than Daenerys has, for the following reasons:1. Stannis is prudent and wise. After the Battle of the Blackwater his army was virtually destroyed, yet he built himself up, saved the Wall and is now at the head of a 5000 strong army marching to reclaim Winterfell from House Bolton. True, Daenerys got herself a 10000 strong army but, as Daario put it:"Anyone with a chest full of gold can buy Unsullied." (5)The gold being neatly provided free of charge by Illyrio Mopatis (6), not achieved by any achievement of Daenerys.2. Daenerys struggles to rule Meereen, so she can hardly be expected to rule Westeros (a much larger and more diverse kingdom).3. Stannis is one of the best military commanders in the realm, and hence he is much respected. He once held Storm's End through a year-long siege surviving on nothing but rats and (eventually) onions (7). He would have also taken Kings Landing if it wasn't for Tywin Lannister's army arriving just in time (8).4. Stannis is feared. Not in a resented way but in a respectful way. He is feared because he is so just, and so he would be able to command a kingdom effectively and quell any lords who may be thinking of rebellion. This is a crucial attribute to an effective ruler.In Varys's words:'There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man' (9)5. Stannis is honourable, which entails that he earns people's trust. This is doubtless an invaluable trait when dealing with everyday ruling and administering the small council. It also means that he can get people to do things for him merely on his reputation, for example he was able to enlist the fleet of Sallador Sahn on the basis that:"No man in the Seven Kingdoms is more honorable than Stannis Baratheon. He will keep his word" (10)His reputation also enabled him to secure a crucial loan from the Iron Bank of Braavos (11).6. Stannis is determined. In the words of Tywin Lannister:"This is Stannis Baratheon. The man will fight to the bitter end and then some" (12) I will go on to refute my opponent's round 1 in the following round._(1) A Game of Thrones, Chapter 39(2) http://awoiaf.westeros.org...(3) http://awoiaf.westeros.org...;(4) A Storm of Swords, Chapter 36 (5) Game of Thrones, Season 5 Episode 1 (6) A Clash of Kings, Chapter 63 (7) A Storm of Swords, Chapter 36 (8) A Clash of Kings, Chapter 62 (9) A Game of Thrones, Chapter 58, (10) A Clash of Kings, Chapter 10, (11) Game of Thrones, Season 4 Episode 6(12) A Storm of Swords, Chapter 72 |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00003-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | Thanks for the debate. [Introductory statement] Stannis is a good choice. Without a doubt, Stannis has the most military experience and is probably the only claimant to be on the front lines leading troops rather than from the rear (i.e. Battle of the Blackwater ground invasion). Since this debate is Daenerys versus Stannis, I will focus primarily on Daenerys in this round but will compare Daenerys’ advantages compared to Stannis. I will address Stannis in more detail in the 3rd round based on the arguments put forward by Con. [Thesis, on how power functions in GAME OF THRONES universe]: If Game of Thrones is anything, it is a struggle for power. The primary currency in this world is force and military might. Superior force, winning wars, making your enemies fear your presence and power is how the Iron Throne is won. [If you accept this, then]: Daenerys is the safest bet to take the throne, and unquestionably, a more secure investment than Stannis whose entire army is stationed at the Wall alongside the Night’s Watch, just as winter begins in the background. [Part I: Central Arguments] Argument 1 Reasons for Daenerys (1) Drogon, Rhaegal, Viserion—WHY DRAGONS MATTER "Dragons are fire made flesh. And fire is power." R13;Quaithe Stannis may be a tested battle commander with experience but…no one army has seen dragons for a century and a half. Whatever methods, strategies, or military solutions devised to combat full-grown dragons will come from trial and a lot of error. Reality of Dragons: Dragons can demolish entire cities, quash entire armies, and historically[1] (see citation) enabled the House Targaryen to keep control over the Seven Kingdoms with three dragons, the same number as Daenerys has now. (1a) Dragon argument continued: quick history to demonstrate their power: “Five thousand years ago, men of the Valyrian…dominat[ed] almost half of the Known World. Four hundred years before the War of the Five Kings, the entire Valyrian Empire and almost all of its dragons were destroyed in a single day, during a cataclysmic volcanic eruption known as the Doom of Valyria. One Valyrian noble family, the Targaryens, survived the Doom on the distant island outpost of Dragonstone in the Narrow Sea - along with the last surviving Valyrian dragons.”[2] In the Game of Thrones universe it would be an historically anomaly if Daenerys did not use the dragons to gain power and the Iron Throne. (1c) Dragon Argument continued: [Analogy of dragons to military technology in real world: Dragons are the Nuclear Weapons of Westeros] Dragons are the nuclear weapons of Westeros. If properly procured and controlled it makes one side virtually untouchable until other powers figure out countermeasures. Like nuclear weapons, their very existence poses a threat both power in possession of them as well as for others powers competing for supremacy. However, even a momentary advantage is enough to vanquish opponents and consolidate power. Argument Two: (2) SIZE ISSUES: Daenerys has a bigger! (2a): Raw Numbers Daenerys army is according to estimates at 10,000.[3] Stannis has roughly 5,000 according to Dance with Dragons.[4] Size has to be considered in considering who is the more likely to take the Iron Throne. However, I’m sure my opponent will say it is only one factor to consider, and I agree on this point. (2b) Skill of Forces Unsullied "The Unsullied are not men. Death means nothing to them." R13;Missandei to Daenerys The unsullied are born to fight, are raised to fight, “death means nothing.” Here is a brief overview of their training: [“They begin their training at five years old, when their genitals are fully removed. They are also given a puppy to look after, and at the end of the first year they must strangle the puppy to death. If they refuse, they are culled from the trainees and killed. They train from dawn to dusk until they have mastered the shortsword, shield, and three lengths of spear. Only one in three survives the training regime. Upon being given the spiked cap which is the symbol of their rank, they must go to the slave market, kill an infant slave before its mother and pay the slave owner for his loss.”] [character limit] [1] Martin, George R.R., The World of Ice & Fire: The Untold History of Westeros and the Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire) (New York: Random House Publishing Group.) (Kindle Location 677). Kindle Edition. Also available on the site hyperlinked below [2] http://gameofthrones.wikia.com... also in The World of Ice & Fire [3] http://gameofthrones.wikia.com... [the figures are provided on the right-hand side] [4] George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons (New York: Random House 2011), on page 517 of 2011 Kindle Edition which is also chapter 36 at the very end. The relevant quote comes from correspondence Jon receives about Stannis’ progressive in the North. Here is the relevant quote regarding hard number: “We are five thousand strong as I write, our numbers swelling every day.” |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00004-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | I accept, and propose that King Stannis, the first of his name, ruler of the seven kingdoms, king of the Andals and the First Men and the protector of the realm, is the best choice to rule Westeros. |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00005-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | Thought this was a better political debate. I have the fifth book but to make this debate more interesting for voters let’s keep the selection to people on the television show: Pro picks Daenerys Targaryen to win Iron Throne Con picks other contenders including but not limited to potential rivals: Stannis Lannister Stark Tyrell Bolton Lord Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish Tyrion Or select your own viable candidate from tv show [don’t use Iron Bank or WhiteWalkers because their full-potential is unknown outside of the books and television show, however you are open to discuss them] BOP IS SPLIT: 50/50 |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00000-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | Rebuttals of Pro's argumentsPro makes the following main arguments:DragonsWhilst it is true that dragons are a fearsome military asset, they can only be used effectively if they can be sufficiently controlled. But with Daenerys, it seems that she cannot actually control her dragons (1). Hence, even if dragons are powerful enough to assist in the taking of the Iron Throne, they cannot be controlled by Daenerys.NumbersWhilst it is true that Daenerys has more men than Stannis, and probably more capable men in the form of the Unsullied, this would only enable Daenerys to seize the Iron Throne, but they are a non-renewable resource so whether she would be able to hold it for a sustained period of time is doubtable. Daenerys will not train more Unsullied because she is morally opposed to the training program. The implications of this is that Daenerys can only rely on her unsullied for 20 more years at the most, at which point they will be too old to live up to their military might.This DebateI maintain that this debate is about who should win the Iron Throne, not who is most likely to. Taking this into account, the factors pertaining to the debate resolution are mainly to do with the quality of the ruler and ability to rule.True, the resolution says 'win', but if we are talking about who should win, we are talking about what is the best result and what ought to happen. Otherwise the debate would be worded: 'Daenerys Targaryen will win the Iron Throne'.Defence of ArgumentsStannis & the WallMy point wasn't that Stannis is best placed to defend against the threat beyond the Wall - it was saying that Stannis has the right priorities. He rightly prioritises the defence of the realm above his personal quest for Kingship. This is an admirable trait that infers he would be a good ruler.The argument concerning dragons assumes that said dragons can be controlled, yet all the evidence suggests otherwise.Stannis & justiceI know that Stannis is probably responsible for Renly's death, but this does not refute the point that Stannis is just.Renly was committing treason by claiming the Throne to be his, and refusing to obey his rightful King (Stannis). The punishment for treason is death (2), and so death is what he got. This is an example of Stannis being just - he shows that even family members are not exempt from the law.Stannis's InheritancePro's argument is self-refuting. She states that Daenerys has the rightful claim because Robert took the Throne not by rightful inheritance, but by force. But this would also discredit the Targaryen claim, since Aegon the Conqueror took control of the Seven Kingdoms by force as well. We could go further back, and discredit the Andal claim to the throne since they invaded and took power from the First Men. The eventual result would be that only the First Men and their descendants are entitled to the Throne, in which case Brandon Stark is the rightful King (since the Starks are the only major family that is descended from the First Men (3)).So, unless Bran is actually the rightful heir to the Throne, we cannot go back to previous dynasties to determine the rightful heir, we can only do so by looking within the current dynasty, which is the Baratheon one. Hence Stannis is the rightful King.Stannis and military successTrue, Stannis did lose at the Blackwater, but the odds were very much stacked against him (with the largest castle in the Seven Kingdoms on one side, and near the entire military might of both House Tyrell and Lannister on the other). Not even Randyll Tarly, arguably the most able commander in Westeros, could have won in those circumstances. (1) A Dance with Dragons, Chapter 36(2) A Storm of Swords, Chapter 36(3) A Game of Thrones, Chapter 1(4) A Feast for Crows, Chapter 7 |
944e8998-2019-04-18T14:58:39Z-00001-000 | Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE | From last round, here is a breakdown of my opponent’s arguments major points: 1. Stannis appreciates the threat beyond the wall. 2. Stannis has an inspiring sense of justice 3. Stannis inheritance 4. Stannis is best military commander Round 3 Response to Con #1: Stannis and the wall threat Ask yourself when winter comes, is it more likely Stannis the experienced military commander will kill the undead army of white walkers with a ground using dragon glass, which doesn't work on wights but only the White Walkers as Sam discovered. Or Daenerys, who has three dragons that fly and breathe fire--the only known vulnerability of both White Walkers and Wights. Response to Con #2: Stannis has an inspiring sense of justice: This argument only makes sense if you’ve never read the books or watch the television series because anyone who has will remember: Stannis used Melisandre to conjure black magic and kill his own brother, Renly. Before he died Renly said of Stannis, "No-one wants you for their king. You never wanted any friends, brother, but a man without friends is a man without power!" R13;Renly Baratheon to Stannis Baratheon[1] Response to Con #3: Stannis inheritance Daenerys has the most legitimate claim to the throne. While her father (mad king) was not a good, nor justice, and as the name suggests mad but after his death the throne would have gone to his son, Daenerys brother, but instead Robert who took the throne by a rebellion and through various alliances with the Lannister family and other. In reality, Daenerys has the only legitimate claim in all of the kingdoms because she is a Targaryen. Response to Con #4: Stannis best military commander Stannis as great military leader: yet Con only mentions examples where Stannis failed (Battle of Blackwater, where he lost not only the naval battle (Tyrion wildfire) but the ground battle too (Tywin) surprise attack, which according to Con he would have won "if not wasn't for Tywin Lannister's army arriving just in time." That's like saying the Confederacy would have beat the north if only Lee (likely more skilled and experienced) hadn't lost to Grant (a better strategic thinker with more forces) Finally about the wording of the debate: How do you win the Iron Throne? Winning the war Should win [based on every definition of the word win includes a competition or conflict] Pro never uses the word rule. Furthermore, anyone familiar with Game of Thrones will realize a king or queen doesn’t rule the Iron Throne; they rule the Seven Kingdoms; they rule Westeros. I can see you’re trying to pull a semantic trick on a noob (read: me) but here it doesn’t work on either a figurative or literal sense to construe Should Win with Iron Throne to mean Should be rule over the Seven Kingdoms. I will let voters decide what is the more reasonable. But they should consider that I am using my language in precisely the same way George R.R. Martin does in Dance of Dragons: Salla’s only hope was to remain loyal to Stannis Baratheon until he won the Iron Throne. Elsewise he would never see a groat of his money. He had to be patient.”[2] [Another example]: As doomed as we’ll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side.”[3] Clearly to win something there must be a competition. In the books and on television, everyone is trying to win the Iron Throne, by winning the wars. [1] See Quotes section: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com... [2] Martin, George R.R. (2011-07-12). A Dance with Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 5) (p. 137). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. [3] Martin, George R.R. (2011-07-12). A Dance with Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 5) (p. 155). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00000-000 | IVF Debate | If the eggs are too be disposed or if they get a divorce, the two have to figure out who has the property of the eggs, and in a court stance, neither of them have a true lead or deserved ownership of the eggs, since it took both of them to make the embryos. (amily.findlaw.com/child-custody/who-gets-custody-of-embryos.html) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00001-000 | IVF Debate | Multiple pregnancies is a risk patients have to take if they go through IVF. The name of the game is minimizing said risk, by implanting as few eggs as possible for an egg to attach. There is a risk of dying in a car crash every time you step in a car, but that doesn't mean car travel isn't safe in 99% of cases. |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00002-000 | IVF Debate | Multiple pregnancies due to IVF is a massive issue because the people who are only looking for one, could potentially abort the kids or even put them up for adoption, Which currently their are a surplus of kids that up for adoption in the United States. (http://www.resolve.org...) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00003-000 | IVF Debate | It's up to the ultimately patient what's done with the fertilized eggs. Some choose to donate them to other couples, while others may decide to discard them and not have anymore children. Multiple pregnancies is a risk inherent with IVF, regardless of where the eggs originated from. (http://www.resolve.org..., 4/30/16) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00004-000 | IVF Debate | I will agree with your point, but in obscure institutions the embryos are disposed of, while in others, they are either frozen, or could be left, which would cause multiple pregnancies within the female giving birth to the children. (http://www.parenting.com... 07/14) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00005-000 | IVF Debate | Genetic screening allows a couple to identify potential genetic defects before the child could be afflicted with the condition. Conditions like Down's Syndrome can be identified before the child is implanted in the womb. (http://americanpregnancy.org..., 4/28/16) By not having children with potentially crippling genetic disorders, not only are the children's lives improved but the family's financial and emotional standings are improved too. |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00006-000 | IVF Debate | A family who is unable to conceive, could abuse the IVF procedure and continue to have more and more kids each time (and potentially have multiple births in each one), which would reasonably put any standard family into a poor financial situation, which would come at the expense of the children that they continue to have, I disagree with the procedure because it allows negligence to take place, and for potentially ill-equipped families to keep having children (Mostafa, A. http://www.michiganinfertilityexpert.com... 08/15) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00007-000 | IVF Debate | In most cases, doctors work to implant only enough egg cells to ensure at least one takes to avoid the problems with a multiple pregnancy. Many states require health insurers cover IVF treatment, some including multiple cycles - not to mention health insurers that cover it without state mandate. (http://www.resolve.org..., 4/28/16) The procedure has been performed hundreds of thousands of times - the risks are incredibly low with only a 1-2% chance of ectopic pregnancy or cancer. (https://www.asrm.org..., 4/28/16) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00008-000 | IVF Debate | The procedure could cause multiple births instead of the usually desired one child, The procedure could fail as a whole and leave the couple in financial stress, The procedure is naturally dangerous and can cause ectopic cancer outside of the uterus. (Agrawal,Arpit https://www.quora.com... 09/14) |
667451b6-2019-04-18T13:25:47Z-00009-000 | IVF Debate | In Vitro Fertilization allows couples that otherwise are unable to conceive children naturally to have children. The reasons for infertility range from damaged uterus or nonfunctioning Fallopian tubes to low sperm count and sperm mobility problems. IVF also allows for genetic screening prior to egg implantation, allowing the couples to be informed of possible genetic defects in the child prior to the completion of the pregnancy. (http://americanpregnancy.org..., 09/2015) |
c6b8da5a-2019-04-18T15:11:06Z-00000-000 | Illegal Immigration: Good or Bad for the Economy | I guess I better post something. |
c6b8da5a-2019-04-18T15:11:06Z-00001-000 | Illegal Immigration: Good or Bad for the Economy | How has this been a big help? Give me some evidence. |
c6b8da5a-2019-04-18T15:11:06Z-00002-000 | Illegal Immigration: Good or Bad for the Economy | Immagrtion has been a big help in the ecconomy so far look at some people in canada that have became a big help to the country it may be illegal but is it truely bad |
c6b8da5a-2019-04-18T15:11:06Z-00003-000 | Illegal Immigration: Good or Bad for the Economy | Recently, I have been doing a lot of research on the topic of Illegal Immigration and the effect is has on the United States economy. Being from the state of Kansas, most of the people that I am around typically are not big fans of illegal immigrants. They take jobs, they commit lots of crimes, and they are illegally working here. I however am a more objective person, with an anti-Illegal Immigration viewpoint that is more economical than anything. Illegals have been sending tons and tons of money out of the United States. The Center for Immigration Study says that Illegals send $25 billion in remittance money out of the United States every year. And if the average American family only makes between $40 thousand and $48 thousand, you've got the equivalent of thousands of American families yearly incomes being shipped out of the US. Another thing. Illegals also have access to public services that are funded by citizens tax dollars. These public services include hospitals, schools, prisons, etc. Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion according to heritage.org These factors lead me to conclude that Illegal Immigrants are a real strain on our economy, and the American taxpayer. |
57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00000-000 | Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity | "Informed? Many studies have been conducted where impulse voting, voting based on party alone, and name recognition based on propaganda alone were primary triggers. Aside, 38% of the voters in the last presidential election did not attend high school, when you add in those who didn't graduate as well, the number increases. The voters, or at least the ones that do vote, can statistically be well defined as uninformed. It is a sad truth and outcome of our voting system." Your entire argument is invalid because you failed to cite sources. I have no where do go to fact check. However, I will do my best to argue. Of course people vote on their political party, and it annoys me, which is why I became an independent voter. But it's said person's American right to vote for who they want, so the argument is invalid, and also irrelevant. "Undervalue politics? I undervalue what politics has ultimately become, a monetary game. The corruption and deals in politics have existed for years, think of the 1800 election, but what has changed is the influence of money from what power it had once held." Politics has always been monetary. I can guarantee you there has never been a government that has never at one point been about monetary growth. Also, money has always held power. Are you seriously blaming the money? Money isn't the issue. Corruption existed way before the invention of paper currency. Nothing has changed. You make it sound like the world all the sudden has become bad, when I can assure you the world has been bad essentially since it's creation. "And this debate is not to establish the specifics, yet the concept. But one way this could work is after the pool of funds has been in place for the campaign, half it then. If the campaigner truly feels that his campaign is more valuable than a reputable charity, that would show the true value of that candidate. Again, this is for the concept." Your fall back is specifics. I offer specifics, and when you find them hard to rebut, you drop them. Concepts are a great thing, until you actually try them. Like communism. In theory, a world where are are 100% equal would be amazing. No more inequality in pay, no more racism, but somehow, when put to the test, it crumbles! Concepts don't mean anything unless you are ready to put them up to the test. Also, it seems you have failed to show why the money should be donated. The money is donated by people or corporations to a political leader. They still are able to donate to charity, but they choose in this instance to donate to a political, who will after all be a major influence in the direction the country goes. |
57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00001-000 | Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity | Informed? Many studies have been conducted where impulse voting, voting based on party alone, and name recognition based on propaganda alone were primary triggers. Aside, 38% of the voters in the last presidential election did not attend high school, when you add in those who didn't graduate as well, the number increases. The voters, or at least the ones that do vote, can statistically be well defined as uninformed. It is a sad truth and outcome of our voting system. Undervalue politics? I undervalue what politics has ultimately become, a monetary game. The corruption and deals in politics have existed for years, think of the 1800 election, but what has changed is the influence of money from what power it had once held. And this debate is not to establish the specifics, yet the concept. But one way this could work is after the pool of funds has been in place for the campaign, half it then. If the campaigner truly feels that his campaign is more valuable than a reputable charity, that would show the true value of that candidate. Again, this is for the concept. |
57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00002-000 | Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity | Alright, i figured that was just an opening statement. As we all know, the max amount of money a person can give to a candidate as of right now is $5,200. While I understand that there are good things that can be done with $5,200, where do you plan on getting the money from? The donator? He's a voter, who is passionate enough to give funds. The campaigner? In that case, why would he even accept a donation? It makes no sense. Also, you seem to undervalue politics, as if it is not the thing that holds this nation up. This nation was established on politics, and it is on politics it will fall. Funding is necessary for politics, because it gets the word out. Would you rather our voters just not be informed? An informed voter is a powerful voter. Thanks https://www.google.com... |