_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00003-000 | deseptive flaw in debateing system | ( It seems my opponent did not realise that those case examples I provided were meant as evidence. I would like to point out that was intended to be so.) Interpretation of what's being argued: Overall yes, always not necessarily. Responses: 1) Regarding my opponents point that the benefit of making up the resolution to some extent counters the last word advantage. My response is 2 fold, a) statistical, b) reason: a)clear statistical data showing that there is a last word advantage. (these stats were not provided previously bec. I didn't have them.) The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%." b)I understand where my opponent s coming from but I still maintain my position. My opponents point would be true if you agree to debate then made the resolution, but the way it works is that the resolution is made and the contender chooses to debate that resolution. There is a statement that 2 people chose/ agreed to debate what difference does it make who made the statement. 2) I am not shore I clearly understand this point but I can hear something might be in it I ask my opponent to clarify in the next round for my benefit as well as any reader who is unclear on the point being made. Regardless of exactly what the point being made is the previously mentioned state takes care of it. 3)To my opponents final argument in the reason section, my response is 2 fold: a)reason, b)statistical. a)What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round. In fact it seems to be the opposite pre-emtive strikes are disadvantageous, The following is a quote from Roy lathem among the most experienced debaters on ddo:" ...presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning...". Another quote: "Incidentally, a big problem I have with instigating is that when my opening case is revealed, often good debaters won't take it and the challenge expires. That means the work in preparing a case is wasted. That's true even when the person agrees to debate the subject ahead of time. I got J.Kenyon to agree to debate the border fence, but once he saw my case he let the challenge expire. My new approach is make the first round for acceptance only in order to conceal the case." b)There previous mentioned state quoted from Ore_Ele. statistical evidence: My opponent makes good points with regard to statistics. which is why I attempted to bring many different statistical analysis. Any problem with statistical analysis has been taken care of by, my now mantra from Ore_ele, "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%." My opponents final point in which he quotes Roy, is in my opinion his most valid argument. My responses are as follows: 1)With such a large gap of nearly twice as many contenders to instigators winning can hardly be blamed on BoP alone. 2) BoP is often shared (or sole the contenders). 3) I ironically point to my opponents point that there are reasons why instigator would have advantage, and despite these reasons there is such a large gap in the winning rates can hardly be blamed on BoP alone. 4)Lastly since I have countered on the reason front, that there is a last word factor, and my opponent even seems to agree to the reasoning on some level, and the statistical evidence points to a contender advantage, it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason. |
3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00004-000 | deseptive flaw in debateing system | Interpretation of what is being argued herePro has said. .. "I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. "When Pro says "the instigator is at a disadvantage" what is being implied here is that the instigator when compared to the contender is ALWAYS at an OVERALL disadvantage. I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage. 1) The instigator gets to form the resolutionPro objects to my argument here saying. .. "My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. "Allow me to be a bit more specific here, what I am saying is that the instigator gets to form the resolution, this provides the instigator with a possible advantage as the resolution sets the stage of what the instigator will have to argue for and against. Clearly the instigator can use this forming to their advantage. Just because the contender agree's to debate the formed resolution doesn't change this. Pro says. .. "A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word. "I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that this point in of its self means that the instigator is now even, rather I make this point and other points to make a cumulative case against the implied claim that the instigator is always at a disadvantage.2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentThe instigator makes the first argument, and thus is immediately on the offensive against the contender, surely this is obvious ? By making the first argument, you force your opponent to respond to YOUR argument, If Pro can't see the advantage that the instigator has there then I will merely make this point to the readers.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalAs the instigator not only do you get to make the opening argument, but you can address a possible counter argument even before your opponent has a chance to respond. Once again, I think this is trivially obvious. Pros statistical analysisAs the saying goes, there are lies, damm lies and then there are statistics. We should be carefully about how data is interpreted. In this example bobby henderson (may not be real name) shows the data between the number of pirates and the global average temperature. Bobby comes to the conclusion. .. "You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. " [1]Pro says. .. "The "top" debater on ddo (i. e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time. "That top debator has a name by the way, angry lesbian femminist, I mean Danielle. . http://www.debate.org...I started looking at Danielle most recent debates when she went instigator, in the last 14 debates as instigator danille won all of them and I got sick of counting up her wins. Suffice to say using Danielle stats hardly proves Pros claim here. The point being here there are many other variables to be considerd here and Pros analysis doesn't take those into consideration. For example, how does Pros analysis filter out the fact that better debaters will often defeat worse debators ? How does Pros analysis take into account that sometimes a person will create a fun debate or a serious debate and thus not put in as much effort ? How does Pro take into account that a contender gets to choose which debates they will take and thus take debates on subject they know more about and thus have a better chance of winning ? Take that last point for example, what if you could overall show in stats the contenders having a better winning percentage, would this be enough to prove Pros theory here ? I don't think so as Roy Latham one of top debators on DDO explains. .. "The instigator has the advantage of picking the topic, one he is familiar with. But presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning. If anyone takes the debate at all, it's likely a noob who ends up forfeiting. If no one accepts, the time spent preparing is wasted. I'm using the "first round is for acceptance only" scheme more frequently these days. " [2]How does Pros interpretation of the data take this into consideration when looking at why contenders will have a higher winning percentage ? It doesn't. Take yours truly for example, I have an overall winning percentage of 34.25% [3], yet in my past 10 debates where I was instigator I have winning percentage of 60%. Should I interpret this as meaning that being instigator means having an advantage ? as my last 10 debates as instigator is almost double of my overall winning percentage ? of course not, cause there are too many other variables going on here which have not being accounted for, just likes pros interpretation. I look foward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.venganza.org...[2] . http://www.debate.org...[3] . http://www.debate.org... |
3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00005-000 | deseptive flaw in debateing system | "this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. " I believe my opponent is exaggerating and over generalizing a modest statement. All I said was that "the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. " My opponent added words "automatically" and "always", blowing my simple statement out of proportion. My opponents 1st point that the instigator forms the resolution as an advantage to counter the disadvantage is invalid, the resolution is what the debate is about, the contender agreed to debate this resolution. It is not an advantage in the debate. My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. I hope I have made this point clear I will probably have to clarify it in following rounds as my opponent responds. A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word. My opponents second point is also invalid as he has not shown that this causes an advantage. furthermore I don't follow the logic, clarification and explanation on this would be appreciated. To my opponents 3rd point my reply is the same as the previous. Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters". The "top" debater on ddo (i. e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time. To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposite side as instigator in 9 0f the past 9 debates. The results show, bec. of this (or I should say in spite of it) he has a winning percentile of 58% significantly lower than the 1st debater who has a winning percent of over 90. #3 an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender. #4 a moderate 80% and likewise has been contender 3 of last 5. #5 (in my opinion the best debater on ddo) has an impressive 94% win rate and 4 of past 5 he was contender. #6 similar to #4. #7 88.4 contender 4 of 5. #8 similar to #2, 53% win rate and majority of past 5 have been instigator. #9 88.9 majority contender. finally #10 like #4 and #6. wow. Even I didn't expect the #'s to match my theory so well but they clearly do. I know this isn't the most perfect data proof but hey, I'm just starting. I shall attempt to compute more sound statistical proof. As my theory goes save the best for last. I might add the impetus for this craze/ crusade of mine. losing the past 5 debates I instigated which I think I should have won. Here are some personal experiences, the content of the debate is irrelevant to this debate what is relevant is the points I make regarding them. . http://www.debate.org... I am focusing on the better argument section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo, cliff. stamp and Roy lanthem who is one of the best debaters on this site. both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word". . http://www.debate.org... my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) till the final round after which I could not respond. . http://www.debate.org.... see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word. . http://www.debate.org... . Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word". enough examples I'll get back to the states then turn it over to my opponent for now: in analysis of the section of debates entitled "recently ended": of the 19 debates that were voted on, in a whopping 15 of them contender was winning. or looking at the score discrepancy instigator totaled 50 while contender totaled 181. I find these #'s quite significant. finally in analysis of my opponents record I have surveyed his recent debates and have the following states: of my opponents recent loses 8 of them were as instigator while only 4 were as contender. of my opponents taking the instigator seat 8 losses and only 3 wins. The #'s speak for themselves. |
3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00006-000 | deseptive flaw in debateing system | Its my understanding that Pro is claiming that due to the sole fact that the contender gets the last word in, this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. I will seek to show this is false. Let me be clear on what I seek to argue for, I am not claiming that the instigator is never at a disadvantage, just the more modest claim that just because your the instigator does not necessarily mean you are at an overall disadvantage compared to the contender.1) The instigator gets to form the resolutionMost debates have a resolution, a proposition, a claim that the pro has to justify. This in its self gives an advantage to the instigator as the creator of the resolution consider these examples of resolutions "God exists" & "God can't be proven to not exist"You will notice that the second resolution would be alot easier to defend, thus the instigator can go pro, form that resolution and thus have an advantage.2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentThe instigator from the first round is on the offensive as the instigator gets to fire the first shots. The contender from the very start is at an disadvantage and now will probably try to argue against the argument while maybe also making their own argument. Pro them self proves this point in this debate where they make their argument in the first round, and I as the contender am forced to address it.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalIf the instigator knows the subject matter well enough, and if they don't, they can always google it, the instigator can already make arguements against possible counter arguments and rebuttals against their own position and their own arguements. This will force the contender to either not use those counter arguments, or use the counter arguments which have already had an attack made against them thus make it more difficult to use. I think these reasons show that it is false to claim or imply that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. I look forward to Pros reply. |
3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00007-000 | deseptive flaw in debateing system | This debate is somewhat paradoxical, as I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. Despite this handicap I hope to have an enlightening debate. |
5f0d15f1-2019-04-18T18:17:49Z-00000-000 | Gas prices and oil | Although I do respect the simplistic approach you are taking to the issue, the fact of the matter is that the sale of crude oil is a very complex matter. The US can only buy as much oil as Canada is willing to sell, since it needs its own oil too. Also, the oil that comes from Canada is increasingly coming from tar sands which is a much dirtier form of oil that is more expensive to refine. Also, gas prices in the United States are barely effected by the price by the barrel from OPEC, in recent years there have been times where the price per barrel was dropping but the gas prices in the states were rising. This discrepancy is due to government subsidization of oil, we as Americans pay FAR less for gas than we would without subsidies. Hopefully, it can be seen that I am the only one who made a real argument and the voting will reflect this (although admittedly I wrote this round sloppily in a few minutes before bed because I was disappointed with the level of competition I am faced with). |
5f0d15f1-2019-04-18T18:17:49Z-00001-000 | Gas prices and oil | Alright, my argument is that Obama wants to try and be friendlier to the Middle East so ergo he buys the oil from them, which costs more for the U.S. If we got more of the oil from Canada than in most probability gas prices would go down, it might not be all that much but it would be an improvement. Because getting more oil from Canada is cheaper to have it cross the border instead of shipping it across the ocean, right? If we do this than we could sustain lower gas prices for a little while and stop angering Americans with sudden swelling in gas prices. Thank you, -Tyler |
5f0d15f1-2019-04-18T18:17:49Z-00002-000 | Gas prices and oil | I will accept under the condition that "the middle" refers to the middle east and also I will request that the debate centers around why "we" (the USA, I'm assuming) do not import MORE oil from Canada and less from the middle east. I request this because the largest supplier of oil to the US is already Canada (ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov...). |
5f0d15f1-2019-04-18T18:17:49Z-00003-000 | Gas prices and oil | Whoever accepts to take this argument will be talking about how we are getting gas from the middle instead of Canada. Which to me makes absolutely no sense. Thank you, -Tyler |
1d9055df-2019-04-18T12:01:40Z-00000-000 | Should roblox be shutdown | I"ll be taking the side of con. TL;DR : ROBLOX beating other games in the "video game market" isn"t a valid reason to shut it down. Before I start with my argument, I"d like to clarify that I"m not a "ROBLOX Fan". I"m only here to argue that ROBLOX shouldn't get a "shutdown" because of it"s potential in reaching a " $10 million annual revenue for its top creators "(1). Also since I"m not familiar with the mechanics of ROBLOX, I expect that I might have some errors about the game in my upcoming rebuttals. Heres my arguments : - ROBLOX DOESN"T OWE THE "COMPANIES LOSING MONEY" ANYTHING AT ALL. First, let me remind you how capitalism works. In a capitalist system , the producers compete with the other producers so they can profit as much money as possible from the consumers. And it just happens that ROBLOX is one of the producers competing with other video games (like Ife is strange and the pokemon game series). This basically means that the video game market has a "survival to the fittest" because of the nature of competitiveness. Sooo what does that mean? It means that ROBLOX is just good at "surviving" at the market. It"s all about survival mate. As for the "companies losing money" , it"s their own fault why they"re not having many consumers. The "companies losing money" made either games which are plain dumb or made the "I DONT CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE GAME, I JUST WANT YOUR DELICIOUS MONEY" type of game. ROBLOX didn"t defeat the "companies losing money" but instead they lost because of themselves. - ITS UNFAIR. Imagine a scenario where you are a manager of a local shoe company. Your daily revenue is about $107,530 which coincidentally is at par with ROBLOX (2). Of course, at first it didn"t start like that but after using your blood and sweat there you are. Just imagine what can you buy with that amount of money. But suddenly your company was shut down because the other shoe companies could"ve catch up with you. And with that all of your efforts are GONE. Now before you counter me with the "support the local buisness " argument, I"d like to add that I myself prefer the local buisness than the "rich and big" companies. But to "shutdown" the "rich and big" companies because they perform better, now that"s too far. And that sums up my argument. sources : 1- http://www.gamesindustry.biz... 2 - https://thinkgaming.com... |
1d9055df-2019-04-18T12:01:40Z-00001-000 | Should roblox be shutdown | The problem with Roblox is that there are games that are making companies like Pokemon and others are losing money because of games in Roblox it it is bad |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00000-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | Are you pro abortion? |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | Well that was s--t. No thought. No cabbage batbrain. No fire ants in the pants. People like you simply don't deserve to breathe something called "air". Please don't ever have children. They'd have to be in fear for their lives all the time the way you'd treat them like scrap pilings just as your god demands and as you have proven that you should kill them for YOUR invented reasons. YOU are a tragic character in your own play. |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00002-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | Well that was fast. No facts, no history, and no debate. |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00003-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | "My first point to answer this topic is that you must understand that all the verses you quoted are from the Old Testament." Um nope. Try again. And though most of them are, so what? Oh I get it, so what you are saying is that YOUR god changes hgis mind which means that supreme deity who is supposed to be perfect, who has a perfect plan, who knows everything, who is omnipotent, changes his mind, well he"s NOT perfect and according to you since he is not perfect should not be worshiped, bowed to nor worshiped nor idolized - correct? "While the God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New we have to realize that the Old Testament, while it has many applications to Christians lives today, was also written for a different audience," absolutely not because you cannot make up your own rules as do as you see fit as what christians do. And no one and or NOTHING gives you permission to change anything that is god"s laws from the old testament to do as such. "Therefore"" Um no. Therefore nothing unless you do not believe in creation of the universe in 6 days, the 10 commandments, the great flood (which never happened btw), Noah, exodus, the 10 plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses, the god of the OT is NOT the same as the god of the NT etc etc etc So now you have to invent excuses to save your sorry a$$ which never works... "In 2 Samuel 12:11-14 we see God punish David for having murdered a man in order to hide his adultery with a woman who consented (was not rape)" Absolutely it was rape. And there"s no reason for punishment of any kind of god is god and to kill a child? As for Dt. 2:34 Idiot. There you go. Trying to justify the killing of children in your bible. "Nm. 31:17-18 we see God commanded the killing of those babies because of the sin of Israel in committing whoredom." YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF BABIES FOR ANY REASON. ONLY A TRULY PATHETIC SMALL FEW MAGGOTY INFINITE IMMORAL BANKRUPT DISEASED RIDDEN CHRISTIANS THINK THE WAY YOU DO. Because you are as immoral as your god, this debate is now over. You lose. Bye. Don"t talk to me anymore. Get a life pig. |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00004-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | My first point to answer this topic is that you must understand that all the verses you quoted are from the Old Testament. While the God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New we have to realize that the Old Testament, while it has many applications to Christians lives today, was also written for a different audience, the Israelite nation. The nation of Israel was a theocracy, a nation who was ruled by God, which is not seen in today's day and age. Therefore God ruled the nation and made the rules for the nation just like kings, governors. emperors and governments have done for centuries. Let me go verse by verse that you mention. In 2 Samuel 12:11-14 we see God punish David for having murdered a man in order to hide his adultery with a woman who consented (was not rape) to having an adulterous affair with him. The punishment was not only against David, but also against Bathsheba who was complicit in this story. The child was not punished, but David and Bathsheba were. David repented of his sin and noted that one day he would go to heaven to be with his child. As for Dt. 2:34 I see no evidence that God commanded Moses to kill the women and children of Heshbon. Nm. 31:17-18 we see God commanded the killing of those babies because of the sin of Israel in committing whoredom. Since Israel was a theocracy God had complete control over the punishment for committing crimes in His nation. In Lev. 26:21-22 is more of an admonishment to them if they disobeyed his commandments. The only time in the Bible we see this carried out is when some teenage kids from an idolatrous city cursed and denigrated Elisha the prophet. I Samuel 15:3 is about revenge. The Amalekites had attacked the children of Israel as they wandered the desert attacking the rear of the travelers that contained the old, infirm, women, and children killing many of them (Dt 25:17-18). So in I Samuel we see God avenging the Israelite for what happened in the desert and held the Amalekites responsible. Hosea 13:16 is a prophecy of what is going to happen to Samaria by the Assyrians. This was not God dashing infants to pieces, it was the Assyrian Empire which is known by historians as one of the most evil and ruthless empires in world history. They didn't only dash Israelite babies to pieces, but also Syian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Canaanite babies as well. Any history book will tell you that. Blame the Assyrians not God. Also don't try to stop kids from learning about ancient history. 2 Kings 15:16 As far as Menahem we see that God condemned what he did. In verse 18 it says that "he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." As you asked, should we as Christians follow the law of killing our children for cursing us? Absolutely not because we do not live in a theocracy anymore. This law was to the nation of Israel which was under a theocracy. One, we live in nations that have their own law which God commands us to obey and two we are now in the time of grace. Jesus and the apostles never commanded Jew or Gentile to follow the national laws of Israel. As far as Mark 7:10 and Mat 15:4 (which are the same event) Jesus was not enforcing the law there, but was debating a point. The Pharisees were condemning His disciples for not following Jewish tradition of washing their hands before eating. Jesus then facetiously condemned them, by their tradition, of letting children curse their parents and telling them that the curse was a gift from God. Therefore, the kids would curse at their parents and then tell them that the curse was a gift from God and the Pharisees allowed this to happen. In Mat 10:21 This is talking about how those who follow Christ will be delivered to the authorities in times of persecution by their brothers, their fathers, their children and in worse cases children will kill their parents because their parents are Christians! The Bible also condemns the nation of Israel for practicing the burning of children to Baal. He especially punished King Ahab and King Manasseh of Judah for putting their babies through the fire. God also condemned Herod for killing the babies in Bethlehem. One thing I ask is that from now on you read in context before blowing things up and misinterpreting the Bible. Also, now that I narrowed it down to only two instances in the Bible where God allowed a child to die or outright had people kill them please tell me you are pro-life and hate abortion. God loves children so much that when they die they go to heaven immediately. Indeed, God himself became a child was born in a feeding trough (which I am sure you weren't) and died for children and adults alike. Also Jesus in Lk. 18:15-17 he used children as example to teach his disciples on how to go to heaven for children have the great quality of humility which one needs to get saved. Also he prayed and talked with children. He fed children at the feeding of the five thousand and four thousand. Jesus also said in Mk. 9:37 ""Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name, receiveth Me." In Lk. 18:16 He said, "But Jesus called them unto Him and said, "Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God." Also in Mat. 18:6 Jesus says he will stand by children who are offended, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Also the laws of Moses deal with penalty of death to those who sexually abuse children, (Lev 18-20) which is a lot tougher than today. God cares a lot for children. Verses that prove it are James 1:27, Eph 6:4 and Ps. 127:3. |
b7a054dd-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00005-000 | The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous. | http://www.youtube.com... - Atheist debates get em while they"re young http://www.youtube.com... - God hates children Children watching violence on tv, bad. Children in church seeing a lifelike grotesque statue of a crucified man, good. Makes sense? - David Blickstein There are at least 30+ verses in the bible where god shows his hatred and evil towards children in which most of them will be presented throughout this debate. The question is "why"? I'll tell you why... Its because god is a sadistic pig, a self righteous crybaby who loves to watch pain and suffering on the lowest of low, which happens to be children, because he places himself above all else, thus being a superior extremely selfish egotist that he knowingly is. Oh btw, this is only in text form because there's actually no proof, thank god, that this god even exists. And only an amazingly stupid and or incredibly naive idiot would use text form, the worst form of communication possible. Before you witness the verses, did you watch the videos which graphically depict only SOME of the verses as tragic and as horrific as they are which include babies and children being raped, there's pregnant mothers wombs being ripped open (abortions), babies and children dying by the swords, babies being dashed against the rocks etc? If not then you have no excuse for saying "there's no evidence" because it is so very typical of christians to completely ignore evidence ESPECIALLY when slapped in the face with it. Oh and btw, don't tell me or anyone of merit who is especially sane that these verses are taken out of context, and that there is ANY KIND OF LOVE within them, because then you would be required to prove it for each and every verse in which case you would not be able to justify your actions. If after you reading these verses and you do not think this is pain and suffering to its fullest extent, something is seriously wrong with you. No offense. 2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick! Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" Numbers 31:17-18 "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Leviticus 26:21-22 "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." Rob you of your children? 1 Samuel 15:3 "3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$." Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." Wow. Such a nice gentle caring god who is all warm and fuzzy inside. This book should clearly be read to children - correct? 2 Kings 15:16 "Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." Now do you think you should be put to death for cursing at your parents? Why ____? Why not ____? Or better yet should you follow these ridiculous laws at all? According to your fricken idiot bible you MUST!!!! Well what if your parents abuse, rape and torture you? Should they die? * Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." * Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." * Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:" * Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." * Matthew 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." ---------------------------- A child, age 6 for example who has stage 4 cancer, does not know what is happening to him/ her. Their cries are not heard, that they are in constant pain unless they are given sedatives/ pain killers, that they are terrified, that they are in an unfamiliar place (a hospital of some kind as an example), and are not home unless it is special circumstance, that they really do not understand what suffering is, but those around them probably do, etc etc etc. Oh and btw, YOUR god put children in that position of suffering to begin with which is 100% pure evil and hate. YOUR god absolutely loves to knowingly suffer, otherwise he would not create their situations for them to suffer. And btw, I know that you know that you cannot contemplate suffering at all. Your precious jesus went through 12 hours, tops, of suffering. Some children go through decades of suffering. Your precious jesus had it easy. Now please do tell me what a child can possibly learn from suffering? Much less an adult? If you"ve answered nothing, you"ve answered correctly. - ---------------------------- god knowingly creates children to be raped, beaten and tortured at the hands of their abusers... sometimes for decades. An example is daddy is sticking in his you know what inside of his daughter age 5 while punching her in the face twice per week for 15 years. To knowingly create children to suffer is 100% pure evil and hate at its finest. You can not get more evil than that with all the hate if you wanted to. Please DO NOT bring in the "Free Will" argument either because children DO NOT have the Free Will to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. And god creates these children to suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. god must also love it, otherwise he would create these horrific events. Please DO NOT invent the excuse that "its not god's fault". Well yeah it is. Otherwise, god is NOT in control of everything, nor is he all knowing nor is he all powerful. Nor is god omnipotent. Nor does god care enough to not create these horrific acts. And the worst of the absolute worst is god is giving a greater value, a greater meaning to these monsters to commit these horrific acts while these children suffer at the hands of these savages who have no free will to SCREAM and get away from daddy. God IS hate and evil. Pure and simple. So invent better excuses please. Sure, call me that I "hate" when it was just proven that YOUR god hates and nothing but. AND GOD MUST HAVE GIVEN THAT HATE TO ME AND ALL OF MANKIND. And yes, absolutely 100% that includes YOU by gum!!!!!!!! Wow. What a loving god huh? Pathetic, but typical smug christian ideal that doesn't work - ever - excuse on your part. In other words, god truly hates children which is a truly "duh "situation. The bible proves this time and time again. Also notice how children do not get to say a single sentence in the bible? Not one. Its like having your mouth glued shut for your entire childhood. That's the worst form of child abuse there is - to be neglected and ignored. And the bible does it so well. Sure god and jesus have stated that they love children or whatever, but that's not the same thing. Not by a longshot. How would you like it if someone spoke for you for your entire childhood and you could not say a single word on your behalf? Well, you'd naturally hate it. Also the bible is surely incomplete because there are no voices of children, there are no children talking or singing, or voices of them playing, when it is most assuredly required. How would you like it if you as an adult, who worked so hard for your children, as well you should, and they should always be the center of your life, were to find out that they were left out of your life? Well, once again you'd naturally hate it. And that's exactly what the bible and god has done in leaving children completely out of "their" most supposed sacred book of history that is supposed to engulf everything that was known within their supposed surroundings up until that special moment in time, and yet it completely ignores and neglects children. Well good job for the men who wrote the bible. Not---toooo---bright. ------------------- CONCLUSION: Simply put, the god of the printed bible is a diseased sick infected lice ridden maggot. You job in this debate is to prove that god loves children. Again, saying that he does, is not enough and is not the same thing. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process. |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00005-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | DefinitionsPublic Transportation: Buses, trolleys and trains that are operated by the federal, state, county, or city authorities in the United States. Most people have to pay a fee to use them but seniors, disabled, and in some counties, college students can ride for free on one or all of the public transport provided.College student: A human being enrolled in a Bachelor's degree program in a four year institution or enrolled in a community college in the US. No semantics please! Everyone knows what a college is (I hope).Free: Requiring no pay.Taxpayer: A human being who lives in the United States and pays the government a part of his/her income.RulesRound 1: Pro covers defintions and rules, Con accepts and clarifies definitionsRound 2: Pro - opening argument ONLY, Con - opening argument and rebuttalRound 3: Pro - rebuttal and defence, Con - defense ONLY |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00000-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | Many thanks to my opponent for engaging with me in this debate. Before I get into my defense, I'd like to suggest that this structure NOT be used again in the future. Most debates that utilize Round 1 for acceptance-only consist of four rounds. I didn't notice that this debate was only three. As such, the fact that I cannot respond to Pro's rebuttal of the first group of arguments is highly frustrating. It essentially becomes a 1-round debate considering we are not able to engage in a back and forth, but merely try and predict what our opponent's arguments would be and address them before they are even made. Hopefully the audience is capable of assessing which points of mine were not adequately refuted or completely dropped without me having to point them out...Though I will respect the rules and not respond to the arguments, I would like to point out Pro's mistake in saying I have misrepresented my statistics. I do not trust the audience to check the link, so for their convenience I will post exactly what I said and what the link says in order to prove that it is Pro who is in fact mistaken. I'll copy and paste exactly what I said and exactly what the source says verbatim to demonstrate that my numbers were correct. In R1, I wrote "While 23% do take out loans..." and Pro says that this is not true. He writes, "While her source says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans." Of course I did not misrepresent anything considering the source says, "On average, the money to pay for the typical student's college costs came from the following sources: parents' income and savings (32 percent), student borrowing (23 percent)..." As you can see, I did not misrepresent anything -- student borrowing refers to student loans. That said, I'll address the final 2 arguments that I am allowed to defend. 1. I've argued that tax payer money can be put towards better use, including (but not limited to) our massive debt. Pro completely dropped this argument and instead talked about how public transportation can save us money on oil specifically. While overall less gas might be consumed, that doesn't mean that the money will belong to the government who can therefore put it toward other things (like social security, etc.), therefore this point was not actually refuted. Furthermore, while it's true that people cannot walk or bike everywhere necessary, it's also true that public transportation is not always convenient. Therefore there are pros and cons to both means of transport, but this doesn't explain why college students in particular should get "free" rides at tax payer's expense. 2. The more important argument is this: I've contended that free transportation services would increase use. This is seemingly obvious. Consider when Oprah partnered with KFC to give away free grilled chicken. Obviously a LOT of people capitalized on that offer, though when it's not free, there is nowhere near the same demand for the product when people have to pay for it themselves. However, Pro writes that this is "Not the case if only college students are given free transportation." I don't see how that makes any sense; obviously if something is free it's going to be more appealing and thus have more demand (so you'd need more supply to meet it) - even if it's just college students. Over 18 million people are in college [4], which means you'd have to accommodate a lot more people seeking "free" rides. Pro also writes, "The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full." In that case, I don't even see the point of implementing this considering most would not even be able to utilize the free ride if it's a first-come, first-serve basis and supply stays the same. [4] http://howtoedu.org... |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00001-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | Thanks Con. DEFENSE1) Students have no moneyCon misrepresents her source's statistics. While her source[3] says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans. There is a huge difference. 47% of all families reported borrowing to pay for college. So, we know free transport would benefit at least half the college students because they are in debt. The average college graudate has a debt of $19,000 [4]. The already high price of tuition continues to increase [5]. Con says the debt hasn't affected them yet but it will. Students cannot increase their debt by buying cars or paying full price for public transport every day because it will snowball once they graduate. They need every sort of free service they can get.Unemployed people might have low money as well but their requirement for transportation is lower than that of college student as I show in point 2. Lower income people are able to work full time so despite their hourly wage being lower, they can earn more cash than college students and also don't have a staggering amount of debt. Paying for a car or transportation necessitates that students work longer hours. College students working more than 20 hours a week on campus or off negatively affects students' academic performance [6]. College students should be allowed to focus on their academics by having transportation taken care of.2) RequirementPeople who have jobs will be able to afford cars or at least be able to afford public transport by paying the full price. College students have a large amount of debt and limited time to work and so have a higher need for free transportation. They also need to travel far more frequently to class and back than someone who is just unemployed. My opponent says her school provides free transportation. My school on the other hand just cancelled the service[1]. Instead they work with the county's public transport agency to provide free transport to students. The ability of a University to provide transport is unreliable but if they work with their state, it is far more reliable as it is funded by the government. 3) Pay after graduation Taxes are used for many purposes, not all of which benefit the person paying the taxes. For example, if part of your taxes are being used to construct freeways, but you don't have a car and never use the freeways, can you legitimately complain that it is an "unfair financial transaction" or that it is "theft"? Taxes are meant to benefit society as a whole and this is a great way to give benefits to people who need them.4) University owes themPart of the reason students pay such a large amount of money to Universities is not just for tuition but for the facilities the University offers. My school [1] works with the public transport agancy and makes a deal with them for students to be allowed to ride free at taxpayer's expense. Universities should be doing this in all counties because this is a facility that is really needed.REBUTTAL1) Other uses Con would rather use taxpayers money for Social Security and debt. Carpooling, she says, is good for the evironment. Public transport is actually better since more people will use a bus than can fit into a car. Public transportation also saves 1.4 billion gallons of gas a year [2]. This would actually help pay the US debt on oil. Walking may be good for health but people cannot realistically walk long distances to class.2) Increased useCon says free transportation would increase use to the point of being too expensive. Not the case if only college students are given free transportation. The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full. In Riverside, California, college students ride for free [1] and there is no problem of overloading as the public transport is still running (though University operated transport closed for unrelated budget reasons). Sourceshttp://bit.ly... |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00002-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | -- REBUTTAL -- 1. College students have very little money. Pro explains, "Most college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortgages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks." This is factually inaccurate and misleading. First, 1/3 of college students have their costs completely covered by their parents' income and savings. An additional 45% cover costs via their own savings, assistance from relatives, grants, scholarships and with help from parent borrowing [1]. While 23% do take out loans, the student is not obligated to pay back those loans until they are finished with school. As such, it doesn't make sense to reference student debt (which is obsolete until graduation) as a reason for them being financially challenged, because it hasn't affected them yet. Moreover, college students are not the only demographic with "very little money." People who work low-income jobs or who are unemployed have little to no money -- why should transportation not be free for them? This is especially true once you consider the following: people with low-income jobs ARE tax payers, therefore Pro is suggesting that these people (often far less well off than college students) pay for other people's rides despite being similarly or even more disadvantaged. Additionally, many college students in fact hold jobs, meaning they are not necessarily struggling more than others. In fact, almost 80% of college students work on average 30 hours per week - almost full time [2]! Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest that college students deserve this special privilege based on how much money they have in comparison with other demographics. 2. Students have a huge requirement for transportation. Many transportation services already provide discounts, but most importantly, it would be Pro's burden to explain why students have a higher need than anyone else, particularly others with or who are looking for jobs. Additionally, many colleges already provide methods of free transportation for students. My school provides buses that take students not only through the campuses to get to class, but even through the city where the school is located to various other convenient checkpoints. There are also free shuttles that essentially act as cabs in some instances [3]. 3. Students would pay for it after graduation.That is not a fair exchange; people will likely pay a disproportionate amount to what they "owe" based on use. A fair financial transaction is one based on a mutual agreement. It should be up to the person paying whether or not they accept a service or good in exchange for payment. Some students with cars will not need this "free" transportation, yet wind up paying for others to use the service through taxes. That is equivalent to theft. 4. The university owes them. This contention is irrelevant considering Pro wants the tax payers and not the school to fund the transportation. I also disagree with Pro's bare assertion that it is up to the university to alleviate financial burdens for the student as much as possible; they have their own agenda. -- ARGUMENTS -- In addition to what I've already argued above in my rebuttal, 1. There are more important or useful things we could put tax payer money toward than free transportation; i.e., our debt, social security or other flailing aspects of our economy. Additionally, many people would still find a way to get places such as carpooling or walking and biking places, which contributes toward good personal and environmental health. 2. Free transportation would increase use, thereby necessarily drastically increase the cost of providing the service (i.e., more buses, trains, drivers, gas, electricity, etc.) to alleviate demand. It would be FAR too expensive to maintain, and create another huge tax payer drain. -- SOURCES --http://www.debate.org... |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00003-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | It is great to finally get a chance to match wits with the #1 ranked debater on this site. I'll keep this short since my opponent is both refuting and opening in her turn. Here is why college students should get free transportation:1) College students have very little moneyMost college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortagages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks. There is an enormous amount of money required for college and most students are in debt. They cannot afford to buy a car or pay extra for public transportation. 2) They have a huge requirement for transportationWhen college students go for a job interview, need to buy groceries or just need to go to class and back, they need transportation. Cars are expensive, as are parking permits for those who stay in the dorm. It is also difficult to find parking spots close to student's classes.3) College students would pay for it after graduationAfter college students graduate, most will get a job and pay taxes. A miniscule amount of these taxes would go to support public transport for the next generation of college students who would enjoy the benefits provided by their predecessors. This way, people who have money would be paying for public transport as opposed to people that don't. It is a great system of "passing it forward".4) The university owes themStudents pay universities an obscene amount of money for attending. The university owes it to them to make their life as easy as possible financially. In many counties, the local university makes a deal with the local public transport agency so that students can just swipe their university ID and ride for free. This is a great service and must be implemented nationwide. |
d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00004-000 | College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. | I accept the proposed definitions and terms. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00001-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | alskdj |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00002-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | Okay. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00003-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | Okay then. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00004-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | I unfortunately must concede that as time has gone on Pokemon games have gotten better. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00005-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | Reasons for why Pokemon has gotten better over time: 1. ) Gameplay 2. ) Fandom 1. Gameplay Over time, the gameplay of the Pokemon games has gotten significantly better for many reasons. These reasons include battles, characters, and graphics. I) Battles Battles have gotten significantly more interesting as time has passed. The biggest reasons for this are more moves and more types of Pokemon. Gamefreak putting in more moves and move types has allowed for much more diversity in battle and a bigger aspect of strategy in the games. Now there are more type advantages so it adds more excitement to the battles. (Source: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) II) Characters In the first generation, not much was given about the characters and they aren't really that interesting. Now, there are not only more characters but they are also more interesting. One character that exemplifies this is N from Gen 5. The game has him on the team you are battling; however, unlike the rest of the major members on his team, he is fighting because he actually believes that freeing Pokemon will be to their benefit. Ghetsis only wants to rule the world with no opposition. (Sources: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net..., . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) III) Graphics As time goes on, technology will essentially get better. Video games are no exception. The first couple of gens had grainy, not-that-great graphics. As time went on however, the graphics (both visual and audible) got much better. The music now is beautiful and so are the visuals. 2. ) Fandom As time went on, more and more people immersed themselves into the Pokemon universe. Some of these people made very great contributions. Many of these taking place recently. I will be using the example of the Nuzlocke comics. The Nuzlocke comics for those who don't know are comics made by someone with the user name of "Nuzlocke" on 4chan. They tell the story of the main character of the 3rd Gen, ruby, as he travels between regions. He does this while playing by specific rules set up by the creator of the comics. Not only are these comics funny and dramatic at the same time, but they have also gotten better as time went on. The first series of comics were crude and the story wasn't as good, but now the story has gotten much better and they look professionally done. This mirror how the game has also progressed. (Sources: . http://www.nuzlocke.com..., . http://www.youtube.com...) Thank you for your time and good luck to my opponent. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00006-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | I accept. |
d85885b7-2019-04-18T16:42:14Z-00007-000 | Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on. | It is my belief that Pokemon has gotten better as time has passed. First round is for acceptance. Good luck! |
edfd66cb-2019-04-18T11:26:43Z-00000-000 | Death penalty should be allowed. | I accept |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00000-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | . http://upload.wikimedia.org... |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00001-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | Arguments extended |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00002-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | I hope to shed some insight on the problems he has presented.1. No reliable evidence supporting God. Simple enough, the only real evidence supporting God is the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. We shouldn't believe something exists if there is no evidence supporting it. Most adults don't believe that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the fire-breathing, flying ones), or Santa Claus exists, so why do we give extra consideration to God? To the contrary. Almost all conclusions start with observations. Which conclusion gets generally accepted is usually based on philosophical ideas, most notably Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states that "Which ever answer is the simplest answer is most likely right, so as long certain criteria are met. " However, the very definition of science revolves around an atheistic world view, or at least nothing is changing or manipulating our universe. Therefore, whatever conclusions that could be reached with the conclusion "God did it. " can be thrown at and chuckled at by many members of the scientific community, regardless if that conclusion is more probable or not. Another way to look at my opponents argument might conclude that "Because nothing directly points to God, we should not consider his existence. " However, there are arguments such as the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, Teleological argument, and Transcendental argument [1][2][3][4] all point to the existence of a creator, which the most likely candidate is the Christian God.2. The Bible's moral values are questionable at best. The bible advocates cutting off hands, killing simply because someone didn't want to get their brother's wife pregnant, stoning teenagers to death, killing someone who is working on a Sunday, killing homosexuals, slaughtering infants, owning and beating slaves, men owning their wives, hating life, and stoning liars to death. The Bible is outdated? "the word of our God will stand for ever. " (1)This is a straw man argument. Although I desire to argue my point on this subject, I feel as if my opponent will send down an endless amount of verses demonstrating cruelty in the bible. Regardless, this does nothing to prove that God is less likely to exist, or at least demonstrates my opponent has withheld his insight from the voters and I. 3. Praying doesn't work. "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened…" – Matthew 7:7Go ahead and try. Pray and ask for cancer to be cured overnight. I guarantee it won't work. If it doesn't it either means that you are evil, or God doesn't exist. This is also a straw man, but I will dance with it for the time being because of the conclusion PRO has made. My opponent is demonstrating a rather impatient attitude towards God. For God to truly give you what you desire, you must possess 3 criteria:1. You have to be patient with God.2. You have to have total faith in God.3. Your desires have to be beneficial towards your or other peoples faith in God. Most (if any) people do not fill these 3 criteria. Thus, any desires you have that God does do for you, he does because he is gracious and desires you to be happy with him. My argumentsPreviously I have listed 4 philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which include:The Cosmological Argument [1][1] Everything that began to exist has a cause[2] The universe began to exist[3] Therefore, the universe has a causeWhy does this point to God? Because science and observations are restricted to the physical universe. Implying that there were conditions present before the universe began is more of an assumption than the existence of God. So by using Occam's Razor, we can deduce that since the existence of God is a simpler (having less assumptions) claim than pre-universe conditions, the existence of God is more probable. The Ontological Argument [2][1] If an omnipotent being is possible, then that being exists in some possible world. [2] An omnipotent being is also omniscient. [3] An omniscient being exists in every possible world. [4] Therefore, an omnipotent God exists in our world. This in itself points to a creator. The Teleological Argument [3]This is the argument of fine tuning. The character length restricts me from putting all of the arguments on this page, so I rather point my opponent to this link for a general example of arguments for fine tuning: . http://www.godandscience.org...I do not expect or require my opponent to refute any or all of these factors, but rather allow him to explain how they are irrelevant in the great debate of God. If my opponent refuses to use a link as an argument in itself, he can skip this argument altogether. The Transcendental Argument [4][1] Laws of nature exist[2] The Laws of nature have not always existed[3] Nowhere in the universe hold codes for the Laws of nature[4] Thus, something created the Laws of nature. This in itself points to a creator. ConclusionI have removed the validity of my opponents arguments and have posted my own that I expect to defend until this debates conclusion. Until my opponent posts his refutations, I must urge voters to lean towards a CON vote at this point. +++++[1] . http://www.gotquestions.org...[2] . http://www.gotquestions.org...[3] . http://www.gotquestions.org...[4] . http://www.gotquestions.org... |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00003-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | Thanks! Good luck to you as well! Instead of posting three long, lengthy arguments, I'll just post three small ones that I feel are fairly solid evidence for God's non-existence. 1.No reliable evidence supporting God. Simple enough, the only real evidence supporting God is the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. We shouldn't believe something exists if there is no evidence supporting it. Most adults don't believe that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the fire-breathing, flying ones), or Santa Claus exists, so why do we give extra consideration to God? 2.The Bible's moral values are questionable at best. The bible advocates cutting off hands, killing simply because someone didn't want to get their brother's wife pregnant, stoning teenagers to death, killing someone who is working on a Sunday, killing homosexuals, slaughtering infants, owning and beating slaves, men owning their wives, hating life, and stoning liars to death. The Bible is outdated? "the word of our God will stand for ever." (1) 3.Praying doesn't work. "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened…" – Matthew 7:7 Go ahead and try. Pray and ask for cancer to be cured overnight. I guarantee it won't work. If it doesn't it either means that you are evil, or God doesn't exist. I apologize for the extremely short length, but I have been very busy this week. I eagerly await your response! 1: Deut 25:11-12, Genesis 38:8-10, Deut 21:18-21, Ex 35:2, Lev 20:13, Isaiah 13:13-16,Exodus 21:20-21,1 Tim 2:11-12, Col 3:22-23, Luke 14:26, Deut 22:13-21, Isaiah 40:8 |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00004-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | Since I joined this site, I've always wanted to take a debate like this. You don't really seem to exhibit that much knowledge on the subject (No offence, I don't either), so I think this will be a fair but challenging debate.The Christian God is omniscient, but not omnibenelovent.Good luck! |
7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00005-000 | The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist. | I'm going to try this one more time...hopefully I won't have any trolls or forfeiters. By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority Exist - To have actual beingRules: The burden of proof shall be shared.No arguments in the first round. Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both. Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification. You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof. If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you! |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00000-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | Nevertheless, I accept that a pub, as a venue to enjoy oneself, is an essential amenity in any village and that Dull is sadly deficient in that respect, which is why the village inspired the old saying "All work and no play makes Jack a Dull boy" - how about that for inspiration? 2) Boring is not an inspiring name compared to the names of some American towns past and present. Here are some examples of truly 'awesome' place names from around the United States: Who'd A Though It, AL Eek, AK Greasy Corner, AR Toad Suck, AR Turkey Scratch, AR Sh! thouse Mountain, AZ Murderers Gulch, CA You Bet, CA Git-Up-And-Git, CA Puke, CA Shitbreeches Creek, CA Two T! ts, CA Two Eggs, FL What Cheer, IA Rabbit Hash, KY OK, KY Peculiar, MO Stiffknee Knob, NC Lick Skillet, TX Ding Dong, TX Looneyville, TX Cut And Shoot, TX Shittin Gulch, WA Superior Bottom, WV Embarrass, WI Certainly, if I were driving through Ohio and saw a sign for Pee Pee, I'd be inspired to turn of and visit the town if only to make use of one of their restrooms. Similarly, who could rive past Hot Coffee or Goodfood, both towns in Mississippi, without being tempted to stop off? Although drivers who get lost in South Carolina might not stop at East Due West to ask for directions, the town of Brainy Boro in New Jersey must be a mecca for pseudo-intellectuals wishing to socialise with fellow boffins. (1) No, by American standards, Boring, as a name, is really quite dul. 3) I have to accept that nobody does razzmatazz like the Americans. Also, the Scots are notoriously dour people. And the Full Moon Bar in Boring has a strip club? I like to think I am a good debater, but I have no option to concede this final observation to my opponent. In conclusion, both Boring and Dull live up to their names but, overall, Dull is slightly less Boring than Boring is dull. Thank you. (1) Bill Bryson, Made in America, p.130-131 |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00001-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | Here we move into the final round of what was a highly enjoyable debate. Since my opponent did take the opportunity to make arguments in his R1, I will address some arguments here in the final round, but keep new arguments to a minimum. Yes, my opponent is thinking of Braveheart. While it is true that Scots no longer try to take over England, it is not because the Scottish are somehow tame and impotent, but rather because England is no longer desirable to be taken over. After all, they came out with this [see video 1]. No one wants to take over a nation of crazy people. Now to move on and defend my positions. 1) Boring OR may not have a plethora of bars and pubs, but it does have some, while Dull has to rely on the bars and pubs of its neighbors (what a mooch). The people of Dull, have to actually leave their little town in order have a good time. 2) Hirsh referred to the Boring sign as "particularly inspiring" and later stated, "We never went there, but I was positively enchanted with the idea that there was a town called Boring. Gravity Falls is partially from what I imagine Boring might be like. " [2] How awesome must a town be to inspire someone who only say a sign of it? 3) Golf may have been a complete snooze back when the Scottish were running, but Americans have found a way to add some pizzazz and flavor [3]. That's right, we added black people and tons of sex (that's kinda what America does to everything, well the second part at least). Though everything it is not hard to see which town has more to do. Boring has bars, pubs, golf, etc, while Dull has. .. neighbors with some cool pets. Also, did I mention that the Full Moon Bar & Grill in Boring was a strip club [4]? No? Well, remember, America likes to add sex to everything. Thank you. [1] video . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.oregonlive.com... [3] . http://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.oregonlive.com... |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00002-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | With many thanks to Ore_Ele for impassioned response, I would like to reply to her observations as follows: The film, The Highlander, was an anti-English propaganda movie made by Americans, which was applauded by Scottish-Americans but utterly denounced by historians who were appalled at the monstrous and deceitful attempt the film made to rewrite history and portray the various Scottish clans as brave victims of English oppression. The reality was that the Scots at the time were a motley assortment of wild and uncultured savages who invaded the peace-loving and civilised English nation, raping and pillaging as they went. Surely the English were entitled to defend themselves from these barbarians' unprovoked attacks? Or am I thinking of Braveheart? Anyway, we must dismiss The Highlander film as a reliable source because most of the tribes of Scotland have now been tamed and restrict their violence and aggression to football grounds (soccer stadiums) and pubs. And the streets. Also visitors to Scottish airports who arrive on fire can expect to the airport staff to punch them to the ground rather than extinguish the flames. (See YouTube clips), but anyway, they no longer try to invade England. Moving on, although, for technical reasons, I accept that The Highland Safari Centre has an Aberfeldy address, the Centre is actually located only half a mile from the centre of Dull (Map A) while the centre of Aberfeldy is over three miles away (Map B) - so we can see that Dull is the by far the closest village. Now to address my opponent's rebuttals: 1 - Dull is tiny, only 85 people live there compared with the 12,851 that live in Boring (1). Yet my opponent concedes that there are only two pubs in Boring to cater for all those people, while within 3.2 miles of the centre of Dull there are no less than 4 bars and pubs. (2) Clearly, if the demand existed for more nightlife in Boring more pubs would open but it is obvious that the people of Boring, unlike the inhabitants of Dull and the neighbouring villages, are not the sort of people who like to go out and enjoy themselves. 2 - Let's look at my opponent's claim that Boring, Oregon inspired the Disney cartoon Gravity Falls a bit closer, shall we? According to my opponent's own source (3), the writer, Alex Hirsch, told them: "The town of Gravity Falls is an amalgam of places Hirsch visited in Oregon and national parks he spent time in as a child. But there was one town name he saw on an Oregon road sign that was particularly inspiring." And they quoted Hirsch as follows: "We passed a sign for Boring, Oregon. We never went there," That's right, voters, Hirsch never even visited Boring, Oregon - the inspiration for the movie was other towns in Oregon. 3 - What would you say was the most tedious, unfashionable, uninspiring, upper middle class, middle-aged, unadventurous and least exciting sport in the world? It's got to be golf, hasn't it? And where would you site a golf course? Where people who like quiet, safe and recreations like doing jigsaw puzzles, brass-rubbing in churches and playing golf live, of course. I would like to thank Ore_Ele for admitting that Boring, doesn't just have one golf club but TWO, while Dull has none at all! Thank you. (Map A) https://maps.google.co.uk... (Map B) https://maps.google.co.uk... (1) http://www.usbeacon.com... (2) https://maps.google.co.uk... (3) http://www.oregonlive.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00003-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | I will first respond to his arguments, then present my own. My opponent points out a Highland Safari Center, and claims that this gives him an edge. Well, I must say if this really is any kind of edge, it is exremely Dull (by the way, be prepared for horribly bad puns, maybe have a drink or two before reading. .. or six. Acctually, keep drinking until that last one was funny, then continue reading). In fact, if you used an edge that dull to skin a living cat in Russia, Putin might think it to be cruel. Anyway, there are two reasons for us to be skeptical about this source.1) Probably the most significant. If any of us have watched ground breaking movies in 1986 (I know I did as a sperm), we would know from the documentary commonly known as "Highlander" that there can only be one. My opponent's highland safari suggests that there are multiple and that they are known. If this was true, they would be forced to destroy each other until there was only one.2) Probably the more logical (if you care about that sort of thing). Looking at the source, we can see from their "contact us" section, that they are located in Alberfeldy, not Dull [1]. So this is really something that is merely near dull. How exciting is that? That's like being on the other side of a wall of two people having sex, rather than actually having sex. Now, moving on to my arguments, there are so many they will blow your mind (if you're four years old).1) Boring Oregon actually has a number of bars and pubs [2]. Everybody knows that anything and everything is exciting when you add alcohol to the equation (this is actually how they teach math there. Have any equation, add alcohol = AWESOMENESS! )2) There are cartoon shows inspired by Boring Oregon [3]. The new Disney show Gravity Falls was based around Boring Oregon. Can Dull Scotland say that it has a TV show designed around it? Didn't think so. While the writer is not even from Oregon, this only adds to the awesomeness and excitment of Boring. They've inspired a TV town, by a writer from a different state.3) The most solid argument (of course saved for last). Boring Oregon has, not one, but two golf courses [4]. Dull, Scotland has none. Let that sink in for a minute. Dull SCOTLAND does not have a single golf course, in a nation (~ish) where having a golf course is a legal requirment (they are trying to pass a law that says those under the poverty line can have a putt putt course and be okay with the law, but that isn't looking like it will pass [5]). We also know that golf is one of the most exiciting, thrilling, and heart stopping "sports" of all time (I use "sports" looser than a [insert some kind of racist or sexist joke here, but make sure it is funny, thank you, feel free to use the comments section]). So after all of this, we can clearly see that Dull Scotland is so boring, even the sheep won't put out on a fourth date. While in Boring, most put out on the second, if not the first. Thank you,[1] . http://www.highlandsafaris.net...;[2] . http://boringoregon.com...;[3] . http://www.oregonlive.com...;[4] . http://attractions.uptake.com...;[5] . http://th05.deviantart.net... |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00004-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | Firstly, we should be clear that some people, older people and conservative Christian types mainly, do not crave excitement: they are perfectly happy with soporific tranquility; so this debate isn't really about what location is more appealing to everybody, but which younger people who have not been indoctrinated by some happy-clappy, tambourine-bashing pastor would find more exciting. That said, clearly, both the hamlet of Dull in Scotland, near England in Europe and the town of Boring in Oregon near Canada in North America are both mind-numbingly tedious and lacklustre places, but the purpose of this debate is which location is the most incredibly dull and boring place to visit. As I intimated in my pre-amble, coffin-dodging retirees and religious fundamentalists are not bothered about the lack of excitement: pubs, drive-through restaurants, nightclubs, casinos, all-night bars and extreme sport venues, so let's look at which town presents normal younger people with the most opportunities to enjoy themselves: Boring, OR ------------- Nightclubs: 0 24/7 drive-thru restaurants: 0 Casinos: 0 All-night bars: 0 Famous residents willing to invite tourists to celebrity parties: 0 Highland adventure safaris centres: 0 Dull, Scotland ----------------- Nightclubs: 0 24/7 drive-thru restaurants: 0 Casinos: 0 All-night bars: 0 Famous residents willing to invite tourists to celebrity parties: 0 Highland adventure safari centres: 1 So, we can see that having a Highland safari centre which offers mountain adventure opportunities by Land Rover, bike or foot (1,2) gives Dull the edge over Boring: it's not much of an edge, I agree, but an edge it most certainly is. Thank you. (1) . http://maps.google.co.uk... (2) . http://www.highlandsafaris.net... |
22bfd094-2019-04-18T18:13:36Z-00005-000 | Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland | Boring Oregon [1] Dull Scotland [2] Earlier this month, Boring and Dull decided, like a 15 year old girl with daddy issues, to get married purely for the publicity of it [3]. They sharing nothing in common but a rather silly name. I will be arguing that Boring Oregon is a more exciting and interesting place than Dull Scotland. While my opponent will be arguing for Dull. This is meant to be a semi-serious debate (we are to actually be arguing the topic) but with a humorous tone (since what fun would it be if our arguments were dull and boring?). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com... |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00000-000 | abortion | The end. |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00001-000 | abortion | whale this was a fabulous argument (: |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00002-000 | abortion | It sounds like we have a concession. :-) |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00003-000 | abortion | i completely agree with you're argument. yes if the woman's life is in danger due to issues then it is understandable because like you said its better to save one life than lose two. i also think that in some instances it may be okay for the woman to abort her unborn child if she was sexually assaulted or raped. however it must be done with in the first 9 weeks before the child is considered a fetus. but still then i don't agree with abortion I'm just more understanding in those cases because of the emotional impact it could have on the mother and then later affect the child. the mother may have trouble holding or giving affection to her child because the child could resemble the rapist or could be just a constant reminder of that one incident so that could cause psychological issues in the child later on and may lead to them becoming violent in society. but a teenage mother who was just careless should not be able to abort her child because of her irresponsible actions, she needs to learn from her mistakes; the raped victim however did not do anything wrong but be at the wrong place at the wrong time. |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00004-000 | abortion | Although I oppose abortion in most cases, I accepted this debate because Con's position is that abortion "can never be justified regardless of circumstances." That is the point I want to disagree with.I don't think anything Con said substantiates his position. He argues that abortion is not justified to avoid hardship, or deal with problems like low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, promiscuity, poverty, lack of education, and absense of moral guidence. I agree with all that. But those do not exhaust the circumstances under which a person might get an abortion; therefore, they do not show that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances."The one circumstance in which I think abortion is morally justified is in cases where the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Abortion is justified in these cases for two reasons. First, it's justified because people have the right to preserve their own lives. Second, it's justified because if a pregnant woman dies, then so does her unborn, and it's better to save one life than to lose two.Since there is a circumstance under which abortion is justified, Con's claim that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances" is false. |
81e6d67b-2019-04-18T16:20:09Z-00005-000 | abortion | Killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development... In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy - problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems. Finally, a society which allows the killing of its most vulnerable members, in the very place in all the world which should be for them to be safest and most nurtured - their own mothers' wombs - is incapable of cherishing and nurturing human life or valuing childhood and motherhood. Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances. |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00000-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | do u liek mudkipz |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00001-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | Yo merde. |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00002-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | Spam spammity spam spam! |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00003-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | Also note that the other cities would demand equality and a plan on this level is impossible to acheive. |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00004-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | R1. "It would be easier and cheaper to carry around" Can't answer this until I know a figure of how many books you read in a year Also my opponent is probably a self serving lazy kid who would probably break his Kindle anyway. |
73a6bde1-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00005-000 | Redwood in Thousand Oaks, California should provide all students in 7th and 8th grade with kindles | It would be easier to carry around and you wouldn't have to carry around so many things. Instead of dragging textbooks from and back to school in the beginning and end of the year, we could just bring a little Kindle. Plus, it would be cheaper and they would last longer. |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00000-000 | Rap battle | You are only 12 so what can you do to me? I ain't losin' to a stupid dweeb who ain't even hit puberty Shouldn't you be in school? Class is waitin' Oh I forgot, you just discovered masterbation Spectators can watch this guy get destroyed Your not determined to get a girl cuz your liking the boys The only thing that makes your shaft get long Is watching Disney Movies with Zack Efron I'm not single I have a fianc" She has a hot face better than Beyonc" I came to strike hard like a big comet Your only girl was your hand with a wig on it It's hurting me how your just a nerdy emcee You aint gotta pay cash you get murdered for free You are just a little person to me You lost, now go home and learn about the birds and the bees |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00001-000 | Rap battle | Ah first of all, you don't know how I look A fail you made the risk you took No pimples no nothing on me I am in fact everything that you could never be Number one, FYI, I don't have a wive I am 12 in school just living my life And why on earth do you want to include my mum? This is about me. Oh wait I know why, your dumb! You are the greatest? Hah! Dream while you still can. The one who inspired me to rap is Eminem So stop complaining say something true Cause one way or another i'm still gonna diss you. You bet bout my family Well you lost, gimme all your money I am not determined to get a girlfriend, not now anyway Cause when you get one, I am gonna steal her away. Yes you are the illest. You need a doctor. Or the disease may travel to your daughter Not that she was even born yet you are single You are so lame that I giggle |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00002-000 | Rap battle | I bet your mum smells like sweaty dumbbells And your dad reeks of moldy as* checks Your sister's twat burns like like it's from hell She tried to give me diseases last week You wanna battle the greatest? That's odd Eminem's in your photo but you ain't a Rap God You have pimples and a fat bod But claim you look like Brad Pitt what a wack fraud I'm the illest so listen your style gets diminished You ain't good with the women in one minute your finished You deplenish my interest I'm sinister with it Won't give you the whole thing this is a snippet Into the darkness away you fade So just cut yourself with a razor blade You look up to me like your wife when she's licking my balls I guess your life just isn't worth living at all |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00003-000 | Rap battle | OK guys let's cut to the chase But keep in mind this is only the first phase Of dissing this foolish disgrace You wanna roast someone? You are in the wrong place RationalThinker9119 Out of rhythm look at the time time time Kick you out the spotlight, my turn to shine Whatever you are going to write, first redesign your rhymes I'm tough like I am from the mighty jungle Mind-states strong but thoughts are humble Enter your mind like evasive fungal Enjoy the ride, I hope you are buckled Your rhymes often cause controversy The next two lines just make me happy For no matter how many fish in the sea It would feel so empty without me |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00004-000 | Rap battle | I accept. |
83ce05da-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00005-000 | Rap battle | Hi. I wanted to try out rap battles in debate.org. First round is acceptance and the others are for dissing your opponent. Good luck to the person who accepts. |
8032a0c5-2019-04-18T11:42:27Z-00002-000 | Phone use in school | I think we should be able to have our phones on our desks at school because if we need to contact home in an emergency we would be able to. |
8032a0c5-2019-04-18T11:42:27Z-00000-000 | Phone use in school | Phones need to be able to have out in class for important things only, therefore I am for phones being out on your desk when there isn"t a test going on because on a test with your phone out that can cause you to cheat. |
8032a0c5-2019-04-18T11:42:27Z-00001-000 | Phone use in school | I think we should be allowed to use phone in school as we might need to call our parent for an emergency. If in danger, your children can reach the authorities or a medical provider. Phones can be silenced during class or study periods, and active only in appropriate places. Cell phones create a convenience that was previously unavailable. With cell phones, you can easily reach your kids for any reason: to ask them questions, change plans, or to simply say hello. Most working people benefit from having their cell phones on them. They can access their email, call clients, check inventory, read the news, use software applications, and more. Students need to learn how to use their cell phones responsibly Administrators often take notes on their phones as part of teacher observations. Some teachers, coaches, and counsellors use their cell phones in school settings, too. It may not be permitted, but they are allowed to do so without the same consequences as students. Why shouldn"t students be able to do the same? Many phone apps offer visual representations of difficult-to-grasp subjects (like astronomy, science, or anatomy) that can assist visual learners and/or students who have dyslexia. Tablets offer the same services, but may provide a better user experience because of the size difference. |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00000-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | It appears my opponent thought this was a four round debate. Anyway, I'll still answer the questions truthfully. 1. No, I don't take issue of the celebration of Christmas. Actually, I celebrate Christmas with my family every year. It's a great holiday. 2. No, I don't take issue to naming an evergreen tree a Christmas tree during the holiday season. Once again, my family partakes in the activity. 3. No, I don't take issue with Nativity scenes. Some of my neighbors have them and I personally think they look very nice. 4. No, most of our governmental figures do that. I would only have a slight problem if the state officially promoted it. 5. I find myself, on the political spectrum, as a Left-Libertarian. However, I don't hold any grievances against Republicans or Christians. My opponent has failed to 1. Show Atheists are being malicious/unfair with 'our' 'War on Christmas'2. |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00001-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | I would like to redirect to my opponent. The reasoning will be evident in the next round. This is to instruct him to answer these questions, as they are exceedingly relevant the more information he gives. I ask he please answer all entirely truthfully. 1. Does my opponent take issue in any way, shape or form, to celebration of Christmas? 2. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue to the naming of the evergreen in winter as a Christmas Tree? 3. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue with Nativity scenes? 4. Does my opponent believe recognition of Christmas is an offense if any government figure is the recognizer? 5. Is my opponent biased, or has any form of grievance, against the Republican Party, Conservatives, or Christians? |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00002-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | "America is a place of freedom, creatively, religiously, and overall, it is a boiling pot of different walks of life. However, it is detrimental to this mix's balance to transgress upon the religious expressions of another if it does not advocate violence, profanity, or other unacceptable conduct."Atheists are doing nothing to censor anybody's religious expressions. The only thing they ask is we maintain the Constitution's order of separation of Church & State. When this has not been fulfilled, that's when the lawsuits occur to resolve any imbalances. Also, if you want to get specific, Christians have been doing more to advocate unacceptable conduct against Islamic practice within the U.S since 9/11. The notion that Atheists are trying to do anything to remove Christmas is a baseless argument that has been constantly pushed by Fox News to attack secularists. "An example being the removal of the Nativity scene from Santa Monica California, the birth of a man, regardless if people believed him to be the son of God, cannot cause a group of people, Atheists specifically, harm as by their own tongue's admission, they do not believe in an omnipotent power, a deity, a God, or intelligent design, and they do not believe in religion. I view this as a confession of discredit on their part."I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to advocate. Since atheists do not believe in either God or Intelligent Design, the atheists are admittingly discrediting themselves? This is a non-sequitur fallacy, as nowhere within the definition of atheism or atheist does it mention any sort of discredit amongst ourselves. In the Santa Monica case, atheists never removed the nativity scene or did anything to obstruct its view. They just used the land, that they received from the city, to place signs and scenes that advocate a religious-free viewing of the holidays'"An argument that has been brought up to me by Atheists I have held discourse with, is that under Separation of Church and State, the government cannot in any way do anything so as to prefer one religion over another. Logically, this is an oxymoron/paradox, as Atheism is not a religion and it makes it very clear by self-admission it is not a religion. And even if Atheism was a religion, the government is not promoting a religion, but a winter holiday that has multiple associations, and benefits the nation in many ways, from a government standpoint, primarily economically"I think my opponent has misunderstood Separation of Church/State. That is there to limit the government from advocating Christianity within their practices and advocating it as the country's religion. "There is no religious promotion with erecting a Christmas tree, or allowing the Salvation Army to seek charity, in letting children see the Nutcracker, or in stringing colorful lights, or letting children believe in a man who wants to give them presents if they be good to their fellow man. If anything, if this is the argument the Atheists will use, they are making themselves a religion, and they are infringing upon our rights, and promoting their religion."In all due respect to my opponent, that argument makes no sense. Even if that was the argument of atheists, which it isn't, that in no way advocates Atheism as a religion. I'd like my opponent to explain deeper on how promoting Separation of Church/State makes Atheism a religion. "This is malicious for the end result would be the denial of the Christmas holiday to the people, when, as it stands, no one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it""No one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it". I'm confused, so you just admitted that atheists, under 'no one', are doing nothing to disassociate anybody from practicing Christianity within the U.S.? Like previously mentioned, atheists are doing nothing to advocate the remove or destroy the holiday season, particularly Christmas. ArgumentI have one simple argument to affirm my case. The "War on Christmas" doesn't exist. The War on Christmas is a plot by the Christian-Conservative media to attack secular activists for advocating the Separation of Church/State. As it stands, atheists are doing nothing to limit anybody's right to celebrate Christmas. Instead, there are more plausible reasons why Christmas is becoming more "irrelevant" in America. According to Timothy Stanley of Oxford University, these reasons can be attributable to a decline in Christmas in America[1]-An attack on secularists by conservative and evangelical leaders-Rising unbelief and growing religious diversity -A reason for politicians to attack each other over-A way to avoid confrontation or offensive to multiple minority religious groups. Also, as Jeff Sorensen, author for the Huffington Post reviews, you can't go minutes without seeing or hearing a Christmas song, commercial, TV show, movie, magazine, or carol within your town, let alone the entire U.S.[2] When's the last time anybody saw an Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduism, or any religious minority being represented in the U.S. mass media system? Hell, even NORAD has a feature on their website that 'tracks Santa'. Like Jeff Soresen reiterates within the article, and what I have been advocating in my entire argument, there is no War on Christmas, and it is much more likely there is a growing war on secularism. I'd also like to point out my opponent has neither given any examples of how atheists/secularists have attacked Christmas within the public sector, and has never constructed an argument proving this War on Christmas. To affirm the resolution, my opponent must prove that not only this war exists, but the atheists are being over-ambitious in trying to remove Christmas. Sources1. http://www.cnn.com...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00003-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | Thomas Jefferson, the biggest secular progressive of his time once said: "It is of no concern to me if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or none." America is a place of freedom, creatively, religiously, and overall, it is a boiling pot of different walks of life. However, it is detrimental to this mix's balance to transgress upon the religious expressions of another if it does not advocate violence, profanity, or other unacceptable conduct. An example being the removal of the Nativity scene from Santa Monica California, the birth of a man, regardless if people believed him to be the son of God, cannot cause a group of people, Atheists specifically, harm as by their own tongue's admission, they do not believe in an omnipotent power, a deity, a God, or intelligent design, and they do not believe in religion. I view this as a confession of discredit on their part. A Nativity scene reminds us of the birth of a wonderful man, and to remove chance of bias I submit I am Jewish, who's teachings have endured through millennia, IE being good to others, forgiveness, selflessness, etc. In all honesty, Jesus Christ never asked or told anyone to worship him, just because people do worship him today, does not mean he is responsible for this. Now acknowledging this, the display of a Nativity scene is simply the equivalent of the annual erection of a monument to a deceased individual, therefore there is no grounds for removal of it. An argument that has been brought up to me by Atheists I have held discourse with, is that under Separation of Church and State, the government cannot in any way do anything so as to prefer one religion over another. Logically, this is an oxymoron/paradox, as Atheism is not a religion and it makes it very clear by self-admission it is not a religion. And even if Atheism was a religion, the government is not promoting a religion, but a winter holiday that has multiple associations, and benefits the nation in many ways, from a government standpoint, primarily economically. There is no religious promotion with erecting a Christmas tree, or allowing the Salvation Army to seek charity, in letting children see the Nutcracker, or in stringing colorful lights, or letting children believe in a man who wants to give them presents if they be good to their fellow man. If anything, if this is the argument the Atheists will use, they are making themselves a religion, and they are infringing upon our rights, and promoting their religion. This is malicious for the end result would be the denial of the Christmas holiday to the people, when, as it stands, no one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it. If anything, this is an ideal situation as no one is being preferred. |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00004-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | I accept, Pro may now construct his case. |
2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00005-000 | Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. | The Christmas that is celebrated for the most part, is about good will towards all, family, festive decorations, good food, fun, and all around it is a beneficial thing. It morally brings people together, spiritually makes people closer, and reaches across every barrier to make the coldest and oldest join hands with the youngest among us, not to mention is economically beneficial. So Atheists, being a group of people who DEFINE themselves as "believing in no religion or higher power"... what case could they possibly make. And even if they could, why would they? It could only cause further division in a country where people are already at the brink. It is my view that Atheists are making noise to simply call attention to themselves, and to really make young, rebellious teens become Atheists, so if anything, this behavior is dangerous on their part. The Christmas tree is a tree, not a cross. Santa is not Jesus Christ. And even if you have a case with the Nativity scenes, then why don't other religions feel like you? Because they don't feel infringed upon. This is America the free. No one is forcing Christmas on anyone except maybe extremist preachers. So, based on the points I have raised thus far, I argue that Atheists have a malicious vendetta against Christmas. |
ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00000-000 | Teachers should stop giving homework | wow bro just wow easy 7 points win |
ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00001-000 | Teachers should stop giving homework | Your argument is what? |
ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00002-000 | Teachers should stop giving homework | Ok, Hello. First off, I am a student myself and believe that homework benefits the learning of a student. Teachers don't give out homework just because they dislike you. They give out homework because they care about your future. Homework completely helps and is essential to learning. |
ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00003-000 | Teachers should stop giving homework | I don't even need to even give a definition on homework to begin with you all know the deal. One thing to say for the other side. YOU ARE WRONG! Homework isn't that beneficial, I wouldn't like if a teacher just slams paper on the table demanding you to do your projects and bringing it back next week. Here's your response or what you are saying in your head ' This kid is just lazy children in America these days are just lazy that's all they don't want extra practice' NOT TRUE!! A statement like that is false and you know it is. The reason children aren't doing homework is not because of laziness that's 1. 2. Children have other curriculum activities other than home work you know, and teacher don't understand that it isn't that easy to go to after school, end at 6:00 and then expect so much homework to be done. Homework is just a lazy way of teachers to give an excuse that they don't want to do a lesson. 3. Many adults who haven't finished school are like 'I did homework when I was young so should they' That's not true this is just like saying 'I starved when I was young so should my child' 4. Mainly children already have 8 hours of school, added with extra curriculum. Would you like to be doing 5 projects at 9:00 PM? I know how it feels because I just had 8 homework assignments. No you don't. I bet you people against this is like 'Oh he's a whiney baby' and ' Oh he just another spoiled one' I am just taking my personal experience People just get stuff off the internet that says homework is helpful and crap and that kids get smarter. Some websites say that but its not true at all if that's the case many children in my class would be as smart as me so your really playing yourself from getting things online as proof that home work is helpful but its not true Its better to get a person inside the situation |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00000-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | As I did before I will forfeit. Vote my opponant, Pro. |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00001-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | Post to speed up the round. |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00002-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | As said, I will forfeit all rounds. Thank you! |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00003-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | Although a bit disappointing, my opponent's retreat will be accepted. I thank my opponent for the graceful concession and wish him luck in future debates. Have fun! |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00004-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | I would like to apologise to my opponent for forfeiting this debate. My arguments have many errors, and I believe will fail.Thank you. |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00005-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | The topic of discussion is (verbatim): Torture should be used to gain information from terrorists. (I noted my opponent's definition of the word 'reliable', but I didn't see reliable anywhere within the topic. I'm pointing this out to tell my opponent that, although it is a viable contention to which he can resort, reliability is in no way an argumentative parameter. It's not that important, but I just thought I'd point that out.) I will be defending torture-interrogation under the following contentions: - The probability of torture-interrogations' successes justify its implementation (therefore, the cases of failure are dismissible) - Successful interrogation saves and has saved lives[1] Rebuttals and such will be delivered in the proceeding rounds. [1]http://waterboarding.org... |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00006-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | In this round we will create our arguments, then in round 3, 4, and 5, we will rebutt the opposing arguments. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Firstly, torturing is in-reliable. Some will not know the information asked, and/or may lie. Some examples of information may include terrorist camps, or bomb targets. The terrorists may lie by naming previous bomb, and camp locations. Interestingly, torture actually slowed down the attempt to find Osama Bin Laden [1. . http://www.dailykos.com...]Secondly, torture may encourage more humane actions by the US army. For example, masacares. |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00007-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | Accepted. |
98d1c94-2019-04-18T17:21:49Z-00008-000 | Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists. | DefinitionsTorture: Physical pain used to force terrorists to reveal information.Reliable: How trustworhy the information is from the terrorists.The burden of proof lies with both Pro and Con. Pro and Con will be arguing wherever, or not we should torture Terrorists should be tortured to gain information. No alternatives will be argued.Rounds:Round 1: Acceptance and Introduction. No arguments.Round 2: Opening, and new arguments by both Pro and Con. No Rebuttals by Pro or Con.Round 3: Rebuttal, and new arguments may be added.Round 4: Rebuttal. No new arguments.Round 5: Closing arguments and Rebuttal. No New arguments.I look forward to arguing with my opponent. |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00003-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | Well, it appears that my opponent, for whatever reason, has decided to argue in favour of my position. Extend both my opponent's and my own arguments. |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00004-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | I would like to point out, if god was so smart, why did he give humans a choice on whether to be evil or not. Why did he give us the power to kill each other in masses, if he was so smart, why isn't he stopping global warming, if he can change all of this why doesn't he do it? What concrete evidence do you even have that a god exists? For everything that had happened in this universe we have a logical explanation, gods were invented to explain things that humans couldn't years ago. All in all, i don't believe that there is an all powerful god. |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00005-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical I’m going to make simple arguments to begin. Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components: He is infinitely-intelligent He is omnipotent To say that god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited entity. Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed. Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed. Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for simplicity, and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite. To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god. Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence I think this is fairly self-evident, but I will address any objections should my opponent make them. It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules. And thus, it can be written as so: Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations Conclusion Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear be contradictory in nature. Thus, any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical. References Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. . http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1 (Take the two (dot)s out) (For all those that are ready to give me a jump for giving this as a reference, this is a reference, not a source. The difference is that I am not referring to this as researched evidence, rather I am referring to this because I have used the arguments from here, and thus I am giving credit where credit is due). |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00006-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | I don't believe in a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, who had unlimited power, I look forward to this debate. |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00007-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Be prepared... |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00000-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | Lol, ikr |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00001-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | That's okay, just hope that the voters are merciful. |
4fd1008b-2019-04-18T16:41:03Z-00002-000 | Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical | Oh sorry, I thought you saying saying that there is a god. |
666c8faf-2019-04-18T12:50:12Z-00000-000 | All students should have an after school job. | Ok, I know that students can't get a job 15 or younger. I agree that 15 or younger shouldn't be allowed to get an after school job, but since that topic didn't mentioned the age, I assume that underage students are excluded.I agree that students should have an after school job because they can learn how to manage their time. They actually can learn the skills of how to spend their time wisely and not using homework as excuses. |
666c8faf-2019-04-18T12:50:12Z-00001-000 | All students should have an after school job. | You may say that students should have after school jobs right, well as being a student in high school in modern day society, the schooling is getting harder and harder, we have a lot of homework, and usually most of the time the age for a job is not for 15 years or younger so most students can't get a job. Now there is the homework task, it is hard to have homework form the teachers in school, but add to that about 1/3 of the students are in either AP or Honors classes, the homework would be so much harder. So trying to juggle a job and all the homework would have each of the students up very late and may have a chance to fail each of the classes. The students like me should finish high school first then get a part time job so we can pay for college. |
666c8faf-2019-04-18T12:50:12Z-00002-000 | All students should have an after school job. | I agree that all students should have an after school job because they can learn how to be independent,. In this way they can know if they have mistakes, they need to change it. This can build up their responsibilities of themselves. This way students can earn money. They don't need to request their parents for money. They earn it. In this way students can know how difficult to earn money. So hard work pays off always. |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00001-000 | why snail more snail | why snail more snail 1- Snail is so much heavy and strong. if snail does not kill you he can hit you with it. weight is a sign of reliability. 2- the slug got evict from shell because he is poor. 3- slug get crush easy, snail shell get crush, snail crawl away to find another. it is like having 1up. 4- shell is more stronger than no shell 5- snail evolve shell out of itself, internal slug shell is copy of superior snail technology. 6- your sexy little sister lift up her skirt when she see snail. over 9000- if you trow snail at wall, wall will catch snail and happy. 8- trow both on water see wich can breth underwater wich has surfase for air 9- snail at mate will find a quiet leaf or hotel, slug is brazen hussy 10- snail is hermaphroditte faget becaus he hate biches only care for monie 11- snail is nail with curve added. slug is fake monie because he is poor. 12- snail only feast on finest foods, snail is coinessuer. 13- slug is 100000 years undeevolve, only survive because affirmative action. |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00002-000 | why snail more snail | okay |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00003-000 | why snail more snail | why snail more snail 1- Snail is so much heavy and strong. if snail does not kill you he can hit you with it. weight is a sign of reliability. 2- the slug got evict from shell because he is poor. 3- slug get crush easy, snail shell get crush, snail crawl away to find another. it is like having 1up. 4- shell is more stronger than no shell 5- snail evolve shell out of itself, internal slug shell is copy of superior snail technology. 6- your sexy little sister lift up her skirt when she see snail. over 9000- if you trow snail at wall, wall will catch snail and happy. 8- trow both on water see wich can breth underwater wich has surfase for air 9- snail at mate will find a quiet leaf or hotel, slug is brazen hussy 10- snail is hermaphroditte faget becaus he hate biches only care for monie 11- snail is nail with curve added. slug is fake monie because he is poor. 12- snail only feast on finest foods, snail is coinessuer. 13- slug is 100000 years undeevolve, only survive because affirmative action. |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00004-000 | why snail more snail | no more snail |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00005-000 | why snail more snail | why snail more snail 1- Snail is so much heavy and strong. if snail does not kill you he can hit you with it. weight is a sign of reliability. 2- the slug got evict from shell because he is poor. 3- slug get crush easy, snail shell get crush, snail crawl away to find another. it is like having 1up. 4- shell is more stronger than no shell 5- snail evolve shell out of itself, internal slug shell is copy of superior snail technology. 6- your sexy little sister lift up her skirt when she see snail. over 9000- if you trow snail at wall, wall will catch snail and happy. 8- trow both on water see wich can breth underwater wich has surfase for air 9- snail at mate will find a quiet leaf or hotel, slug is brazen hussy 10- snail is hermaphroditte faget becaus he hate biches only care for monie 11- snail is nail with curve added. slug is fake monie because he is poor. 12- snail only feast on finest foods, snail is coinessuer. 13- slug is 100000 years undeevolve, only survive because affirmative action. |
6cb83b44-2019-04-18T15:06:20Z-00000-000 | why snail more snail | no more snail |