_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00004-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | I accept.One thing though.Just: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.[1]Polygamy: the practice or condition of having more than one spouse,especially wife, at one time.[2]Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...; |
9a00b083-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00005-000 | Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just | Four rounds: 1-Acceptance 2-Arguments (and rebuttal by of 1st argument by 2nd debater) 3-Initial Rebuttals 4-Final Rebuttals and Concluding Statements For Pro to uphold resolution s/he must show that laws against voluntary polygamous marriages ARE just and not simply that they CAN be just. For Con to successfully negate he must show that laws against voluntary polygamous marriage ARE not just and not simply that they CAN be unjust. |
6f2f2ac3-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00000-000 | Football is for women as well as men. | I did not check every state's laws for everything. I searched three reliable sites for "States that have laws against girls playing American Football", and I did not find anything against them playing football. The biggest thing against women playing football was that they should find a different sport to play. Others call it "Abusive" for a woman to play football. However, I do not find this t obe abusive, and if it happened to be abusive, you could not blame coaches, teamates, or the opposing team, you blame her for getting into this game. This was a very fine debate. Thank you for your time, and good luck. |
6f2f2ac3-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00001-000 | Football is for women as well as men. | First of all, Did you read the Youth Football rules for all 49 other states? Also, as the age increase for players, so does the competitiveness among players. When you have read the NMAA rules for High School football then you can rebuke me, but until then your argument on youth rules is invalid. YAFL allows females to play because, although we are competitive, we will not intentionally hurt them unless a player is a sociopath. I'm not doubting a women;s ability to play football I'm just saying that they would be a distraction and would not all be able to play the amount of required playing time. Don't get me wrong, omen can play but very few have the stamina and concentration to compete at the high school level. Let me ask you something, specifically what playing level are we talking about? you started with Professional but then we moved to high school and YAFL. There is another youth football league on the East Coast ( POP WARNER ) that encourages women play the good sport of football, but like I said before there is no platform for women's professional football anywhere in our country.... BTW Augusta National Division is NCAA not pro. thank you. |
6f2f2ac3-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00002-000 | Football is for women as well as men. | Reading the laws of other states, there is no law that says something like 7B: Women can't play football with men. There are absolutely no laws in other states that say that women can't play football. With my football experience, I have seen girls playing the sport. You know too,we played Atrisco Valley, and that girl who played as well, if not better, than some of the boys we have seen playing. Also, I have seen in a few, but not all of the High Schools have at least one girl playing for their team.There is one girl division The Augusta National division, which is for girls. Also, with some research I have found that there are girl football divisions in Germany. Not the "soccer" type football, as they call it in England, but actual American-type football. So yes, there are girl divisions for American football. |
6f2f2ac3-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00003-000 | Football is for women as well as men. | Your argument id valid, however there is no other professional level of football in America other than the NFL (National Football League ) and the Arena Football League ( NOT sure on actual name ) which also prohibits women from playing. some states may vary on rules, but in New Mexico women are prohibited from playing football with men ( due to age and other variables), and there isnt enough interested women in football to create a whole division just for women. Besides if Women were aloud to play football they would be a distraction, and studies have proven that they fatigue faster then Men. |
6f2f2ac3-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00004-000 | Football is for women as well as men. | Many people say that women can not play football. However, I have found that when they say this, they say women are weak. Women are not given the chance to try football past the Young American Football League (YAFL). But if men think women can't play because of politics, they are not familiar with the laws. You can not put anybody under you, all men are created equal. he only league that prohibits women from completely playing is the NFL. So yes, girls have all the right to play outside the NFL. |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00000-000 | Rap Battle | Are you done? Had your fun? I did too took too long to respond after round 2 I move words around like i'm movin' the planets out of gravitational orbit Like a black whole, i take the energy given to me, absorb it like hot porridge I went back to time, taught you the basics that i transported of the softest I'm talkin about you, it's only the survival of the strongest, your line is discordant Like a surgeon, i'm performin' a lobotomy cuz your committin a false dichotomy undeservin' of a robotically enhanced brain neurology, a primitive physiology With such complexities within my rhyme schemes, givin you chills, nanotechnology Derive their etymology and you'll discover that it all leads to the same sovereignty A theocracy hidden within the beginning of time, so just bite this terminology You cannot step up to my fluidity, my pure masculinity like salinity, i wreck the vicinity I worship the highest form of divinity but lyrically, bleedin you out for all eternity I don't need an affinity with the modernity of unity, i'm not establishin serenity Acknowledge that your existence is just a pest as i'm rippin you to shreds Like Ed Gein, i'm takin you apart, dissectin you, startin with your eggs n' legs Homie stop rapping, cuz your bars are easily calculated with mental webs I've had it with you so i'ma drop the nuke then drop the bio weapon to the weak! Make everyone catch Ebola n' make everyone puke n' now you reached your peak! You never knew what it's like to be a rapper with great flow, switch em up dual Like a dynamic duo, your going to face a destructive and unforgettable blow As of right now, close your eyes, your life is endin' just like the passin shadow |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00001-000 | Rap Battle | Welcome to the third round, the one where you drown on my words and yours, the sensation'll make you frown. Obviously, you didn't get it, clown, that was your chance to back down, but I guess this'll be my gift to your town... The day the cat is let out of the bag and truth is put in and slung around, dropped down in a vat of battery acid and passive traps waiting at the top for another sound... None. Maybe you've finally found that your sh*t ain't good? You ain't superman; never meet tall h*es in a single bound, but you are single now, but so is every other brother, living with his mother, asking the bartender for another round. Yeah, my bars are a little stacked, but my flow is wicked worse than the witch of the west. I'm putting on my Sunday best, attempt the test, how many people you think'll show up to truth's funeral as willing guests? Well, there's me and.... I guess I'll wait for the rest. I dressed a little too nicely for a b*tch attesting to his skills, who lives in live action roleplay. "Oh, look, another quest!" See, I let you go first, 'cause I knew you'd need that extra round! Pig comes up and destroys you in two, "Truth is down! We found him on the ground, in a bloodied up ball gown, with a crayon sticking out his back, wearing a jagged crown!" But you won't be on a crucifix and you'll die for your own sins! No one should have to listen to your rhymes, even your kin! And to be honest, in your skull is the best place for your pen. So leave it there, stop scratching your chin, trying to think of another rebuttal, or some rebound to win. You're done. It's over. There's no, "How have you been?" It's just the people refusing your sh*t, zero out of ten. So try and grab a freestyle chemical, shoot up the syringe! Because unless you bend your genetics, rap is gonna leave you like self-esteem from girls who binge. Come on it's okay! Type your resignation and then hit send. It won't be a debate why you quit; not investigated in Fringe. So, show me something I haven't seen... a good lyric would be nice. One that has a little flavor like Mexican spice. But since all your full of is caffeine and sh*t, I ain't enticed by your words, just tired of hearing what you spit. I've had it with the truth, it always comes with a price! Boring, lengthy bullsh*t that runs around like mice. So, I'm done with this, I need a new vice. I'm almost considering apologizing for my verse and replacing it with lies. |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00002-000 | Rap Battle | your bars are uneven like a bone deformity one is longer than the other, not in conformity it appears that your bars are genetically disabled to battle me, you lack the capacity to be able Hey buddy why are you so sad and down? oh wait that's just a midget on the ground You look like you vomited all that bull crap When I told you to rap, you did exactly that You went to Taco bell and bought a wrap Then you threw up and said "that's that" truth must be very confusing, you're listening to so many Devils you going to the top on an elevator is wrong on so many levels God hates f*gs? Well I guess that means you time to take the sword and run you through your win score ratio is precisely zero to zero I'm wiping you out like the emperor Nero |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00003-000 | Rap Battle | Hey, everybody look! It's Slash! He's back to battle Capitalist with a bag of hash! But wait, he ain't smokin' and where's the top hat at? Oh, this is bad? Mad Hatter took his style and his smile! He looks so sad! But not even God can bring you back from this battle we've had! Not like you'll make it to heaven, anyways. Didn't you know God hates f*gs? Ouch! Don't get offended, I'm about 50% sure you're a dude, so I know you ain't on the rag. Don't want you to freeze up, though, this ain't a game, can't blame this on the lag! Let me give you a little taste of the truth. You're best chance for survival is wavin' the white flag. And we've all seen the proof in the bars above, so just go back to COD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Halo, GTA, and stay away or you'll find out the truth from inside your very own body bag. But I'll keep going just to make sure you get the point. There's no one to match me, no one to appoint. So when you finally throw in the towel and roll a joint, Lay off my d*ck, "But Pig, just allow me to anoint!" No, stay off my nuts! If you got the guts to face me, then realize when the battles won! No coming back to suck up, because done is done! There's no rappin' it iller, no more Slash, never was clashin' a killer. It was just bashin' an enlightenment f*g, smashin' his mask, taking his identity and crashin' it into the masses, to show that it's just another stay at home looter, with no homies and no bros, just a bronie, with a hard-on to put on a fa"ade as a rapper, time to tell 'em the truth, phony. It's time to go home and announce the real you. A fool, with no tool under his belt to change the rules. 'Cause that's the only way you'll win against me, I got the jewels. I just do whatever I want, that's the way I do. So, when you're tellin' me I've never even been in a debate, I just sit and drool? Please, let's go by record... What's yours, uh 50 : 62? (Wins : Losses) |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00004-000 | Rap Battle | I'm a communist, we are throwing a party and we're doing it big my homies asked me "what you cooking?" i said "a capitalist pig " when I scroll through your profile,all I see is regression no honors, no awards, no wins, it's the great depression in this battle, this is just an absolute monarchy I made your whole country turn into anarchy do you know why your going to lose? Why your bankrupt? its cuz you're already broke, you suck so go self destruct! before you die, I just wanted to sing a national anthem money equals power, so I'm holding you for ransom I'm a corrupt political leader,influence the people when it comes to human status, we're not equal he says that money is not the root of all evil Where's your society? dawg you got no people! On his opinions, he says that money is well paid, only fair for all trade for you that's what I forbade, I killed this fat greedy pig with a switchblade! on one of these poles, he says "time is a measurement not a literal force" Let me to change your mind, erase your history, and alter your future course your mother so stupid, she went to Craigslist trying to find the right house rejected all the black, yellow, green houses, just trying to find the White House you know what's demented?the fact that you can't protect yourself with the First Amendment I'm a dangerous and destructive descendant, my word's law, so you have absolutely no defendant |
e7373100-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00005-000 | Rap Battle | Okay, let's have a rap battle. Anyone can come and get it. Start off if you want. |
fb0633f8-2019-04-18T15:37:26Z-00003-000 | Is it ok for a women to kick a guy in the balls | Alright, I'll make this short and sweet. Men and women are not built the same. Men are built more physically, so it makes sense that it is easier to overpower a women then it would be another man of equal muscle mass. This is why rape happens, because men get carried away and does what ever he wants. This would an example of a time when it would be okay. When she is about to be raped, or assaulted, or anything similar, it is fine for her to do it. Thanks |
fb0633f8-2019-04-18T15:37:26Z-00004-000 | Is it ok for a women to kick a guy in the balls | I will accept because I believe, I, as a man, believe there are situations where this would be okay. |
fb0633f8-2019-04-18T15:37:26Z-00005-000 | Is it ok for a women to kick a guy in the balls | Id it ok to kick someone in the balls? |
f11351ad-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00001-000 | Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)......Hillary Clinton(Con) | Hello, personally I was a Bernie Sanders supporter, but now that he has effectively ended his campaign by endorsing Clinton. Who has always been my close second candidate, I will not back down on supporting her now. |
f11351ad-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00002-000 | Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)......Hillary Clinton(Con) | Hello all! I am I favor of Mr. Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a lying corrupt criminal. I will argue for Mr. Trump and Con will argue for Clinton. Thank You, and I hope this will be good debate. Please no trolling or rude behavior. Citations should be used if can. Good Luck to Con! The format of this debate is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS Round 3: Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion Report this Argument |
f11351ad-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000 | Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)......Hillary Clinton(Con) | I wish Con good luck and hope we can have a good debate as well! Some of my contentions will come from a previous debate against a troll. Contention 1: Mr. Trump is not a politically correct person. He sees and tells the truth the way it is and is non political correctness is approved by many Americans.[1] By being politically correct, issues cannot get solved, like the issue of Radical Islam and the issue of Illegal Immigration. Muslims must be banned in order to prevent more terrorist attacks in the United States. As for current Muslim citizens, there should be a registered database for them. For Illegal Immigration, the illegals came here ILLEGALY. They broke the law to get here and they should be punished by being deported. There is no need to be politically correct and say children would be separated from mothers. They should've thought about that before coming to the U.S. Illegally. It just proves that many people think that America is stupid and won't enforce immigration laws. And what does Hillary propose? Amnesty for all illegals which is ridiculous.[2]A wall must be built to stop all of these illegal aliens from coming and ruining lives of Americans. The wall would only cost about 17 billion dollars.[3]This is within the margin of the 58 billion trade deficit America has with Mexico.[4] The next round is for rebuttals and second contention. http://www.rasmussenreports.com... https://www.hillaryclinton.com... http://m.imgur.com... https://ustr.gov... In the next round, I will say why Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a good POTUS. |
f782b359-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00002-000 | Dance Is Not a Sport | Seria leviano dizer que a dan"a n"o " um esporte, pelo fato de que a dan"a trabalha diversos aspectos que se trabalha no esporte, tais como o lado emocional , o lado f"sico, entre outros. A diferen"a que talvez possa distinguir de maneira significativa uma da outra seria os fins que cada qual toma para si. |
f782b359-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00003-000 | Dance Is Not a Sport | Before I begin I would like to say that I myself am an avid ballet dancer. I value dance too highly to call it a sport. Jake Vander Ark says the following about the difference between dance and sports: "In sports, the objective is to win... tossing a toy back and forth to accomplish mindless objectives. ... In sports, winning is the endgame. players win so they can win so men can buy beer and congratulate each other for sitting in front of a TV, cheering on athletes... who provide meaningless entertainment that artificially heightens emotion. I can't think of anything lower. And dance is anything but low." Calling dance something other than a sport does not degrade its difficulty or its value, it actually heightens it. |
f782b359-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00000-000 | Dance Is Not a Sport | Seria leviano dizer que a dan"a n"o " um esporte, pelo fato de que a dan"a trabalha diversos aspectos que se trabalha no esporte, tais como o lado emocional , o lado f"sico, entre outros. A diferen"a que talvez possa distinguir de maneira significativa uma da outra seria os fins que cada qual toma para si. |
f782b359-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00001-000 | Dance Is Not a Sport | While I do agree that there are emotionally and physically demanding aspects to both dance and sports, there are too many differences between them to call dance a sport itself. For example, the "judgements" in dance are subjective, and up to each individual to decide. There is basic technique, but there is also room for artistic interpretation. The main difference however, is the storytelling aspect of dance. Dance exists to tell a story through movement and music. That is something sports simply do not do. Yes, they are both physically demanding, but dance requires an acting ability and a storytelling aspect that is simply not present in sports. |
1db2f1dd-2019-04-18T19:56:11Z-00003-000 | Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform | I beleive that the media representation that depicts free lawyers for criminals is misleading because to many Americans beleive that civil law is also free. Further more, too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer. I am impressed by the bravery of our policemen in making arrests in car chases, bank robberies, and I understand that they must be tough and sometimes even brutal in these instances. However, the media shows no honest representation of the vast numbers of losers in civil courts; and what is even more dangerous is outcomes of trials that is biased politically. Particularly when either litigants attorney may have a secret agreement with the other litigants attorney. |
1db2f1dd-2019-04-18T19:56:11Z-00000-000 | Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform | I take that back. He posted a debate topic, I refuted. He didn't provide an argument (for whatever reason). As I made a case that countered everything he put forth, I arrive at the conclusion that I pwned. |
1db2f1dd-2019-04-18T19:56:11Z-00001-000 | Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform | My opponent didn't want a debate, he just wanted to make a statement. Therefor, neither of us should win. |
1db2f1dd-2019-04-18T19:56:11Z-00002-000 | Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform | I'm assuming you endorse a Penal Judicial System Reform, but you don't specifically address what this reform will entail. I assume this reform is limited to: 1. Getting rid of court appointed lawyers. I can't see how the claims you make later on can be addressed by reform. If you offer a method of reform, I will gladly debate it. Your case starts out with the incorrect premise that everyone who is given a "free civil lawyer" is a criminal. The initial reason people are assigned lawyers is to ascertain whether or not they are indeed criminals or simply an innocent who stands accused. I will start by refuting your points (as far as I could distinguish them). 1. "Too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer." Subpoint A:The most important thing our justice system can achieve is an accurate trial with a suiting punishment. That is justice. That being said, due to human error 100% accuracy is something that is impossible to attain. Instead, our justice system settles for creating arbitrary rules that ensure fairness. The paramount responsibility of our justice system is to ensure fairness in the course of attaining accuracy. This entails making sure everyone is represented by someone who understands the law. Of course, it's impossible to make sure that everyone's lawyer will be of equal skill. We can however ensure that everyone has a lawyer who can properly defend them. Claim: Making sure everyone has a lawyer is important to establish a level playing field, which is necessary for fairness. Subpoint B: The Social Contract states that people give up some rights to ensure other rights are protected. For example, we give up taxes so that we may enjoy social services. Our Constitution promises us the right to a fair trial. For the protection of this right, we give up (to some extent) the right to property (taxes). Since we give up these taxes anyway, and we are first and foremost promised a fair trial, it isn't an infringement of our rights to use our taxes to fund the court appointed lawyer system. Claim: The right to a fair trial outweighs the potential right to property. Beyond the getting rid of the free lawyers, I don't see what reforms you endorse. So I will approach this debate through two perspectives: 1. (First and foremost) Ensuring that the right's guarenteed to us by our social contract are upheld. 2. Making sure Utility is best served. |
93953a8c-2019-04-18T15:19:33Z-00001-000 | In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights. | Refutations"Women are not equally represented in Government" My opponent has not explained why a disconnect between the percentage of women in the population and the percentage of women in government positions matters. As long as you vote for them, their Gender, Race, etc. shouldn't matter. My opponent has not proven that the cause of this is discrimination. My opponent has not proven that the changes this "issue" would need to stop existing are viable. For example, I listed five papers in my second round showing a strong correlation between increased female representation on corporate boards and decline in corporate performance. "Women in the US before Obamacare were denied basic health services in their insurance such as birth control because it violated other peoples beliefs" My opponent is not talking about something that is currently an issue. My opponent does not recognize that the Hobby Lobby case did not deny women all forms of contraception/birth control. My opponent does not recognize that women could still get all forms of contraception themselves even then. "Women are slightly more likely to be abused in a relationship http://www.saveservices.org...; My opponent does not recognize that his own source is an article proving that more men than women are victims of partner abuse. In fact, his source contains a lot of information backing up my point. It shows, with sources, that men are less likely to seek out help, & that two thirds of men who have tried to get help as victims of Domestic Violence have found these methods not at all helpful. (Really, thank you!) My opponent does not clarify what "slightly more" is, and gives us no context around the issue. My opponent's statement does not appear to be supported by the source he gave at all. "Laws that fail to account for the special needs of women in pregnancy (this was the worst one I found)http://www.nytimes.com...;This does not appear to be happening on a large scale, in fact there are already laws against it."Catcalling women is social acceptable ; My opponent does not recognize that a man has done a similar experiment in the same area and got the same level of catcalling (). My opponent does not recognize that a woman has made a similar video walking 10 hours in Mumbai, dressing even more promiscuously and getting zero catcalls (http://ibnlive.in.com...). This proves that the catcalling was dependent on the location, not the Gender. As academic Christina Hoff Sommers points out (), most of the catcalls the woman in New York received were in one particular part of the city, and were by ethnic minority homeless people (persumably due to their low social status). "Women are offered less for the same type of job" My opponent does not recognize that the same type of job is not the same job. My opponent does not recognize that one of the articles he references in this point uses the same study I debunked in my second round. My opponent forgets that, as I've shown with sources before, men are more concerned with their pay than job satisfaction, unlike women. Like the more general wage Gap myth, there are several studies showing there is no gender bias in sciences, including ones I didn't link to in the second round. For example: Women in Science: No Discrimination, says Cornell Study http://www.science20.com... My opponent doesn't recognize that his source thinkprogress.org never clarifies how it controls by occupation, leading to ambiguity and a lot of reasonable doubt considering the paper reviewing over 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluding there is no pay gap, and the studies and analysis I've linked to before showing there is no gender bias in STEM. "Women are significantly less likely to be extremely wealthy" My opponent does not give any explanation as to why this is caused by discrimination. My opponent does not mention the fact that men make up around three quarters of the homeless (http://usich.gov...). "Despite Quotas in Britain women are still not equally represented in government" My opponent has not explained why a disconnect between the percentage of women in the population and the percentage of women in government positions matters. As long as you vote for them, their Gender, Race, etc. shouldn't matter. My opponent has not proven that the cause of this is discrimination. My opponent has not proven that the changes this "issue" would need to stop existing are viable. For example, I listed five papers in my second round showing a strong correlation between increased female representation on corporate boards and decline in corporate performance. Thank you. |
93953a8c-2019-04-18T15:19:33Z-00002-000 | In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights. | You have laid out a lot of interesting point in your previous article but I still disagree with you on a fundamental level 1. Women are not equally represented in government for despite the 50% population of women they represent only 20% of government positions http://www.thenation.com... 2.Women in the US before Obamacare were denied basic health services in their insurance such as birth control because it violated other peoples beliefs http://abcnews.go.com... 3.Women are slightly more likely to be abused in a relationship http://www.saveservices.org... 4.Laws that fail to account for the special needs of women in pregnancy (this was the worst one I found) http://www.nytimes.com... 5. Catcalling women is social acceptable The video is interesting but what I find really interesting is videos made to criticize this video that blame the women for wearing to attractive clothes or how she was asking for it because that opinion is unfortunately socially acceptable at least in America (I've only been across the pond once) 6. Women are offered less for the same type of job http://www.bloomberg.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... http://gender.stanford.edu... 7. Women are significantly less likely to be extremely wealthy http://fortune.com... 8. Despite Quotas in Britain women are still not equally represented in government http://www.ukpolitical.info... Conclusion although you make very interesting points in your argument by law men have more freedom than men thus I can not see this belief as honest. |
93953a8c-2019-04-18T15:19:33Z-00003-000 | In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights. | 1. Domestic Violencea) Male victims [Richard L. Davis, 2009 Journal] Men are more likely than women to die as a result of domestic violence [1]. [Janet Bloomfield, 2013 Article; National Surveys from Centre for Disease Control & Department of Justice] More men than women are victims of intimate partner violence [2]. b) Female instigators [Martin Fiebert Ph.D., June 2013 study] Women are equally or more aggressive than men in relationships [3]. [Dr. Elizabeth Bates, July 2014 study] Women are significantly more likely to be physically aggressive [4]. c) Shelters [Mankind Initiative] In the United Kingdom, there are 180x the amount of Domestic violence shelters for Heterosexual women than for heterosexual men [5]. 2. Quotasa) Legitimacy [Wendy M. Williams & Stephen Ceci, Cornell University professors at the Department of Human Development 2014 study] There's no evidence that the supposed "glass ceiling" keeps women out of high-up STEM jobs. The evidence [6] shows that, as articulated in this video by the American Enterprise Institute [7],: Ph.D. women are as likely as their male counterparts to be invited to interview for tenure track jobsPh.D. women are as likely as their male counterparts to be offered that jobPh.D. women receive comparable salaries to their male counterpartsPh.D. women receive similar levels of funding to their male counterpartsPh.D. women express similar levels of satisfaction to their male counterparts Explanations for why there aren't as many women in some fields is they're not interested, however other factors are that male graduates value their earnings over their personal satifsfaction with the job [8]. b) Effect on performanceThe academic concensus on attempts to increase Gender diversity's effect on corporate performance is a negative correlation. The organization C4MB (Campaign for Merit in Business) has collected five reports, all concluding that increased female representation leads to performance decline [9]: Professor Kenneth R. Ahern (University of Southern California) & Professor Amy K. Dittmar (University of Michigan), 2011 paper Professor Oyving Bohern (Norwegian School of Management) & Professor R Oystein Strom (Oslo and Akershus University College), 2010 paper Professor David A Matsa (Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management) & Professor Amalia R Miller (University of Virginia, 2011 paper Professor David Ferreira (London School of Economics) & Renee B. Adams (University of New South Wales), 2008 paper Professor Alan N. Berger (University of South Carolina, Wharton Financial Institutions Center and Tilburg University), Thomas Kick (Deutsche Bundesbank), Professor Klaus Schaek (Bangor University); studies done 1994-2010, paper published 2012 c) PopularityQuotas discriminate against men who are more suitable for a job just because they're men. But they receive support in Britain from: David Cameron's Conservative Party (Despite it being a mostly broken promise) [10] Ed Miliband's Labour Party [11] Nick Clegg's Lib Dems [12] Natalie Bennett's Green Party [13] 3. Views of Gender in societya) Standards [Amy W.Y. Yeung, 2012 report] Men who treat women the same way they treat men are seen as sexist by both men and women [14]. b) "Women are wonderful" effect [Alice H. Eagly, Antonio Mladinic, Stacey Otto, 1990 article] The "Women are wonderful" effect is a phenomena found through psychological research finding that even negatives qualities more common in women, such as aggression (see earlier source), are associated with women less than they are with men [15]. c) Women's view on men [DM, 2013] Research shows that women think that men are good for "nothing" [16]. 4. Crimea) Sentence Disparity [David B. Mustard, University of Georgia, April 2001 report] For the same crime under similar circumstances, the average sentence for a man is 51.5 months, whereas for a woman it's 18.5 months [17]. [DM, 2010 article] Judges in Britain have been ordered to show more mercy on women criminals [18]. 5. Educationa) Bias [19-University of Helsinki, 2011 report + 20-Christopher M. Cromwell, 2012 report] Female teachers are more biased than male teachers, female teachers disproportionately treat boys worse and give them lower grades [19,20]. 6. Feminist Bias in Academiaa) Non-feminist Domestic Violence studies [Murray A. Strauss, Ph.D., 2010 report] There are seven ways listed by Murray A. Strauss in his 2010 report in which non-feminist DV reports are censored [21]: "Concealing the evidence" "Avoid Obtaining evidence on Female penetration" "Selective Citation of research" "Stage Conclusions that Contradict the Data" "Block publication of Articles that have information feminists don't like" "Prevent funding of Research" "Harass, Threaten, or Punish people who publish information feminists don't like" ex. of Censorship: [Fox News, 2006 article] "Feminists Deny Truth on Domestic Violence" [22] ex. of Concealing the evidence: [Greg Anderson, 2014 article] "Domestic Violence study suspended by UNSW for break of ethics" [23] ex. of Preventing funding: [U.S. Department of Justice, 2006 report] -- "U.S. Department of Justice refuses to fund #VAWA studies focusing on violence against men" [24] b) Non-feminist IQ tests [25-Helmuth Nyborg, 2003 paper+26-Helmuth Nyborg, 2005 paper] Since the late 1980s, the standard IQ test has been altered to purposefully close the natural 8.25-point advantage that adult males have over adult females [25,26]. c) Feminist Factoids in politics Barack Obama, thought to be the most powerful man in the world, infamously repeats popular feminist lies, such as the 23% pay gap based on "discrimination" [27]. In reality, even reports suggesting a 6.6% gap [28] have had errors pointed out in them. Academic Christina Hoff Sommers [29] writes: "Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." "One report from the U.S. Dept. of Labor shows that the pay gap is "almost entirely" due to individual choices, and not discrimination [30]. d) Bias in Wikipedia [The Guardian, 2015] Wikipedia were recently forced to ban 5 editors fron Gender-related articles [31]. 7. Paternitya) Child Custody Related to general court bias against men, Men lose 84% of child custody cases [32]. b) Fatherlessness [Kristina Hansen, 2013] "Study links aggressive boys to Mom's behaviour" [33] Fatherlessness increases young boys' susceptibility to developing hypermasculine traits [34] 2013 Study: Fatherlessness children suffer neurobiological deficits [35] Sources1 http://www.emeraldinsight.com...2 http://www.avoiceformen.com...3 https://j4mb.files.wordpress.com...4 https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org...5 http://j4mb.wordpress.com...6 http://www.psychologicalscience.org...7 8 http://www.telegraph.co.uk...9 https://c4mb.files.wordpress.com...10 http://www.telegraph.co.uk...11 http://www.theguardian.com...12 http://www.itv.com...13 http://www.greenparty.org.uk...14 https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca...15 http://pwq.sagepub.com...16 http://www.dailymail.co.uk...17 http://people.terry.uga.edu...18 http://www.dailymail.co.uk...19 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...20 http://people.terry.uga.edu...21 http://pubpages.unh.edu...22 http://www.foxnews.com...23 http://www.familylawexpress.com.au...24 http://www.reddit.com...25 http://www.amazon.com...26 http://www.sciencedirect.com...27 28 http://www.aauw.org...29 http://www.huffingtonpost.com...30 http://www.consad.com...31 http://www.theguardian.com...32 http://www.census.gov...33 http://www.avoiceformen.com...34 https://books.google.co.uk...35 http://www.avoiceformen.com... |
93953a8c-2019-04-18T15:19:33Z-00005-000 | In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights. | Hello, I am Jacob Gibbs.Resolution: Talking only about issues directly affecting the social equality (or lack of) in developed Western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights.DefinitionsMen's rights: Issues in which social inequality is a result of decisions/choices, whether consciously or subconsciously, motivated by a hatred, or discrimination against, men.Women's rights: Issues in which social inequality is a result of decisions/choices, whether consciously or subconsciously, motivated by a hatred, or discrimination against, women.(+ for the purpose of the debate, Social (in/)equality relates to (in/)equality of opportunity, not (in/)equality of outcomeRules1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. All Terms of Service apply.4. Breaking any rule constitutes a forfeit.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - Rebuttals |
93953a8c-2019-04-18T15:19:33Z-00000-000 | In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights. | domestic violence First of all the source I used if you rad it said that men were victims of abuse in a relationship 40% of the time while for women it was closer to 50% so I did not clarify the exact number because it was in my source. I also made no claim that men are not abused in a relationship but simply that men are more often the abusers http://www.saveservices.org... lower pay jobs My opponent has just said that women are likely to get higher pay if they have a Doctorate which a very small percentage of America actually has however my sources account for the general workforce and was done by prestigious university such as Yale which as in my source shows that women were offered up to 11,000 dollars less than men Effect on work place performance How does this have anything to do with equality? Popularity I find this ironic because you claim that the number of women in goverment dose not matter because it has no correlation with discrimination but now because men are earning a lower percentage of jobs in goverment its discrimination. That is truly hypocrisy at its finest standards so if women treated men like women it wouldn't be seen as sexist? women view on men apparently 1000 women represent the views of 3,500,000,000 living in the world because your source was a poll of 1000 adults Feminist Bias in media Why on earth would you use fox news as a source? Sorry I can not continue this but know that I argue this as a man who thinks its frankly dangerous to assume the fight for female equality is over |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00005-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | One of Barack Obama's main rallying cries is that Washington is broken, that John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been part of the problem, not the solution. But the only thing Obama will do is expand Washington's power and control like WE'VE NEVER SEEN IN OUR 200+ YEARS AS A COUNTRY (with exception to the New Deal, from the socialist democrat darling FDR). Through nationalized health care, increasing taxes, environmental protectionism, business and corporate regulation, and more bureaucracy, Obama's future plan for Washington makes no sense at all with his original claim. If Washington is the problem and we need change, expanding Washington's power and control is the exact opposite solution that we need. His stance makes no sense and is completely irrational. |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00000-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | First, I'd like to point out that my opponent has dropped every point but the point about taxes. So, I will only be focusing on this in the final round, and you can assume that the CON won those points, since he obviously has no response. Right here, since he didn't flow thorugh with the other issues, I should win on a basic cost-benefit analysis. But I'll show you why he's wrong about taxes before letting you get to the vote. "I'm not saying stop taxing companies completely. I'm saying that the government needs to roll back the taxes on corporate America. The economy is a trickle-down effect. When corporate America can operate and grow the economy, jobs are created and prosperity blooms. It is the upper class that runs the businesses that the lower class works. " Supply-side economics are no guarantee. You also brought up that taxing more is bad because of the recession. BUt, individuals (both people and companies) tend to spend less during recessions, which only makes matters worse. So, if we get more money to the government for programs so they can SPEND THAT MONEY, it actually helps the problems of the recession. You see, the government is pretty much guaranteed to spend that money. So, it's not making the recession worse at all to tax. "Of course they're still going to outsource. Do you know how much cheaper it is to do business outside of the United States? Why do you think the private sector continues to outsource? It's because our government over-taxes and over-regulates corporate America. " You just contradicted yourself. You said that they'd still outsource with or without taxes, and then you say taht they outsource because of taxes. Which is it? The fact of the matter is, you're blaming outsourcing on overtaxing (when you haven't even given numbers as to this overtaxing), when they'll do it either way. Things like this are why Obama wants some regulation. "Again, you didnt read closely enough. I didnt say taxing was marxist. I said redistribution of wealth was and is marxism. You cannot dispute that fact. " And you missed the point of my original argument. It's not a redistribution of wealth. It's taxing so we can pay for government programs. That's basic. And I'm glad that you brought up that Wall Street Journal article, because you obviously didn't read it. It's just paraphrased. Actually, you didn't even paraphrase it, did you? No. You took the paraphrasing from Cato at Liberty, which is the blog of the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think-tank. Here's the page you got it from: . http://www.cato-at-liberty.org... So. .. You're basically taking something out of context that a BIASED THINK TANK took out of context. Here's the real article is: . http://online.wsj.com... It's of course talking about his plan to deal with social security. This is my favorite part: "His proposal would be a very large tax hike, yet it won't be enough. " It continues: "Mr. Obama's plan fixes less than half of Social Security's long-term deficit, making further tax increases inevitable. The Policy Simulation Group's Gemini model estimates that Mr. Obama's proposal, if phased as Mr. Obama suggests, would solve only part of the problem. A 10 year phase-in, for example, would address only 43% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall. And this is assuming that Congress would save the surplus from the tax increases -- almost $600 billion over 10 years -- rather than spending it, as Congress does now. " I'll let you read the rest of it for yourself. So, you see, the problem isn't that the taxes are messing things up, as you're trying to imply. In fact, the problem is that the taxes aren't enough! If anything, it would require more taxes! Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent only has the point of taxes left going into Round Four, and this doesn't even flow through. He used his sources out of context and wrong, when in fact they supported a point contrary to what he was trying to get across. Even if you want to accept a few of his points, even if you think that Obama isn't the right choice for president, he has, in no way, proven that Obama is irrational. |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00001-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | "Okay, so let's stop taxing companies. Then our government will be even more broken, because it won't be able to pay for anything. Good idea." I'm not saying stop taxing companies completely. I'm saying that the government needs to roll back the taxes on corporate America. The economy is a trickle-down effect. When corporate America can operate and grow the economy, jobs are created and prosperity blooms. It is the upper class that runs the businesses that the lower class works. "And I guarantee you they'd still outsource with or without taxes." Of course they're still going to outsource. Do you know how much cheaper it is to do business outside of the United States? Why do you think the private sector continues to outsource? It's because our government over-taxes and over-regulates corporate America. "Taxing to pay for government programs isn't Marxist. And guess waht? The government has the right, BY THE CONSTITUTUION, to tax." Again, you didnt read closely enough. I didnt say taxing was marxist. I said redistribution of wealth was and is marxism. You cannot dispute that fact. And for taxes (from the Wall Street Journal): "Mr. Obama has recently veered sharply left. He now proposes to solve the looming Social Security shortfall exclusively with higher taxes. …Currently, all wages below about $100,000 are subject to a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax. But all wages above that amount are not subject to the tax. Mr. Obama wants to eliminate the cap, but, in a concession to taxpayers, exempt wages between $100,000 and $200,000. …Mr. Obama's plan would keep Social Security in the black for only three additional years. Under his proposal, annual deficits would hit in 2020, instead of 2017. By the 2030s the system would still run an annual deficit exceeding $150 billion. Mr. Obama's modest improvements to Social Security's financing come at a steep cost. …The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over. If one accounts for behavioral responses, even the modest budgetary improvements from Mr. Obama's plan are likely to be overstated. If employers reduce wages to cover their increased payroll-tax liabilities, these wages would no longer be subject to state or federal income taxes, or Medicare taxes. A 2006 study by Harvard economist and Obama adviser Jeffrey Liebman concluded that roughly 20% of revenue increases from raising the tax cap would be offset by declining non-Social Security taxes. Assuming modest negative behavioral responses, Mr. Liebman projected an additional 30% reduction in net revenues, leaving barely half the intended revenue intact. Mr. Obama's plan would also dramatically raise incentives for tax evasion, further degrading revenue gains. Many high-earning individuals evade the Medicare payroll tax by setting up "S Corporations," paying themselves in untaxed dividends rather than taxable wages. John Edwards avoided $590,000 in Medicare taxes this way in the 1990s. …The U.S. already collects far more Social Security taxes from high earners than other countries do. Social Security taxes here are currently capped at about three times the national average wage — far above other developed countries. In Canada and France payroll taxes are levied only up to the average wage. In the United Kingdom, taxes stop at 1.15 times the average wage; in Germany and Japan at 1.5 times." Barack Obama is a radical leftist. |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00002-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | Oh, and just watch the straw man burn... "I'm not saying other options are irrational, I'm saying that Barack Obama is irrational when he says Washington is broken and is the problem. His solution is to expand Washington like we've never seen. How does his position make any sense?" No. He's saying that Washington has problems. He's suggesting ways to fix these problems. There are multiple ways to fix these problems, and Obama's plan is one. It's not irrational. In fact, it's very rationally founded. "Since when was it the government's responsibility to provide health care for its people? It is no where in the Constitution. Health care is not a right. And don't even get me started on the expenses of national healthcare for 300,000,000 people." I never said it was in the Constitution. I never said it was a responsibility. I never said that it was a right. And Obama's plan is to get every American on one system, as you are claiming. He's trying to fix it so that those who need health care but can't afford it can get it. Whether it's in the Constitution or not, the government is there because of the social contract. Therefore, it provides for it's citizens. Obama is trying to suggest a way to make the government provide for the citizenry better, whether it is required to or not. This is not irrational. "a) global warming is a crock of sh**. b) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Even if you believe in global warming hysteria, the percentage of pollution caused from CO2 (businesses) is minimal. Putting the environment as a priority of the economy is mentally insane. Obama wants to tax carbon emissions from the corporate and business sector which would seriously cripple and hurt our economy. It would be a complete disaster. This is the liberal agenda...ideology over common sense." 1.) I never said anything about global warming. I was talking about pollution. Whether global warming is real or fake, we should protect the environment. Whether global warming is real or fake, I like being able to breathe. 2.) On the whole CO2 thing... Evidence? "Hmm, do you know why companies are outsourcing? MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE IDIOT CONGRESSMAN (ALMOST ENTIRELY LIBERALS AND A FEW FAKE REPUBLICANS) WHO TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. How do liberals not get it? Do you see what's happening in California? Companies are moving out of CA like wildfire because the legislature in the golden state is taxing the hell of them. Companies are moving to Nevada and Arizona, and California's economy is beginning to suffer." Okay, so let's stop taxing companies. Then our government will be even more broken, because it won't be able to pay for anything. Good idea. And I guarantee you they'd still outsource with or without taxes. "Where in the Constitution does it talk about wealth redistribution? This is a tactic right out of the Marxist playbook. Why are liberals so fond of socialism? Have they not learned from history?" This isn't Marxism. Taxing to pay for government programs isn't Marxist. And guess waht? The government has the right, BY THE CONSTITUTUION, to tax. "Ya thats a brilliant idea. Let's raise taxes (at a rate we've never seen in our lives) during a time in our country where our economy is in a recession and our consumer confidence level is at a 26 year low. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL. How does raising taxes during an economic crisis make any sense whatsoever?" Can you actually tell me the rate of taxing he's proposing to increase? Can you tell me where? Because so far you've just ranted about how much you hate taxes. Now, look at the resolution and my opponent's original case. He's claiming that Barack is irrational because the government has problems and he's proposing to expand the government in certain areas. What my opponent fails to recognize is these expanisons are made to address these governmental problems. They're made to correct innefficiencies. This has worked in the past. Replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The Square Deal. The New Deal. And, as a matter of fact, these solutions are rationally founded. There is no reason why a government can't correct itself, which is what my opponent is implying. It's irrelevant as to whether you agree with Obama or not. It's irrelevant as to whether you think he's plans will work or not. What matters is that these solutions are RATIONALLY FOUNDED. |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00003-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | "This fallacy is that the only possible way to fix governmental problems is to limit the government. While this is certainly an option, it is not the only option, and other options are not irrational. There is no reason why creating the right programs within the government can't correct certain governmental problems." I'm not saying other options are irrational, I'm saying that Barack Obama is irrational when he says Washington is broken and is the problem. His solution is to expand Washington like we've never seen. How does his position make any sense? "On health care, Obama wants to create a system where people that need health care can get it. Obama says that Washington is "broken" here, because the government fails to provide for its people." Since when was it the government's responsibility to provide health care for its people? It is no where in the Constitution. Health care is not a right. And dont even get me started on the expenses of national healthcare for 300,000,000 people. "On environmental protectionism, yeah, he wants to protect the environment. Using the government as a tool to reduce pollution isn't' in the least bit irrational. The government is "broken" here because it is inefficient in protecting the environment. Obama wants to change that." a) global warming is a crock of sh**. b) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Even if you believe in global warming hysteria, the percentage of pollution caused from CO2 (businesses) is minimal. Putting the environment as a priority of the economy is mentally insane. Obama wants to tax carbon emissions from the corporate and business sector which would seriously cripple and hurt our economy. It would be a complete disaster. This is the liberal agenda...ideology over common sense. "On business regulation, we live in a time where companies outsource and here illegal immigrants a lot... The government is "broken" here because it fails to keep these companies in line." Hmm, do you know why companies are outsourcing? MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE IDIOT CONGRESSMAN (ALMOST ENTIRELY LIBERALS AND A FEW FAKE REPUBLICANS) WHO TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. How do liberals not get it? Do you see what's happening in California? Companies are moving out of CA like wildfire because the legislature in the golden state is taxing the hell of them. Companies are moving to Nevada and Arizona, and California's economy is beginning to suffer. "On taxes, Obama wants to repeal certain tax cuts on the upper classes in order to pay for these programs." Where in the Constitution does it talk about wealth redistribution? This is a tactic right out of the Marxist playbook. Why are liberals so fond of socialism? Have they not learned from history? "Obama has, several times, admitted that fixing these problems won't be easy, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices. This is true. If it means that you have to pay higher taxes, deal with it. It's not irrational." Ya thats a brilliant idea. Let's raise taxes (at a rate we've never seen in our lives) during a time in our country where our economy is in a recession and our consumer confidence level is at a 26 year low. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL. How does raising taxes during an economic crisis make any sense whatsoever? |
9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00004-000 | Barack Obama is irrational. | Thank you for starting the debate. My opponent's entire argument reasts on a logical fallacy. This fallacy is that the only possible way to fix governmental problems is to limit the government. While this is certainly an option, it is not the only option, and other options are not irrational. There is no reason why creating the right programs within the government can't correct certain governmental problems. Now, looking at my opponent's case against Obama point by point. On health care, Obama wants to create a system where people that need health care can get it. Obama says that Washington is "broken" here, because the government fails to provide for its people. On environmental protectionism, yeah, he wants to protect the environment. Using the government as a tool to reduce pollution isn't' in the least bit irrational. The government is "broken" here because it is inefficient in protecting the environment. Obama wants to change that. On business regulation, we live in a time where companies outsource and here illegal immigrants a lot. Some regulation is a good thing in order to keep these companies in line so they serve Americans as best they can. The government is "broken" here because it fails to keep these companies in line. On taxes, Obama wants to repeal certain tax cuts on the upper classes in order to pay for these programs. I realize a lot of people don't like taxes, but the money for correcting these problems has to come from somewhere. Obama has, several times, admitted that fixing these problems won't be easy, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices. This is true. If it means that you have to pay higher taxes, deal with it. It's not irrational. As far as the bureaucracy goes, I don't' see any evidence for this. It really just seems like a straw man argument. In order for you to accept my opponent's case, you have to accept that the only rational solution to governmental problems is libertarianism. While I do not negate the possible advantages of libertarianism, it is not the openly rational solution. There is no reason why putting certain governmental programs in place can't correct certain problems. Just because you don't think Obama's plan is the best doesn't make it irrational. |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00000-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | Alright. First things first (I'm the realest..gosh that song's old), if we were to ensure the cooperation of our world organization, then we could accomplish so much more! Our world is run on money and competition. Greed is embodied into our human nature. However, if we were to collaborate, we could tackle this problem of global warming together. Thus, world peace places a higher priority on our list than global warming. Next, let's again remind ourselves that the rate of increase in temperature is 0.00612 degrees Fahrenheit per year. This minuscule figure tells us that we should have nothing to worry about. Therefore, I'd like to kindly remind Pro to chill out (pun intended) and remember that the world isn't anywhere near falling over the pit yet. Because of our natural urge to want more for ourselves, yes, we do fight wars over resources. Pro states it himself-they can contribute to the fire that fuels the flame for a war. However, we are nowhere near burning up. Therefore, I conclude my argument, and thus, the debate, with the notion that our society as the human race should focus on discontinue our quarrels and turn our eyes to the greater issues. After all, what good is trying to organize countries at war? |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00001-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | Sorry for my long delay, I have been busy Argument: While it is true that currently the climb of global warming is slow, just wait for the "point of no return." Haven't heard of it? There are multiple website talking about it, so go search it up. Anyway, the point of no return is basically the fact that when global warming reaches a point of badness, it will tumble, pick up speed, and there will be no way to stop it. One example of this are the polar ice caps melting. As more ice melts, there is more water to attract warmth. As the water gets warmer, the ice melts faster. See how that could tumble out of control? Now, how does this have to do with anything? Well, there will be a "runaway" in global warming. What is currently a really small amount increase per year, could very well become catastrophic, maybe even 0.5 degrees a year. And it will be near impossible to stop it. If things don't change by 2020, we will hit the point of no return by 2042. Rising temperatures can cause major drought and wildfires (just look at California,) and it can even cause computers to over heat. Imagine what would happen if hospital machines, machines keeping people alive, over heated because of the 120 or so degree Fahrenheit temperatures that could be seen if we don't stop global warming from tipping to the deep end. If all of a sudden, there were no more wars, how would we get everyone to get together, be friends, and stop global warming in such a small time frame. Remember, most of the world's economies rely of burning coal and oil, which causes global warming. So, even if everyone unified all of a sudden, which isn't very likely, there would be a huge risk of destroying all economies to fix it. And if everyone destroy's their economy to fix global warming, how can they help the others with dead economies. Huh, not very black and white, is it? |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00002-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | First off, Pro states that plants would be shriveling and dying because of the greater temperature. I'd like to point out that while that is a sobering possibility, it wouldn't be happening anywhere in the near future. According to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the global temperature has risen 1.53 (Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution. In about two and a half centuries, our global temperature has only gone up by that non-remarkable amount (0.00612 per year). In 50 years, our global temperature will have risen only .3 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't believe that's a large enough amount to carry any significance in it. As for the prospect of weighing human lives on a scale, so many more lives would be saved if we were to have world peace. Pro states that wars only occur every 20 or so years and cause tens of millions of inexcusable deaths, however, global warming causes 400,000 deaths a year. I'd like to point out that these figures are questionable, and that even if tens of millions of people did die in these "superwars" that occur every other decade, the proportion of deaths per year is greater by that of which caused by war. (ten million / 20 = 500,000). Next, wars don't occur just every 20 years. Especially from our developed country's biased eye, we love to twist figures. Our globe is in chaos right now. Just look at the Yemen Civil War or the infamous ISIS fight. It doesn't take an extremely bloody war to capture our attention. We have the power to destroy ourselves right now, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is the knowledge that others contain that power also. War is a terrible thing, and world cooperation would be the easiest solution to our problems. |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00003-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | First, this is my first time debating, so apologizes for some mistakes Argument: Hunger you say? That's going to be hard to fix if all the plants are shriveling and dying because of the over-livable heat! Many websites say that if global warming was stopped, it would help world peace a lot. Oil and coal are major contributors in a strong economy, and can be a large point in a war. If we stop global warming by not burning and using the resources, we no longer have that strong reason to go to war. Also, global warming is causing a lot more than fiercer storms. Lots of people may die in wars, but how many people are dying by abnormally large tsunamis and hurricanes, which are larger due to global warming. War happens once every 20 or so years and kill a few ten million each time, which is a lot and is inexcusable. Global warming, however, kills about 400,000 people a year[1] (through means of tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and that number is constantly growing. True, it currently doesn't kill as many as wars do, but what about in 50 years? [1] http://goo.gl... |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00004-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | As for the topic of the debate: I do believe that global warming is not our greatest issue. World peace is an issue of the utmost urgency. Pro states that despite having wars, "we are still alive and 'healthy. '" However, I'd like to point out that our world is in turmoil today. Global warming only causes fiercer storms, while the agitation in the world produces a much sharper hunger for a reaction. |
af1c51bd-2019-04-18T13:43:20Z-00005-000 | Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace | Global Warming. It is our biggest issue. I didn"t choose world peace because we were always be fighting. For as long as we have lived, we have fought. And yet, we are still alive and "healthy". Global warming, on the other hand, is a new problem. A new problem that isn"t going away. Our ice caps are melting, raising our temperatures and killing hundreds of arctic animals. By raising temperatures, it"s evaporating more water, making the ground dryer, making it harder for plants to grow. Less plants, less food, less people. Not to mention the fact that it"s incredibly uncomfortable to be in super hot weather. Plus, if global warming is stopped by no longer burning oil, there is no longer the danger of what would happen if there is no more oil to burn. In short, wars will always be a problem, but it will never threaten our extinction. Unless stopped, global warming will. |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00001-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | First I may have the burden of proof but my opponent still needs to prove his case and back it up, and show proof of his claims. opponents first refutation.The roots of my argument is not what he claims. The basis of my position is that pornographic actors are the same as prostitutes. Since prostitution is illegal, and since porn stars are just legal prostitutes. Then pornography(legal prostitution rings) should be illegal. Also Pornography includes child porn witch my opponent never even tackled. Also porn sites easily allow children to break the law and veiw porn. witch is illegal. lastly that pornography Is detrimental. In my case I am not saying that pornography is a direct cause of rape, But that pornography is a major contributing factor, influence,and promotes rape....etc.....he says showing kids watch this stuff is irrelevant......Not true children viewing pornography is illegal. Since were talking about legality this is obviously relevant. Also I don't need to show why pornography should be legal. Thats my opponents job. Also my opponent no where in this entire debate explained why pornography should be legal. He attempted to tackle my case but forgot to validate his own.Also if people in a marriage are curious about sex then get under the covers with your partner. Get in the boat and make some waves. Don't look at porn when you have a perfectly good partner whom your married to and can have sex with. Why fantasise about sex rather than having sex????" as she may be the type that respects the husbands views. Also, porn only hurts the wife if she has a poor self image."Untrue no wife respects the fact that the husband feels he has to look at porn rather than having sex with him. Because the husband chooses to look at other women this causes the wife to feel unwanted. So viewing porn actually hurts the spouses self esteem........Pornography could make it difficult for your spouse to see sex as a loving form of communication. As a result, pornography can decrease sexual satisfaction within your marriage.my opponents second rebuttalfirst let m prove that pornography is addictive............http://en.wikipedia.org...If you feel that not enough look at the sources cited within my source. So pornography is obviously the cause of porn addiction( just think of the wording). Also if the problem is not enough sex with the spouse. then either divorce them and go find sex or cheat. Don't veiw pornography because its detrimental. especially while married. My opponent says..." a reason people watch porn is because they may be bored in the first place, not why it exists. Please lets emphasize on the word A. Yes it is one cause but there is one universal reason people veiw porn. to see legal prostitutes have sex or masturbate. Here's evidence that masturbation decreases penile sensitivity........http://www.medhelp.org.........look at the first couple of comments ..........here's a better source............http://www.articledashboard.com...It affects our country because we have a legal prostitution industry. If porn actors are legal , then prostitution should be legalized. But since its not, and since were a count, based on fairness since prostitution is illegal then pornography should be illegal because porn actors are just prostitutes. Lastly pornography doesnt cause rape but promotes it. Due to the fact that after viewing you of coarse want to have sex. Some cant get a partner. After a while some may get too frustrated and just decide to rape someone because there so backed up.....lol...( my opponent never effectively commented on this).Sex isnt the only thing that porn shows. It shows pictures, masturbation, bondage,masturbation,children,and bestiality. Educating people about sex wont prevent rape. Nor will it change any probability of how porn effects the brain.( just to point this out my opponent calls porn a vile insidious substance, witch supports my case)Lastly if porn is illegal and no one had access to it then people wont have to worry about jail because they couldn't get there hands on it. If I was wrong and they could . Then since its illegal then obviously some legal punishment needs to occur. Are you suggesting that the legal system do nothing if it was illegal??? MY opponents counter to my second argument:My argument is not faulty my opponents counter is faulty though......So since prostitution is illegal and since the person chooses to do it then its not illegal????? This is what my opponent is trying to convince the voter of. Faulty logic.He also says he wants to legalize prostitution. If we legalize prostitution, People who get kidnapped and forced into it may never be found. Since there's no police involvement how will these kidnappies be rescued???? Also in prostitution were to be legalised, we all know there is alot of drugs and gang bang rape. The prostitute may think its just a normal have sex with the john and then go. But behind that dark alley or hotel room door there may be 10 men waiting to rape them. If it was legal then these instances would increase dramatically. Since there would be no police hounding here activity.My opponent says porn reduces crimenot true. His source for his statistics are invalid. To test this hypothesis we would need to know whos going to commit crime before hand. We would also need to find out if these criminals are veiwing porn before they commit crime. The after we know theve been caught and done the crime then we could possibly make a conclusion.....since this experiment is impossible since we don't know who's going to commit a crime before hand this is not valid. In my case I have proven that rape promotes rape or is a contributing factor psychologically. therefore this point shouldn't even be considered.Also about his fifth source a conclusion cannot be made unless we know at what year this study was conducted. Thus not valid.Also I never said that pornography causes rape crimes. My point is that pornography may promote rape and is a contributing factor. Since my opponent cannot successfully rebuttal this, it still is valid.EconomyIf the porn industry was abolished that money could be spent else where to stimulate our economy. Or atleast keep some extra money in our pockets. Also Not all porn has a cost. Most people look at free porn. Lastly we don't have a porn taxabout the first amendmentporn is dissemination. But so is terrorist activity on the web. So in my opponents logic we should allow terrorists to share info of terror via the Internet......... The limit on dissemination is if there is threat or if it contradicts the law. Since prostitution is against the law and since prostitution is the same as porn actors then this contradicts the law.freedom of expression from government interference.........if this is the case then why does the government tax us.Lastly the constitution does not protect porn. Freedom of speech and freedom of action are two different things....prostitution is not freedom of speech it is a obscene act unacceptable in our society and is a action.Also porn is considered obscene and obscenity is not protected by the constitution................http://www.covenanteyes.com...( im out of characters, Please look at my case)Sourceshttp://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com......http://downloads.frc.org......http://downloads.frc.org......http://www.heritage.org......http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org......http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com......http://www.protectkids.com......http://www.covenanteyes.com....http://www.articledashboard.com....http://www.medhelp.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00002-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | BOP- My opponent has it as she advocates a chance in the status quo, is an instigator, and is PRO. As she has not specified otherwise I say he has the BOP. --Refutations--My opponents C1:The basis of my opponents argument is it hurts family, and mainly kids through addiction. The argument on who watches the type of video is irrelevant, as if I refute the premise below, then the argument is defeated. The majority of my opponents argument after showing kids watch this stuff (irrelevant), she shows things like it is detrimental to the marriage institution. My opponents only links the cons on a marriage, but does not show the pros and the intermediates. Many people who are really holy holy marriage people may, you know, become curious. But they may think look at this slu*, she does not enjoy her husband. Some people say pornography is good for the sexual imagination, and moderate usage may enhance sex life. Some less committed woman may actually approve of the watching of pornography, as she may be the type that respects the husbands views. Also, porn only hurts the wife if she has a poor self image. If she thinks she has a good one, it should not really effect her. [1]My opponent then contends it is addictive, causes rape, and they may become desensitized. I will first refute the addiction part of it. There is actually a controversy on whether it is addictive or not, whether it is the porn or some other aspect in life. Many contend it is outside arguments, and things that make it hard to even have a sex life that lead the to this hole. So the problem may not be the porn, rather a non sexual spouse. Others say if you treat them like addicts it may be detrimental to the viewer. [2] The basis of my opponents argument is flawed as there is a high controversy on the issue. He then claims they become desensitized. My question is so what? They get bored they can not watch it, or watch worse why does it effect you or the country? Why is it the governments job to intervene? Also, a reason people watch porn is because they may be bored in the first place, not why it exists. So the best way to control it may be handing out free books :P. My opponent then claims it causes rape. I refer you to my arguments in C1.My opponents final argument is it changes the concept of the human brain, yet forgets any porn watching is not sex watching or a sex addiction. Sex requires two individuals procreating, or two individuals just doing their thing. Porn would unlikely effect sex life with education programs showing porn =/= sex. Education, not banning, may be a better way to control the vile insidious substance.---> Sex lifesee above.---> masturbation addiction kinda gross, but this does not hold up unless you show its bad. ---> shamecool. So making it illegal and if they watch it (hard to censor the internet) and throwing them in jail is better for the problem? No, legal porn and throwing them in education programs is better.---> Loner^^My opponents C2: The basis of my opponents full argument is the filters are not good enough. Well my opponent may have just conceded the argument right there. He said the filters, not the porn is the problem. Instead of taking away some creepy dudes fun away, mandate a filter, make current filters stronger. This here would fix all of the problems you listed, without abashment. Abloishment is not needed as you added in the words filter. He then says it makes kids rapist. See my C1.My opponents C3:My opponents argument is faulty even if it is correct, as porn stars CHOOSE to get into the job they are in. He also has to prove it is bad, as when you legalize prostitution it gets safer for them. [3] So making it legal not only helps the people, but makes it safer. And again, they CHOOSE to be there, not the governments business. --Case--C1: Porn reduces crime This argument is logically sound either way, as they spend more times watching this crap then grabbing people into alleys. "The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access [Porn], less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes." [4]"Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan."[5] Didn't my opponent say it rose rape and moles rapes, yet I just proved it doesn't without using bsse sources? (my opponent used frc). As I am low on space I must continue. C2: Economy "The statistics are truly staggering. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography." [6]Imagine it though! Banning it would likely be ineffective, but would still constrict this money supply to our economy. Aboloshment would be detrimental. Porn is worth 14 billion per year, that is huge. [7] Banning it woudl likely shrink our economy by 10 billion dollars, and piss off a lot of people. The economy benefits on porn, and banning it is actually counter productive economically. Also I forgot, we could tax it if it was legal ;).C3: 1st amendment the first amdnment-"protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. "[8]"Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination" [8]Internet counts as dissemination. [9] With this being said, this now makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ban pornogorphy under the constitution. Now, no matter what arguments in this debate happen if this argument stands I get an auto win. Conclusion: You cannot ban porn, it lowers crime, and it is bneficial to the economy. I think I have proven her arguments wrong or have semi-reufted them. Also to add, my opponent has not fufilled the BOP. Vote CON.http://www.debate.org... |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00003-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | I will be defending the fact that pornography shouldn't be legal do to some fundamental facts. I will use logic and studies to prove my case.Pornography- is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. prostitute- a person who receives payment for sexual intercourse or other sexual acts, generally as a regular occupation.porn industry-consists of businesses which either directly or indirectly provide sex-related products and services or adult entertainment. The porn industry includes adult sex-related products and services such as prostitution in all its forms.pornographic actors/porn star- Most notably these performers are not paid directly by their sexual partners for the sex, but both are paid through a studio or Talent Management Agency.I will explain that pornography is detrimental,allows children to illegally view pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Pornographic actors is the same as prostitution,Also pornography includes all of its branches. Witch means my opponent will need to defend child porn,animal porn etc.....1.Pornography is detrimental to societyDaily "child pornography" requests---- 116,000Websites offering illegal child pornography----- 100,000Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction----10%http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com...KEY FINDINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHYTHE FAMILY AND PORNOGRAPHY• Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.• Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.• Among couples affected by one spouse’s addiction, two-thirds experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse.• Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity.http://downloads.frc.org...THE INDIVIDUAL AND PORNOGRAPHY• Pornography is addictive, • Users tend to become desensitized to the type of pornography they use, become bored with it, and then seek more perverse forms of pornography.• Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity. Child-sex offenders are more likely to view pornography regularly or to be involved in its distribution.OTHER EFFECTS http://downloads.frc.org...Pornography, distorts an individual’s concept of sexual relations by objectifying them, which, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children, and to individual happiness.Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists concur.http://www.heritage.org...Effect on the mind: Pornography is very addictive. Some effects of porn addiction are: Escalation/Desensitization: Addicts experience an ever-increasing lust and a craving for more intense porn. Eventually "soft-core" porn is not stimulating enough, which pushes them into "hard-core." It is a downward spiral. Dissatisfaction with your sex life: Spouses of addicts are affected as sex does not satisfy the addict as it once did. Men who look at porn are dissatisfied by their wife's appearance and this often leads to dysfunctional relationships. Addiction to masturbation: Those addicted to porn are almost always addicted to masturbation. The sexual urges become so strong that masturbation becomes the easiest way of release. Shame and guilt: Emotional pain is perhaps the most common effect of porn addiction. A deep sense of failure and shame is often experienced. "Lonerism" and Secrecy: Porn addicts generally keep to themselves and keep their addiction secret. This often results in dysfunctional relationships. http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org... Pornography affects people’s emotional lives. Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their marital sexual relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Women married to men with a pornography addiction report feelings of betrayal, mistrust, and anger. Pornographic use may lead to infidelity and even divorce. Adolescents who view pornography feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty. http://downloads.frc.org... Pornography hurts adults, children, couples, families, and society. Either by promoting overly aggressive,child pornography,Pornography has significant effects during all stages of family life. For a child exposed to pornography within a family setting, pornography causes stress and increases the risk for developing negative attitudes about the nature and purpose of human sexuality. For adolescents who view pornography, their attitudes toward their own and others’ sexuality change, and their sexual expectations and behavior are shaped accordingly. For adults, pornography has harmful and even destructive effects on marriage. Pornography is more detrimental then beneficial thus should not be practiced. 2.allows children to illegally veiw pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Porn sites don't do much to prevent children from viewing. There required by law to ask if your 18 or 21 in some states. On most if not all porn sites you just have to press a button. Yes or no. There's no birthday check or anything like that witch could single children out to disallow access. Porn is very much available to children. Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokémon.”.........http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com... According to The Kaiser Family Foundation report (found at www.kff.org), 70% of teenagers (ages 15-17 "have accidentally come across pornography on the Web."....... According to one study, early exposure (under fourteen years of age) to pornography is related to greater involvement in deviant sexual practice, particularly rape. Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend...........http://www.protectkids.com... W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, ," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88. 3.porn actors same as prostitutes. If you look at the definitions there very similar. If you think about it morally they provide the same services for a fee. Since the porn industry advertises these porn stars,(just as pimps advertise prostitutes)and since the workers are offering sex for money,( just like prostitutes). it ought to be illegal as well. Morally atleast. Also this could be under obscenity witch is not protected in anyway morally. the only difference with porn stars is that there under the camera, have a director,its legal,they sign a contract. This is just legal prostitution. Another point I want to make is that pornography includes all branches of pornography. That means child porn, animal porn, etc.......my opponent needs to defend it. So in my case I have effectively proven,That pornography is more detrimental than good, Allows children to illegally veiw porn due to inadequate age confirmation systems, and lastly that porn actors are the same as prostitutes thus should be treated the same as prostitutes and thus pornography should be illegal. |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00004-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | I can devils advocate this I accept. |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00005-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | My position is pretty obvious. I will prove that pornography is immoral for unobvious reasons.( atleast i think there unobvious reasons....lol) and should be illegal and that the bad outweighs the good. I hope to have a great debate. |
2be7daab-2019-04-18T18:23:30Z-00000-000 | pornography ought to be illegal | Yes, you have the BOP, and I have fulfilled it already, you have not. --First refutation--My opponent mixed the order, but ok. The argument here is they are prostitutes, therefore it should be illegal. My opponent now opens up a huge new debate on the sex laws. Now, the resolution states ought to be illegal, this means this argument too considers the "ought" factor. So, my opponent first must prove pornography, and in this argument prostitution should be illegal. Also the majority of his case says this is bad for women. The funny thing is, prostitutes, when legalized, have lower AIDS rates then when it is legal. [1] Now, when we make things illegal it becomes less clean, as we see from the drug war, and it is STILL used. And it would be extremely hard to censor it. The current porn industry has many scans for STD's, one check every 30 days. [2] Now that is illegal, (assume your side prevails in the laws) then the industry WILL form a black market, and make it less safe. My opponents cause now stands defeated here, as the ought in the resolution acts in my favor.My opponent essentially conceded that children watching porn is illegal, which proves my point. It is impossible to ban this stuff, and a ban would to little to lower users, etc. In pakistan, they have a ban on this vile stuff, yet the amount of people watching it within the country is still high. [3] The basis of my opponents argument fails because even if we ban it it just enters a black market making it LESS SAFE, and the same problems with the porn industry live, and get worse (STD's). My opponent then bolds the statement I have not justified my arguments below, which is false. I have explained the benefits of legal porn: Economic and crime wise, then I proved it was impossible to ban via 1st amendment. My opponent must have really not read me saying CASE, which is arguments for porn staying legal. Her bolded statement is false. I think ANY reader can see where my justification is.My opponents next argument is if your interested in intercourse, why not have intercourse. There are many reasons, nagging wives, a refusing wife, you do not want to risk pregnancy again or ever. There are many reasons to have fantasies then procreate with your wive. My opponent also only refutes one of the arguments I presented with the marriage thing. As stated, porn means some things to people, different things to other. [4] So some marriages it will not effect. It also teaches new techniques, discovers your sexuality with your wife, and helps find ways it "turns you on", therefore helping you and your spouse. [4] My opponent ONLY refuted ONE of the benefits presented, the it will not effect you if you have a good self image. This is a fact, as if you have confidence you will prevail. His case here is no woman would like a man watching a porn star, the funny thing is some marriages watch it together!! [4] Like: "With the availability of porn at your fingertips couples using it together is a new phenomenon in many relationships. More and more couples are using pornography to help stimulate their sex life. " [4]These couples have no problem with this, and my opponents case forgets the upsides to porn in a relationship. --Second-- My opponents argumet here is porn is addictive, "look as the sources", and I urge the same. There is actually evidence in that wikipedia article disagreeing with her, and states pornography addiction may not exist. Addiction is a usage of a drug or substance that changes mood, and has adverse effects on the body and mind. [5] Now my opponent has not proven it changes mood at all, just cites an FRC article saying it causes rape. It may not be the porn they are addicted too, but social life and moods make them visit these sites, which implies it is social life, not porn that is causing the so called addiction. [6]My opponents next comparison, again, opens up the debate to prostitution. As I am devils advocating this whole debate, let me argue for that statement too. Prostitution = more things to tax hence more revenues. Also it opens up a new economic market, and as stated lowers AIDS rates from prostitutes, from when they operate illegally, which they DO. My opponent has not proven prostitution "ought" to be banned. As this is the case, I win this argument too.My opponent then talks about it shows bestiality, yet he has no facts to prove any of his assertions. Her argument is education and rehab will not prevent rape, although porn already reduces rape numbers, my opponent ha snot proved how rehabilitation and education would not do anything. We can compare this to Portugal, they legalized drugs and rehab the people, it has worked great, and these people are addicted. No reason rehab would fail. My opponents argument then goes people would not have access. I refer to above. Abolishment would not work. --Third--God prostitution is all over this debate. My opponent then claims people would be kidnapped, like they are now. This is funny. Making it illegal causes the kidnaps as they need to get people to do it and convince them the police wont get them. In Nevada, where is is legal in certain areas, this never happens. My opponents argument is a fallacy, when t is sometimes the laws, not the practice that makes the problems. And remember the benefits of prostitution legalization above.__________________________________________________________________________________________________--Crime--My opponent claims my source is faulty, but this is funny as well. It looked at trends, needing to foresee the future is not needed in this case, this means your biased christian source [FRC] is false too as it does not foresee the future. needing to know who rapes is irrelevant, but the overall statistic is needed. We see once porn becomes legal, RAPE RATES DECREASE. "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults [7].""An academic has claimed to RAW STORY that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption. " [8]"When compared to Disaster Center's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest Internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest Internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape."[8]Point proven.--economics--My opponents argument it will be spent elsewhere. That's not how an economy works, you take away an industry the economy collapses. Extend argument. --First amendment-- First, we can only deprive this right if it infringes life liberty or pursuit of happiness. It actually increases all 3. Also the only time they can regulate speech is commerce, if they feel a compelling interest in nuetral speech, or regulation based on the way the message is sent. [9] the argument only works if it hurts people, it does not.My opponent then asks why does the government tax us. This shows little understanding of law. If the state has an interest to do something, as long as its compelling, they are allowed to do anything. There is no interest to break the 1t amendment for porn. My opponent then says it protects speech, not porn. Porn is an expression, 1st amendment protects expression, [10] it is unconstitutional to ban it. My opponents last argument is it is obscene, does it infringe life liberty or pursuit of happiness? No. No effect on life. Increases liberty, freedom of choice. And no effect on happiness, if it is ugly dont watch it. It is protected by the first amendment. Conclusion: 1. pro has not met the BOP2. Porns benefits outweigh the false negatives presented by pro3. VOTE PROarguments - con, BOP not met by pro, and I refuted her argumentseverything else tied or you choose.I enjoyed this debate, literally our of room.http://tinyurl.com... |
b42d7c89-2019-04-18T15:13:53Z-00000-000 | Schools and government | Dear Rose212, I am not talking only about America. I am talking about what is happening globally. And in my opinion, low test scores have nothing to do with how governments influence schools with their beliefs. Students still know things, even with the low test scores and the low literacy rates. And if you still believe that schools and government have no relationship between them, then why some researchers show that people with low literacy rate tend to believe easier what is said to them? so, they will believe what they are told without any second thoughts or doubts about what they have heard. About the wars section. Yes, indeed we have wars but each country tries to make its citizens believe that they werent responsible about it. And like i have previously said, Cypriots learn the cypriot side and Turskish people the turkish side without being sure if what they have just learned is true or not. They just believe it because its their country telling something and they learn it from primary education until highschool or until college! So, in order to keep the government up dont they do it from schools? |
b42d7c89-2019-04-18T15:13:53Z-00001-000 | Schools and government | The government doesn't fund enough money into schools. School's completely throughout the United States deal with money loss and low literacy rate and low test scores. America hasn't had many mistakes? Then why do we have wars? Why are we owing billions of dollars? The turkish hasn't influenced the United States, why bring it up? The government is made up of politics and power, not schools. |
b42d7c89-2019-04-18T15:13:53Z-00002-000 | Schools and government | @Rose212 I dont disagree with you. However, dont you think that governments put students learn what they want them too? For example, in history books, each country shows what they want them to learn and believe. For example, Americans learn that america hasnt done any mistakes and dont know the whole story. Another example is with Cyprus. In their history books they learn that Turkish done horrible thing during the war of 74 and Turkish's in their history books show that they did the war just to keep peace and that the turkish people who were at the island were at risk so they came to save them. So what side is the correct one? no one really knows, except from the governments and those who signed different contracts during the war. So each government provides students with the information they want them to know. To sum up, i still believe that schools keep the government alive. |
b42d7c89-2019-04-18T15:13:53Z-00003-000 | Schools and government | School's don't keep the government alive. Many students lack off in school, and don't do his/her work. According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the United States cannot read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read. In the dictionary the definition for the word, "government" is; the governing body of a nation, state, or community. How do school's keep the government alive? |
b42d7c89-2019-04-18T15:13:53Z-00004-000 | Schools and government | Some people argue that schools are made up to create nations and to keep the governments alive. Has school played this role indeed? If so, how? |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00000-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | In the context of the free will argument, I meant that those who put Jesus to death had free will. I wasn't referring to the individual dying, I meant those that cause the death. Although, I can see how what said could be misinterpreted. Just for the record. I accept your forfeit. Thanks for the debate. It was fun. I look forward to future debates as well. |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00001-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | Jesus had very free will. He very easily could have gotten out of Dodge and avoided his foreseen and predicted death. Whether it was a ticking bomb or a speeding train or a bunch of servants ordered by authorities under strict control He willingly sacrificed Himself for a cause. Certainly a good cause indeed, but a voluntary submission to be killed. I do agree that Jesus would never have committed suicide without a higher purpose. I'm convinced that Jesus committed martyrdom and not conventional suicide. You win the debate. You don't need to explain to me what a train is, it was my story. I look forward to future debates.----->Face-of-the-deep |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00002-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | "I had no idea that sitting in my car after it stalls on the railroad tracks and letting the train hit me, in not suicide. I only wish the insurance company and the law agreed." Well, it's not exactly that simple. The action of allowing the train to hit you in the vast majority of cases essentially takes the away the agency of the train driver. Let me explain further, the train driver often cannot stop in time to prevent the death of the individual. That's why the individual in question would be committing suicide. He is taking advantage of the lack of control a train to end their own life. The only one with free will in the scenario is the individual, as any choice the driver makes will result in the death of person choosing to end their life. Pilate chose to have Jesus executed. Jesus did allow it, but the people who brought him to Pilate, Pilate who ordered the execution, and the people who put him on the cross all had their free will. They could have refused to go any further with the execution of Jesus. Would it have been futile? Yes. Would Jesus have been executed anyway? Definitely. However, those people still chose to end Jesus' life. You are the only one choosing to end your life in the train scenario. "So if I pay you to kill me, it's not my action but only yours?" Legally, yes. "I know we are talking about Christianity, but in other religions allowing yourself to be killed for a higher cause is supposed to be a Holy act, isn't it?" First, we aren't talking about other religions so this is completely irrelevant. Second, even if we were, allowing yourself to be killed is not suicide. I await my opponents final response. |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00003-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | I had no idea that sitting in my car after it stalls on the railroad tracks and letting the train hit me, in not suicide. I only wish the insurance company and the law agreed. So if I pay you to kill me, it's not my action but only yours? I know we are talking about Christianity, but in other religions allowing yourself to be killed for a higher cause is supposed to be a Holy act, isn't it? |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00004-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | I will be arguing that Jesus did not commit suicide. Lets get the definition of suicide first. Suicide : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally Now that we know the definition. Lets discuss. 1. Jesus didn't commit suicide by definition Jesus foresaw his death, yes. However, he did not take his own life. For example, in the hypothetical scenario where I am a cancer patient and I decide to shoot myself, that would be suicide. If I in a different example, had a friend shoot me instead, my friend's actions would be considered homicide. Jesus essentially gave his permission to the Romans/Jewish leader to have him executed. However, he did not take his own life. His death was and still is considered death by crucifixion. 2. Suicide is a sin in the Christian Bible (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) [19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; [20] you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NIV) [16] Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? [17] If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God&'s temple is sacred, and you are that temple. I feel as though these verses make it clear that suicide, the act of one destroying their "temple" is considered a sin as demonstrated in Corinthians. Suicide is clearly a sin. If we assume that Jesus foresaw his death, then we must also assume (for the purposes of this debate) that Jesus was the Son of God. Now, the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was the be a perfect, and sinless sacrifice for the world. So, since suicide is a sin and Jesus is sinless, Jesus could not have committed suicide. I await my opponents response. |
549104d6-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00005-000 | Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death. | He must have had intense de-ja-vu to foresee all of the predictions He made. If someone allows their self to be killed, like sitting on the railroad tracks, when they could get up and leave, are they in retrospect committing suicide? |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00005-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | Hello. I've joined this sight after seeing a couple debates, and yours in particular caught my eye. I hope you can share your views with me on how you think the world is flat. I would be interested in arguing otherwise. |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00000-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | We both agreed that in this round, I would answer my opponents questions.My opponents arguments"Ah, sure.I would first like to ask, how could you explain, and Im sure youve been asked this, but what about Eclipses? And, do you believe in orbit? If you do, are other planets flat as well such as the sun and/ or mars, jupiter, etc? How could that be possible, if you even believe so?I would like to ask also if you beleive that Earth has a core/ gravitational pull or point. If so, where? Im troubling to grasp on how your idea of our earth could be flat. These are some simple points, but Im sure its meaningful."Answers1. Eclipses explained.While it might seem like a strange concept at first, many flat Earthers believe eclipses to be caused an object Rahu (originating from Hindu Mythology) instead of the Earth's shadow [1]. 2. Flat PlanetsDepends on what you view it as. Many flat Earthers (again) believe that there is a dome encasing the entire Earth. This can be confirmed and verified in a number of ways [2]. Just hope you don't mind watching a long video. How does this explain flat planets you ask? Well, many flat Earthers also believe that the stars are in the firmament located on the dome. And planets. and galaxies [3]. 3. GravityGravity is a theory, created to support the globe Earth assumption. There is no definent proof that gravity is the reason things go up and down. I personally believe that objects fall because they are more dense than the air, and objects rise because they are less dense. [4].Sources:1. https://tinyurl.com...2. 3. youtube.com/watch?v=6deQXN6sPeM4. youtube.com/watch?v=-V-ZfRXReKM |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00001-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | To Address your Photo Argument: I'm sure this is unprofessional, but when using Google as a source it said that you needed an 50,000 aptitude, not 35,000, which is a somewhat big difference. To explain the photos however, I cannot access the first one. I can see the second example, though. I have seen you're other debates, claiming that NASA admitted to fake photos, so I assume that you believe these aren't, and are the real deal. I used a level, the ruler looking tool with three spaces inside used to tell if something is straight, on each photo after copying it digitally onto screen in my home office. I went to the lowest looking point, and placed the level so that it was completely straight and in no way crooked. The photo, however hard to see with the human eye, is indeed curved. This doesn't go for the second photo in that set, seeing as how its too blurry to tell when the starting point of the line begins, but I can only assume that it applies to that photo as well. To Address The Chicago Skyline Argument: I can only conclude the video that I was lead to is incorrect. I'm sure that whoever made the video didn't place the camera themselves, and if anything got it from another person in "The Flat Earth Society" as I had been lead to believe is what people who have the some beliefs as you are labeled into. For all I know, it could have been that he added the Google map thing in the beginning as an effect to further convince the audience. Also, I'm sure that if you looked into it you'd be able to trace this all the way back to some stock photo site. To Address your Arctic Midnight Sun: Its proved that the sun has a possibility of not setting in the arctic. I don't exactly understand your point here. Sorry. |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00002-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | Since you're new here to this subject, I've decided I'll go a bit easier on you. I will answer both of your questions in the next round. Argument 1. No curvature We are widely told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. However, there are a number of images showing that this is not the case. 80K Feet (15.15 Miles): https://i.imgur.com... 121K Feet (22.91 Miles) and 317K Feet (60.03 Miles): https://photos.google.com... Argument 2. The Chicago Skyline It is one of the most compelling arguments that convinced me into a flat Earth. According to the globe model, this should be impossible and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon but this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true. https://gyazo.com... Argument 3. Arctic midnight sun. (This argument is credit to Eric Dubay) The "Midnight Sun" is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! http://4.bp.blogspot.com... - Here is a gallery of the phenomenon. |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00003-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | Ah, sure. I would first like to ask, how could you explain, and Im sure youve been asked this, but what about Eclipses? And, do you believe in orbit? If you do, are other planets flat as well such as the sun and/ or mars, jupiter, etc? How could that be possible, if you even believe so? I would like to ask also if you beleive that Earth has a core/ gravitational pull or point. If so, where? Im troubling to grasp on how your idea of our earth could be flat. These are some simple points, but Im sure its meaningful. |
2e4af8a1-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00004-000 | The Earth Is indeed a sphere | Hello, I am glad to see you're interested in the true shape of the Earth: The Flat Earth. Can we agree to this round by round structure? Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-rebuttals |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00000-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | Could you at least try to make your premise a little more clear? I had trouble understanding it... (to make this 100 characters so I can post it..) Could you at least try to make your premise a little more clear? I had trouble understanding it... |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00001-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | Well, It was nice hashing this out with you. I wish you well in your future debates. THIS DEBATE WILL BE TAKEN UP AGAIN BY BRITTWALLER AND MYSELF at http://www.debate.org... |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00002-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | "The Liberals are far from a path to economic prosperity." I admit your entire premise didn't really make much sense... |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00003-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | Not sure where to go from here. Are you for or against my debate resolution? I think I need to post this one again. Based on your profile we don't disagree on much. |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00004-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | The Liberals are far from a path to economic prosperity. But compared to the borrow and spend mentality of the Republicans in the last 40 years they are doing so much better. There's not much I can say about this whole topic, I myself am a fiscal conservative and the 1 major thing that would pull our economy out of our rut is to abolish the federal reserve and return a to gold standard. But don't ask me, let's ask the man who PASSED the federal reserve act. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson 1919 Liberals have good intentions at mind. Free health care. Free education. All good ideas. But their idea of government involvement in EVERYTHING is so inherently flawed in that it's against the spirit of the constitution which wanted as little involvement as possible.... |
dec39437-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00005-000 | Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S. | I used to be annoyed by liberals and their deeply pessimistic attitudes with regard to one's chances for success in this country. It seems to me that, for the most part, they have a contempt for our capitalistic society and believe it stifles opportunity rather than offers the most access to it. I do not wish to argue whether liberals are correct in their critiques of capitalism. It's just that I've become acquainted with some very bright liberals on this site, and I'm starting to worry that their own prospects for success are being compromised by their despairing outlooks. If it is true that we get what we expect in life, I'm not so sure the liberals are on a path to economic advancement. |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00000-000 | The US government should ban guns | Rebuttal 1: Freedom and Law The 1st point made by my opponent in this contention is the definition of “ban” and the resolution. This is the resolution as proposed by my opponent: Resolved: The US Government should ban guns. My definition of ban is yet to be challenged by my opponent, and I will stand by it. “Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.)” I never specify if this is a total gun ban or not, I use the blanket term guns and I do not specify the type of firearms that would be targeted, and I do not state “all guns” I simply stated “guns.” It would be illogical to think that I would propose an idea such as that given the examples used by both me and my opponent not being complete bans. Australia targeted semi-automatic guns, Britain banned handguns, and other countries that my opponent has brought up have not banned all guns anyway. Thus, if my opponent is truly wanting to debate a full gun ban, then he has not proved legitimate harms from passing the resolution since we both used partial bans in our points. In which case, this debate has devolved into meaningless dribble on both sides. Next, the 2nd amendment is brought up. My opponent states that an English expert stated that the 2nd amendment is an individual one. However, as the said expert explains, the interpretation is purely linguistic and takes into account the exact meaning of the constitution. Next, he cites a YouTube video, under any evidence standard, YouTube videos do not provide information worthy of putting into a case. Remember, video on YouTube can easily be biased in favor of one’s ideology. Also, state constitutions are different based on whether a liberal or conservative majority is in government positions. In places like California, Iowa, and Maryland have no provisions even concerning guns, while certain states allow for the public to be protected from policy that aims to clean up crime (1). My opponent also claims that the newer precedents of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment are somehow more valid simply because they are newer. Remember, the fact that there is such debate over the 2nd amendment’s limits imply that there is grey area where the interpretation of the amendment is concerned. After all, the court has decided other amendments to be limited in some ways as well. For example, in Davis vs. Boheim, the court upheld that defamation of character had to be proved with 4 criteria, but still was a crime. The founding fathers could not have determined the influx of gun crime in the US and certainly would not know that superior gun technology would exist to the point that automatic and semi-automatic weapon fire would exist, given the weapon of choice in the past to be muskets and flint lock pistols. Next, he attempts to attack my point about the fact that over a million children live in a household where a weapon is readily available. He brings up child negligence laws, which he claims that since the laws designed to prevent children becoming injured or killed and are still not enforced, neither would my ban. First, he conflates two different issues that are not in relation with each-other. There is no child negligence law federally that prevents where parents store the weapon if they have children, meaning that there is nothing to conflate to begin with. Also, I have defined the word “ban” with this in mind and mentioned raising penalties, which would deter the number of people who would break this law. Rebuttal 2: Suicides My opponent basically concedes to my suicide point by saying it is someone’s right to do so, and furthers this by claiming suicide to be a victimless crime. This is not the case, many people are effected by the decision to ends one’s life, including family members, friends etc. Not only this, but saving any life is inherently a benefit to everyone, as we affirm the right that people own to life. If suicide is to be legal anyway, it should be administered by a doctor, thus preventing trauma from other family members and friends. Next, he claims that many criminals are scared off from other people owning weapons. He has yet to refute my Boston University example and simply scoffed when I showed the fact that the CDC is not able to show benefits of gun control. Also, regardless of what the executive branch’s opinion is in this matter, it should be mentioned that at the time, and possibly even now, the legislative branch, where actual law gets passed is split on the issue. Also, my opponent claims that the Australia model will not work in America due to different demographics and beliefs held between the two nations. However, the Australian party in charge of the legislative branch equivalent was conservative, many not favoring the NFA (3). My opponent seems to think that by enacting any gun ban, we would guarantee that public violence would spark. The fact that it did not in any other country, despite conservative notions and outrage, points in the opposite direction. My opponent states that Australia’s homicide rate did not lower, even though he never directly states why. I have offered stats to the contrary. His statistic claimed that other crimes not associated with guns increased. Yet, he has yet to link the ban with higher rates of other crime. Also, need I remind you that Australia had significantly lower crime rates as a result? I have already shown you the graph in last round and the fact that homicide and suicide were lowered significantly (4). Also, the fact that crime decrease in Australia despite many people owning guns means that we would still have a decrease in crime, and death as a result. My opponent mentions the fact that there is no protection from tyranny. This is despite the fact that I have not advocated for a total ban on guns, meaning that people can still own some types of firearms, just not certain ones such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Also, assuming that the people of another country come and try to kill us, we would still have superior military forces, technology, and ability. The likeliness of anyone attacking us is slim at best to begin with, and I can assure you that people who have not been trained in combat scenarios will not even put up a fight against other country’s military, making this point non-unique, because in the event that my opponent proposes, there is little likeliness of survival for any civilian. The next example my opponent uses is the fact that gun control can be used to oppress people, using the example of slaves being oppressed by these laws from revolting. This is a straw-man fallacy, since the debate is about the general welfare of the people, and the fact that it “was” used to suppress people does not mean that the moment we pass gun control, the entire government starts oppressing its citizens. Rebuttal 3: Economy Again, the economy can be fixed, but the lives of the people is priceless. Since my opponent makes no argument against the welfare of the people framework, his argument does not stand. May it also be known that the manufacturing of all goods are being outsourced as we speak, meaning that in a few years, this will not even matter as other countries or robots manufacture the guns. Conclusion With the lives of the people at stake, and the obvious coming to light, one must vote in the affirmation. Good luck to my opponent as we approach the end of the debate. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00001-000 | The US government should ban guns | Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.) Freedom & Law The confiscation, outlawing, & penalization of the ownership of guns. That is what your definition presented means. That means confiscating people of their weapons, making it illegal to own one, & if anyone that slipped through the cracks & caught later then they will be charged with a crime. The resolution is the US should ban guns, not the US government should ban certain people of having guns. As you also stated in your previous round "the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away," The 2nd amendment is an individual right, an expert on the English language [1] [2] [3] as well as a much newer Supreme Court cases states it to be the case. [4] [5] State constitutions calling it as such. [6] The meaning come even more clear when you also look at the intent of the Founders. Essentially an overturned court case hold no importance at all. Even if it did, assault weapons most definitely would fall under such arguments and therefore shouldn't result in banning them. However this argument regards all guns. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." " Samuel Adams. [7] In order for the government to deny everyone's right to bear arms, they can't make the case of the 'greater good of the general welfare', they must make the case for each individual has committed a crime grave enough to warrant that person's right be restricted for the 'greater good', cause due process. This can't be done for 99.99% majority hasn't committed a crime "I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon," I've already brought up laws already established that penalizes negligence & child endangerment, if that law can't be enforced with only 2 million guilty. There is no way humanly possible to enforce a law on 100-150 million people whom are against such a thing and has already act in defiance of such things. Estimated crime with the use of a gun is at 500,000, the number of cases in defense of a crime is considerably more. Since there already laws established under due process to restrict people convicted of a crime grave enough to warrant a restriction. There are not among the debate like the 10s of millions innocent who are accident, homicide, or suicide free, that would be affected by the definition presented. A person convicted of a crime results in their rights be restricted, not everyone's right. That is due process So again from the aspect of freedom & legality, this argument is done. Suicides Suicide is a victim less 'crime', ultimately the peoples' right to do so. A person has a right to their own, hence their right to end it if they wish. Therefore, the act of voluntarily taking ones own life as a reason to remove the vast majority of the peoples' right to defend theirs should be dropped & ignored. In my last round I showed that a large % of criminals was scared off before completion of a crime & even prevented a crime from taking place. This mindset for anyone that values their self preservation will exist anywhere in the world, including Australia. After the gun ban in Australia, more people became victims cause they, the criminals, were emboldened, less afraid of their life being taken. From pro's source "It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States." Why? Cause the American people in vast numbers refuse to follow suit with such things as buybacks & registering. The mindset of Australians & Americans are different. There is historic evidence that Americans won't rid themselves the right to bear arms cause a fraction of 1% of the population use their gun illegally & irresponsibly. You think the defiance would cease in the face of forced confiscation? That's wishful thinking. "This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently." Wild assertion, if that was the case, the US government, whom is actively bent on gun control, wouldn't have funded it. My opponents attempt to rebut the facts that despite predictions of Kennesaw becoming a war zone after the law passed didn't come to light. Crime rates reduced across the board after the law was passed, just as crime rates increased in other parts of the the US & world following bans including Australia. The only difference in crime rates before and after the ban in Australia, UK, Jamaica, ext was the ban, [8] so logic dictates that gun ownership is a major factor in the crime rates. Mexico, strict gun control is in a major war with their armed citizens whom are possession of them. [8] The United Kingdom, strict gun laws, regarded my dangerous nation in Europe, worse then the United States. [8] Gun ownership is considered an important crime deterrent. The police force in the United States doesn't prevent crime, they just catch the criminals that commit the crime. Officers arrive after the fact, people must be able to protect themselves when those seconds matter then report the crime afterwards. There are 100s 1000s of animal attacks a year, millions of criminals committing crimes,without a gun every year, government abuse, I've seen in person, and increase risk of invasion. America's superpower status is waning, China status of becoming a thing, as well as Russia. Tensions rising in world, America's natural defenses of distance and geographic position is null in modern times. It may not happen within the nest 50 years but America wasn't always the most powerful & its not logical to assume that we will away be most powerful. The right to bear arms was also established so that a foreign nation can't invade & subject us to the types of harshness that the Nazis placed on those lands they occupied as well as against their own people. Or Japan's Nanking Rape where national armies abandon the city leaving the people there with no means of defense. America is not immune to tyranny or invasion, the British ruled, they were pushed out but slavery existed, then gun control measures existed to prevent blacks from rising up and dealing with this tyranny. [9] The economic toll on America & whole states would be negatively affected. 300,000+ people would take a hit which can itself result in a desperate act of criminal activity. The voters need to place the affects of banning or not banning on a set of scales. This isn't just a save lives measure cause there are aspects of American life that will be affected. Therefore any legit discussion involves all that would be involved. The people positively affected of gun ownership & people affected negatively. Looking at the facts, you'll see that the positively affected outweighs the negative. The rights of 318 million Americans would be violated, cause of 500,000-1 million whom abuse their right. The former outweighs this here. Gun ownership is undeniably a crime deterrent, criminals will be criminals, removing the innocence ability to use the most efficient means of defense will result in increase crime. This will not protect the 'general welfare' of the people. The economic toll on the US economy that is already $19 trillion in debt would severely hurt our ability to get out of debt faster, our already unemployment problem would get much worse. And peoples' ability to provide for their loved ones being negatively affected would result in desperate measure, not in the best interest of the United States or the general welfare of the people. The consequence of a government program to forcibly confiscate weapons from Americans would result in a vast defiance from the people. People would refuse to surrender their arms, as their historic counterparts had done in the past, & any attempt to put the people & the government into at odd in such a situation would, highly likely, result in the death of Americans both citizen & law enforcement in government. This is again, not in the best interest of the US government or the general welfare. [1] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://www.constitution.org... [3] [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www2.law.ucla.edu... [7] http://www.whiteoutpress.com... [8] http://www.gunfacts.info... [9] http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [10] [11] |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00002-000 | The US government should ban guns | Rebuttal 1: 2nd amendment The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to own weapons without restriction. The Cornell Legal Dictionary states the exact language of the 2nd amendment as such: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1) An individual does not have the right to own a firearm without restriction. In fact, a Supreme Court case has established that the 2nd amendment is fluid in interpretation. The case in question is the United States vs. Miller case in 1934 which dealt with the regulation of a sawed-off shotgun under the National Firearms Act of the 1930s and established the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to establish militias to counter oppression, and that since the sawed-off shotgun had any reasonable relationship with a well-regulated militia, the 2nd amendment did not protect it (1). While other precedents later established the contrary, the fact that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was considered to be for the purposes of a militia still continues. Not only this, but there have been gun bans before other precedents have been set. For instance, there have been Assault Weapons Bans and provisions in the early 1990s that was not struck down as constitutional. However, if you really want a look at how people interpret the 2nd amendment, we need to look at popular opinion. According to a poll conducted by YouGov and the Huffington Post, over 80% of people support not allowing people to purchase guns if they are on the terrorist watch list (2). This, in itself is a gun ban, which falls under the resolution regardless of the type of weapon, or person purchasing said weapon. Thus resolution states “a” gun ban, not a “total gun ban” in which all weapons are confiscated or outlawed. Thus, the second amendment does not apply in this debate. Remember, we are talking about the general welfare of the people, which affirming the right to life does, while the second amendment has only led to people protecting the right of those to shoot others, the right to life is universally upheld by everyone and is more ingrained into society than the 2nd amendment. My opponent also claims that the majority of the gun owners in the US do not actually commit crimes or fall victim to gun accidents. I would be inclined to agree were it not for my framework. My framework states that we only value the promotion of the general welfare, and not the scope of the people affected. Even if I can only prove that the number of accidental shootings decreased, or the crime decreased is minimal, I still win based on the fact that the general welfare of the people is better off. Rebuttal 2: Violent crime rate My opponent is mistaken significantly. Not only have I proven the fact that there has been a notable decrease in homicide and suicide with or without guns used by 1.4% per annum (3), but he cites a questionable statistic that misses the point. My opponent claims that the prevalence of other crimes increased, but has yet to link it to the gun ban. Since the link is never made, the entire statistic is meaningless. This is especially true since the author of the NCPA article was Howard Nemerov, someone unknown to the world of academic publishing and posts articles to the website freerepublic.com, leading me to believe that at best, this source is questionable. I will address the argument that the rate of crime returned to pre-ban rates with a graph modeling the actual decrease in crime. We can look toward the evidence compiled from New York Times for this, from a previously used statistic (4). Also, there have been no mass shootings thus far in Australia since the gun ban, saving precious lives. Next, my opponent brings up Kennesaw, Georgia’s law that mandates gun ownership which purportedly stopped the city from devolving into the “wild, wild, west.” This is likely to occur anyway given the demographics and population of the city. City-Data reports a population of under 50,000 people and an average income about $10,000 higher than the rest of the state (5). Compare this to the millions living in Houston, New York, San Diego, and Philadelphia (6). The cities that are more susceptible to gun violence are in places where there are plenty of people, and poverty. This is because people look toward crime as a means of escape and possibly funding if they are part of organized crime, and that there are more people to shoot at with a greater risk of conflict when people are in close proximity. Regardless, the Kennesaw example simply does not work, and is clearly not representative of all of America. My opponent then calls to action through the policy of allowing teachers, principals, and other school officials to carry weapons. There is a major problem with this argument, and that one is human error. The American Journal of Epidemiology finds significant correlations between owning a firearm and gun violence in the form of homicide and suicide (7). It is not apparent that a teacher, principal, or whatever school official would not just leave the weapon out in the open. I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon, which could mean access to said firearm and resulting in mass shootings as well as gun accidents (8). Ultimately, the gun ban proposal in Australia is shown to have worked by my evidence provided. Also, the counter-proposal to the gun ban could lead to more harm and more of a threat to the general welfare of the people. Rebuttal 3: Defense My opponent first states that guns are used to prevent tyrannical government takeovers, animals that would attack people, and criminals. Later, he cites a report claiming a significant deterrent between gun ownership and deterrence of crime. Live-Science reports that Boston University conducted a similar study and found evidence correlating higher homicide rates and gun ownership (9). Not only this, but I have already linked owning a weapon with the higher chance of ending up dead due to homicide or suicide as reported from the American Journal of Epidemiology (7). Not only this, but the study was conducted in 1995, during a federal weapons ban and higher incarceration rates. In other words, the times were different, and since the criminals were unaware of who had a gun due to said ban, the fear of a gun would be irrational. My opponent also brings up a poll of inmates which, in his own statistic, proves to be unreliable as the lead of the study restricted the sample size to those who had begun their sentences in 1979 or have been out of jail since then (10). It goes without saying that the fact that people were still scared of guns under my opponents estimate during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban that proves despite what restrictions we place on guns; people will still be frightened as they are not rational actors. Not only this, but lowered crime rates as shown by Australia would suggest less of a need to use guns as self-defense as opposed to a knife or any other weapon. The CDC report is not shocking in its results given the fact that, as reported by LA Times, the CDC for the past 20 years have been forbidden from advocating or spending money to promote gun control meaning that the research had to be stopped, despite its truth or fallacious value (11). This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently. In other words, my offensive arguments hold water in today’s debate, meaning an affirmative vote is necessary. Rebuttal 4: Economy First, there are other industries where manufacturing other goods besides guns can occur. Also, given the lives lost by not affirming this resolution, this impact is not as important. I even state in my framework that the economy can be fixed, but once a life is lost, it can’t be brought back. Rebuttal 5: Violence would ensue I never argued for a total gun ban, as this was not part of the resolution. I have only addressed Australia’s model, which was not a complete ban either. I have already shown you that there is support for a ban on firearms sold to those on the terrorist watch list, which would be a gun ban as well, with over 80% of people in favor of the idea (2). In other words, there is no guaranteed violent crime outbreak from NRA supporters. There would be outrage by some, as shown by the fact that conservative officials were in charge of the NFA in Australia, but the saving of people is a bipartisan issue, and I am certain people will see it that way, just like people did after the NFA was passed. Conclusion My burden in this debate is to prove that a gun ban would be beneficial to the people’s general welfare, as stated in the framework of the debate which my opponent has yet to challenge. Thus, this is a victory for the affirmation. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00003-000 | The US government should ban guns | Freedom "These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, & that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they're represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, & the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law & has the right to life, liberty, & property. " That is essentially my argument based on the rights of the people. Americans have a right to life, liberty, & property + pursuit of happiness. The government is constructed & its purpose is to protect those rights, among them, the 2nd amendment. Americans have a right to use their property, in this case guns, to protect their life, liberties, property, & pursuit of happiness. It is estimated that 1/3 to even 1/2 of the population own guns, that is 100-150 million people. [1] There is around 33,600 deaths by guns annually, includes accident, negligent, murder, & suicides. [2] That means that .0003% of the population did something resulting in a life taken, that also means that 99.9997% was accident free, no suicide or homicides. Legally, the other 99-149 million+ gun owners shall be free & the government has 0 reason to attempt to deny them of that right based on due process. Cause they have not committed a crime to warrant an arrest, placed on trail, & certainly not found guilty of trail by a jury of their peers. Furthermore, 90% of the people oppose a complete ban and confiscation. [3] So, from a legal & a freedom aspect, there should not be a gun ban. Gun bans don't work Comparing pre & post gun ban crime rates for the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, & Australia, it tells you that the murder rates increased or was similar to pre gun ban. [4] [5] However, other crimes did indeed increase, the UK is considered the most dangerous nation in Europe, worse than the US & South Africa. [6] However, there is a law in Kennesaw GA, that requires heads of households to own a gun & crime rates have decreased, resulting in a murder free environment for 25 years, despite predictions that that American county would become the wild west. [7] Whereas, other counties enacting opposite laws have seen increases in crime rates. [8] Lets look at the most painfully obvious proof that gun ban doesn't work... At our schools. The law abiding Americans accept this obviously proven mistake at great cost to, as you said, America's future. Instead of allowing responsible people, I'm sure we agree that most teachers are responsible, whom owns a firearm to conceal carry, or the principle, or someone there to have access to their gun to defend the school against a potential intruders. Defense There are a multitude of potential threats the American people face. Animal attacks in the 100s of 1000s for just dogs [9], criminals, invasion, & tyrannical government. These threats are real, a ban & confiscation of firearms would result in much larger number of potential fatalities against animals, criminals would be embolden by their victims reduced chances, invasion of the United States could forget about strategic planning for the stiff resistance of the American people thanks to a ban, & the people would be forced to live under a government that controls the monopoly of force which is a very dangerous gamble to take. A famous quote comes to mind when I write this, "Those that give up liberty for temporary safety will lose both & deserve neither" Now for a comparison between legal defense gun uses vs illegal gun uses in crime. " A 1995 study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology based upon a 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard. " [10] The estimated number of times guns are used in defense against a criminal range in the low 100,000-millions. Report from the CDC puts the number of times Americans used a gun to frighten an intruder away at about 500,000. [10] The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology estimates that the number of times guns are used in defense is over 1 million. [10] A 1982 survey of felons in prison concluded that 34% was scared off from a gun owner, 40% didn't commit a crime out of a belief that the victim was in possession of gun, & 69% of them knew someone else that were scared off with a gun. [10] The lowest estimates of occasions that Americans use guns in defense is multiple times higher than they are used to murder. Average estimates are about the same number of times guns are used illegally, high estimates rivals or surpasses violent crimes. The CDC also concluded that gun ownership is an important crime deterrent. [11] Bad for the economy A ban on guns would result in a serious problem for the economy, there are over 155,000 workers that are good paying jobs in that industry. Even more workers that revolves around that industry. Those businesses provide near $7 billion in taxes, & near $50 billion to the economy. A ban would cause those people their jobs, assuming they have a families it easily affects 310,000 people not counting real possibility that they have children. [12] Entire states are dependent on the gun industries, the gun industry employs more people then GM. [13] To put it in a little perspective, America's gun industries, if they were a nation, would rank around 82nd wealthiest nation in the world, there are 173 nations. [14] So the gun industry provides America with more money than half of the world's nations can provide itself. Violence would ensue The American reaction towards a call of confiscation would be negative to say the least. As I said earlier in this round, 90% of Americans oppose a total gun ban & any attempt to confiscate them. A large % of Americans refuse to register their weapons. [15] [16] The last time authorities went on a hell bent mission of gun confiscation resulted in the 'shot hear round the world' [17], I don't imagine the reactions of freedom loving people in the United States would respond much differently. The people of the United States having been born & raised understanding that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate line of defense against tyranny, & knowing that when seconds truly matter, cops are minutes away. Americans will not quietly surrender what is considered the most important right the American people have. [1] http://bearingarms.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.democraticunderground.com... [4] http://www.mintpressnews.com... [5] http://www.ncpa.org... [6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [7] http://rense.com... [8] http://www.wnd.com... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.justfacts.com... [11] http://www.cnsnews.com... [12] http://www.nssf.org... [13] http://www.theblaze.com... [14]https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [15] http://www.infowars.com... [16] http://controversialtimes.com... [17] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00004-000 | The US government should ban guns | OBV This is a normative resolution, thus the burden of proof falls on the both of us. Also, it is imperative that definitions account for the specific language in the resolution. Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.) Guns: Firearms. Framework We need weigh the impact of the general welfare of the people in today’s debate higher than any other impact. This is due to the fact that lives are priceless and the prevailing theories about debates such as this is that the number of people who are harmed by guns are a much bigger problem than the economy, which can always be fixed. Thus, if I can prove that the gun ban promotes the general welfare of the people, then the judges should feel comfortable to vote in my favor, and vice-versa for my opponent. Contention 1: Gun bans have been successful in reducing gun violence There is significant evidence pointing toward national gun bans to be the best way to reduce gun violence and crime. To see this, we turn toward Australia, the nation that has single-handedly decimated the gun violence in their own nation. This was accomplished by passing the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 as a reaction to the brutal massacre at a Tasmanian Seaside Resort (1). Harvard in 2007 reported that the result was that within 7 years of the installment of the sweeping policy that outlawed the majority of firearms and raised penalties for owning said weapons, the firearm suicide rate was cut in half from over 2/100,000 to 1.1/100,000 (1). This created a major dip in the total suicide rate not relating to firearms, as shown by the Guardian in June of 2016 when it states that the 1996 reforms resulted in the rising rate of suicides non-firearm suicides and homicides from 2.1% a year to 1.4% decline, which researchers attribute to the fact that people were not looking toward other methods of suicide or homicide (2). As previously mentioned, the rate of homicides also decreased significantly after the reforms were passed. The New York Times reports that despite the growing population of Australia, and the conservative nature of the government, these reforms did pass and resulted in the homicide rate decreasing by 50% in the decade after installment and has been on the decline since (3). Again, the rate of total homicide was shown to decrease as well, as criminals did not switch to another weapon to commit the crime they would have intended to have done (3). This can be attributed to the fact that guns are the most available type of weapon with a significant chance to inflict mortal damage. A knife is unwieldy and does not result in the same mortality rate as guns. The Annals of Emergency Medicine Journal in a 2003 report examined 4,122 patients and found that of those who were shot, 1/3 of them died, while only 7.7% died from knife wounds (4). It is harder to approach someone and aim for a vital organ without the victim knowing than it is to simply aim for a vital organ of said victim with a weapon. Given the fact that the majority of the guns used in homicides today are handguns, (as compiled from FBI data,) we can most definitely see that weapons which are small and fit in one’s hand are hard to see from the perspective of an unsuspecting victim (5). By decreasing the murder rate, we establish more peace in cities and suburbs that were fraught with gun violence beforehand, thus protecting the safety of the people and promoting the general welfare. We provide a safe environment for people to live in which ultimately means we protect their right to life without due process, as the taking of a life is in violation of this, which is again, promoting the general welfare of the people. Thus, one must cast a vote in the affirmation. Contention 2: Prevent gun accidents from occurring as well as lapses in judgement Gun accidents are prevalent in the status quo, much to the ire of many people. What is more disturbing is who fall victim in these gun accidents. Slate magazine quoted David Hemmingway in his book Private Guns, Public Health of the University of Michigan Press in 2006 which states that children are nine times more likely to die by gun accident in the US than any other nation in the developed world (6). These are preventable circumstances and should never occur as the children are our future educators, lawyers, and basically our entire job force. Despite the fact that there are training methods for children to prevent accidents like these from occurring, there is significant evidence to the contrary. Hardy MS of the Eckerd College in St. Petersburg FL in a report showed that out of 34 children aged 4-7, even after given the safety program, over 50% of them actually played with a firearm when given an opportunity to do so (7). With over 1 million children living in a household where a firearm is unlocked and not put away, or loaded according to the International Business Times in January of 2016, we can see that the current gun culture has ruined many people’s lives (8). However, this brings us to the question, of whether there is a safe way to store a firearm. The answer is a resounding no. The American Journal of Epidemiology found correlations between owning a firearm and increased chance of homicide, and suicide. Specifically speaking, nearly ¾ of suicide victims lived in a household with a gun, which is the same for 42% of homicide victims (9). What is more disturbing is the fact that a huge portion of the homicides were attributed to family disagreements, making up over 30% of homicides (9). People are simply not rational to be able to be under the stress of society, their job, their family, and their own hopes to own a weapon and assume that they will use it correctly. This is especially true if we look at American Medical News which reports in 2010 that there are about 15 million adults with depression in a given year, many of whom will not receive treatment (10). In fact, a 201 Live-science article reports that half of the depressed population does not get the treatment they need (11). This certainly has a correlation with the suicide rate and shows that Americans simply cannot own weapons in the way we want to in the status quo with millions of guns in circulation. In other words, we prevent the people who need psychological help from committing suicide while providing for the welfare of children and guaranteeing that the American people are not as likely to die from their own weapons. Thus, I am upholding the framework which states that we care about the people that will be effected by the resolution, ultimately leading to an obvious vote in the affirmation. Contention 3: Upholding life It is the sworn duty of the government to uphold the and protect the rights of the people so they do not become slaves to an oppressive and abusive government. By affirming, we do this because we set a precedent for upholding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (12). These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, and that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they are represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, and the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law and has the right to life, liberty, and property. These ideas are based on the philosophy of John Locke, an enlightenment figure who inspired the creation of our government (13). This leads us to realize that by not holding up the job of the government, we are suppressing the people’s rights by allowing copious gun violence to continue and thus violating their autonomous right to life without due process of law. In this way, the US has an obligation to fix this problem posthaste and stop the violation of rights in the US, thus promoting the general welfare by giving people what they were promised by the political documents that established our country. Conclusion We need to affirm the resolution and save lives that would be lost without our ability to counter the threat. By doing so we prevent homicides, suicides, accidents, lapses of judgement, and to protect the rights of the American people from further encroachment. I have shown that under the affirmative world, the general welfare is upheld and thus, fulfilling my burden of proof, thank you. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...) |
51e85b7a-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00005-000 | The US government should ban guns | Should the United States government ban guns? Naawwww. If you want to accept, let me know. |
828b518a-2019-04-18T12:10:11Z-00000-000 | Christianity is more believable than Atheism. | Prove to me that God exists. |
828b518a-2019-04-18T12:10:11Z-00001-000 | Christianity is more believable than Atheism. | Is Atheism better than Christian or is it the opposite? Christianity is the better one of the two. I mean yes, Atheist might not have to worship God or do events they don't want to, but at the end of the day Christians come on top. If Atheists are correct on that after death there is nothing, and Christians are wrong about an eternity in Heaven then we both die and nothing happens. But if Christians are correct, then after death, Christians go to Heaven and Nonbelievers go to Hell. To be honest I would rather be a Christian than an Atheist because if Christian are correct, everyone other than Christians go to Hell. So why be an Atheist when nothing after death happens but when you're a Christian, go to Heaven and spend eternity in mansions and eating and being with the True God. So if you think this is completely wrong, then prove me wrong. You better get some research, 'cause I'm ready for ya.. xD |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00007-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Thank you for accepting. As a reminder, please do not read this argument until round 2 is over. The positive effects of Christianity are listed below: Christianity is an advocate of human rights. In the Roman empire, infanticide was common, and it was legal to kill a child. [1] Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, was the one to finally outlaw it. [2] Christianity was also a large factor in the abolition of slavery. According to historian Glenn Sunshine, "Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free." [3] In addition, two thirds of the American abolition society in 1835 were Christian ministers. [4] Martin Luther King Jr. was also a Christian minister, and he is a great example of a human rights supporter. [5] Christianity is responsible for high literacy rates. Christianity has been a leader in education because Bible literacy was so important to Christians. The first law to require education of citizens was passed by American Puritans in Massachusetts. [6] All but one of the first 123 American colleges were Christian institutions. The principles in the American Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution came from the Bible. The idea that all men are created equal is a biblical doctrine. [8] The notion of God's authority is part of the Declaration of Independence and all 50 state constitutions. The preamble of the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...". Christianity helped to make advancements in science. Many of the founders of modern science were Christians, such as Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur. [9] This should be enough evidence. [1] http://news.discovery.com... [2] http://www.faithfacts.org... [3] http://tvcog.com... [4] http://www.ccel.us... [5] http://www.biography.com... [6] http://www.academia.edu... [7] https://www.reddit.com... [8] http://www.slideshare.net... [9] http://www.famousscientists.org... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00008-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | I accept. |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00009-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | The burden of proof is on me. If I can prove that Christianity has helped the world more than it has hurt it, I win the debate. If I cannot, I lose. The rounds will go as follows: 1. Con accepts the challenge. 2. I will list and explain the positive effects of Christianity, and Con will list and explain the negative effects. 3. Rebuttals. 4. More rebuttals, defend previous arguments. 5. Conclusion. |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00000-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Wars: The wars were an effect of christianity, as people killed for their religion. Since christianity was their motive, that means Christianity is the reason they committed the killing, therefore making it an effect. Witches: People were hung by the judges of the court (who were christians) because witchcraft was seen as an act of the devil. Therefore, Christianity caused the hanging of all those who died in the Salem witch trials. Misunderstandings: Just because you personally know more good christians than atheists, does not mean that's a solid case. You are playing to stereotypes. If someone killed someone you love, would you not hope for them to be punished for it? Sure prison for life and the death penalty would be punishment, but I know a lot of people would want them to burn in hell. But you're saying if they got repent, they'll get a clean slate? That's an injustice in my eyes. The fact they will get to go to heaven after the horrible deed they committed just because they repented, seems very wrong to me. Also, the bible does have God teachings and Gods words in it, written by people who have dealt with God. However, saying God didn't teach all of its content is completely ignorant. False Hope: It is creating False Hope. Their is things we can do, such as donate money, provide help(resources,protection, ect.) to Paris, ect. You never argued against the offering once in any of your arguments. If you did, then I have overlooked it and I apologize, but I have yet to see where you have argued it. It is now up to the voters to decide who made the better case. Good job Pro, and thanks for the intriguing debate. |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00001-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Wars Killing people is not a positive and I never said it was. It was not an effect of Christianity. Witches The Salem Witch Trials were not caused by Christianity. In fact, many people were suffering from ergotism. [1] View this for more information: http://usminc.org... Judgment No one has to praise something they don't believe in. When you say "One nation, under God" you are not expressing your faith; you are recognizing the Christian origins of the United States. If God does not exist, then the nation was still created under the idea of God. Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. [2] False Hope Using the hashtag #PrayforParis does not create false hope. It makes the people feel better by showing that you care for them. In a situation like that there isn't anything else you can do. Misunderstandings I see even more midunderstandings. Even though you were Catholic, you apparently were ignorant of your religion. 1. The Bible is not what God says. It was not written by God, nor did God teach all of its content. [3] 2. Christianity teaches that if you sin and don't repent, you go to hell, not just if you sin. 3. Thinking that someone is in hell is not false hope, or any hope for that matter. 4. The Old Testament is not considered to be infallible by Christianity. You have contradicted that statement but you have not disproved it. 5. I am not prejudiced against those who are not Christians. I know some atheists who are good people, but I know even more atheists who are not, and the Christians I know are almost all good people. The arguments you claim that I did not respond to All the effects are either one of the arguments I already responded to or something like abortion where the argument only works if you can prove that abortion is not bad. I dismiss all of those arguments unless you can find evidence. I also never agreed that the offerings caused hardship to families, hurt scientific growth, and took away from others. I clearly stated the opposite multiple times. Since you aren't being honest, I doubt everything you said and voters should take that into consideration. [1] http://usminc.org... [2] http://www.positiveatheism.org... [3] http://religiondispatches.org... https://answersingenesis.org... http://lifehopeandtruth.com... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00002-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Thanks for the intriguing argument. I'm going to rebut your arguments from Round 3 and 4, so please bear with me if I'm jumping from an argument you said one round to one in another. In your argument, you stuck up for the christians actions of war. The killing of people is by no means a positive, and you defending and saying it is dumbfounds me. The lost of any life, no matter the cause or reasoning, is a negative. You also said Christianity had nothing to do with witches. That is a false statement, as you can look at examples such as the infamous Salem Witch Trials. As for my Judgement argument, I shouldn't have said Muslim, but you know what my notion was. Who would you feel to have to stand up every morning and praise something you don't believe in? If that part is what you ask for confirmation, their truly is no need. You should be able to put yourself in their shoes and see the issue. Other than that, I see no other part of that argument that needs confirmation. As far as Abraham Lincoln benign atheist, their is no solid ground for that as many aren't certain what he was. Until you give 100% proof he was atheist, your claim doesn't stand, and mine does. In the false hope argument I stated that not all christians rely on God, but many do. They ask for help, but some rely to the point where they hope for a "miracle". I'm going to use the Paris attacks to help explain my case. What happened to Paris is completely inhuman. Many people from all around the world have showed their support. A trending hashtag for the last few days has been #PrayforParis. However, when people say this, what are they truly doing? Saying I'm praying for you is practically the same as saying I hope everything works out. You are not truly doing anything. By saying you are praying for them, you are relying on God to answer your prayer and to help the people of Paris. But unless you(or anyone else) don't do anything, it won't help them, therefore you have created a false hope. As far as me having misunderstandings, I'm afraid I have to disagree. I was a catholic for 16 years, and I thought I had a pretty good understanding of christianity. From what I've learned, the bible is how we are suppose to live our lives off. It's teaches us about our creator and what he says, and I figured we should live off what he says. As far as not going to hell for sinning, I'm almost positive you do. By saying you don't go to hell for sinning, that's saying serial killers go to heaven with their victims. That's ludicrous. Murder is a sin, and if you're saying they don't go to hell for committing sins(no matter how big or small), then what's the point of having it? This would also add to my false hope argument, making the victims Families think the murdered will spend eternity in the depths of hell when actually they get to spend eternity with God. As far as the Old Testament being infallible: If a man murders a family, but is now a "changed" man(church going, compassionate, giving, charitable), he's still a murderer. Even though he has changed, the murder and his past stay with him. Therefore, things from the Old Testament christians are trying to forget about are still with their religion. Saying that "christianity makes someone more likely to be a good person" is completely prejudice. Just because someone isn't a christian doesn't mean they can't be a good person. By what you said, you're saying atheist and other religions consists of not so good people. Considering you're a christian, then I'm going to assume you got your views because of your biased belief, meaning christianity has given you prejudice beliefs, which is a negative. Once again, just because a person is christian and does something good, doesn't mean you can give a positive to christianity, I stated several people who were successful who were atheists. Isaac Newton could have been an atheist and still made the discoveries he made, his religion had no affect in it. In addition, there is 45 more negatives on the site I listed below of my arguments that you completely ignored. Therefore, I would have presented more than one negative claim like you previously stated. http://www.patheos.com... In counting, I have presented atleast 43 negative arguments(I have presented more, but you have rebutted them and it is up to the voters to see if they think it's a negative or not) as you agreed the offerings caused hardship to families, hurt scientific growth, and takes away from others, and then the 40 negatives on the site. Good luck to Pro in his concluding round. http://www.patheos.com... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00003-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Thank you for a good argument. Literacy/Science I already negated your argument about the dark ages. Declaration/Constitution I also negated that argument. Human Rights I can see a lot of misunderstandings on your part. I will list corrections to them below: 1. The Bible does not have to state that something is wrong in order for Christianity to teach that it is wrong. The Bible is not the "book of rules" for Christianity. Christians use the teaching of Jesus to determine what is right or wrong. [1] 2. People are not condemned to hell for sinning. People are condemned to hell for knowing and hating God. Many Christians even believe in Empty Hell Theory. [2] 3. The Old Testament is not considered to be infallible by Christianity. It contains Jewish teachings; Christians only use it as a source for the history of the Israelites, prophecies, Psalms, and some stories with good morals. The books of Exodus and Hosea are not Christian doctrine and are not entirely relevant to Christian beliefs. [3] 4. Two thirds is a lot. Most Americans in 1835 were not Christian ministers, so if most of an organization consists of Christian ministers, Christianity very likely has something to do with it. 5. I never said nor implied that Christianity automatically makes someone a good person, or that a non-Christian can't be good; I actually said that Christianity makes someone more likely to be a good person. 6. Saying that atheists can be good is not relevant to the debate. Christianity and atheism both have positive effects; however, this particular debate is about Christianity. More Evidence Do some research on the following people and you will see how their Christianity influenced them to help society and the world: Mother Teresa, Gregor Mendel, George Mueller, William Wilberforce, William Penn, Boethius, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Harriet Beecher Stowe, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis. Those people in addition to the people mentioned in previous arguments (MLK, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur) make up 16 positive effects. [1] http://www.redletterchristians.org... [2] http://www.patheos.com... [3] http://infidels.org... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00004-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | I will rebuttal those claims in the next round, and rebuttal your arguments from the second round this round. Here are my rebuttals to arguments posted by pro in the second round: *Christianity is responsible for high literacy rates and *Christianity helped to make advancements in science Both of these claims are false. The time christianity ushered in greatness and superiority was the Dark ages, where we actually went backwards in advancement and became illiterate. As far as the scientists, their religious beliefs play no affect in their contributions to science, as it would not matter if they were atheist or a different religion. *The principles in the American Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution came from the Bible This just proves my point of how the United States is favoring Christianity and breaking people's first amendment right AND the separation of church and state. *Christianity is an advocate of human rights In your very own words you stated that, "Christianity was also a large factor in the abolition of slavery" In the Bible, the most prestigious book in a christians view, talks about owning a slave. If slavery was wrong, the bible would say it is wrong and anyone who did it was condemned to hell. However, it does not, and actually informs us what to do with the slave. Therefore, it does not think slavery is bad, and actually guides us to be better slave owners. Now it is possible some christians set them free, but if they were truly devote christians they would follow what the bible says, and the bible says, Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]. " You went on to say how 2/3 of the American Abolition society were Christian ministers. What about the other 1/3 then? Just because you are christian doesn't mean you are automatically a great person. An atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, ect, can be as good and even a better person as a Christian. You also talk about infanticide, and how the Christian Roman emperor finally outlawed it. In the Bible, God talks about slaughtering children. "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. "(Hosea 13:16) You can find more verses, like God ordering moses to slaughter babies, at this site . http://www.patheos.com... agree. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great human activist. However, there have been many other great atheists in US history alone who have made a big impact, such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison. Other examples can be found here . http://m.huffpost.com... Also, more examples can be found here, . http://m.mic.com... and it also goes in depth about the story of Pat Tillman. The man was hated because of his beliefs, more than likely killed for his beliefs, and his family was harassed because of his beliefs. Good luck to Pro in the following rounds. Sources . http://www.religioustolerance.org... . http://m.huffpost.com... . http://www.patheos.com... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00005-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | Dark ages The "dark ages" were not as dark as they are often considered to be. The Middle Ages produced classic literature such as "Beowolf" and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", great architecture such as the many castles and cathedrals, and art such as stained glass windows that rival modern art. The Renaissance depended on the science and philosophy of what was apparently "the dark ages". Modern philosophy is built upon the work of medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, who was a devout Catholic monk educated at a Catholic university. In fact, the first universities were created by Catholics who valued education. Historians have even found that "the Renaissance" was improperly named; there were in fact three other ones on the Middle Ages. [1] I'm not even going to respond to that inaccurate picture you linked from a highly biased, unreliable, random blog. Wars As you have said, many Christians have gotten themselves killed for their faith. That is a lot like soldiers dying for our country. Our country has problems, many of its people die unnecessarily, but it is still a good thing. I and many other people are proud to be American despite the country's corrupt laws and politicians, because it is still a young country and it is still trying to help people. The same could be said of Christianity. It has done bad, but it is trying to do good. That was an interesting link you posted. Let me respond to each part separately. Ancient Pagans Before you say that Christians are bad for killing pagans, first consider what the pagans did. They burned children alive as sacrifice, they allowed slaves to be mistreated, they dehumanized women and made them slaves of their husbands, they raped children, they killed Christians (that was probably their main motivation for killing pagans), and many other things. Being a pagan was rightfully seen as equivalent to being a murderer, a rapist, and a slave trader. [2] Mission Since you only showed two examples here, that shows how rare Christian corruption is. Remember what I said about wars. Crusades This was a war, so of course people died, and Christianity is not to blame. Muslims were oppressing Christians, and the Crusaders rescued them. [3] Atheists and Heretics All the examples here are a few corrupt Christians (although they were not really Christians) going against their religion. Witches This had nothing to do with Christianity. Religious Wars This is yet again Christians protecting Christianity from those who wish to harm it. Jews When Jews were harmed, it was either an unfortunate side effect of a war, a response to Jewish aggression, or a few corrupt bishops acting against their religion. Native peoples All the examples here are used as part of a huge cherry-picking fallacy. Many people believed that Native Americans were violent savages because many of them were, and stereotypes formed because of that. However, he is ignoring the Quakers who made peace with them and bought their land at a fair price, the Catholic missionaries who set up shelters and schools for the natives, and the French (most of them Christians) who traded with them and treated them equally with themselves. Extermination camps This had nothing to do with Christians. The so-called Christians who did this broke nearly all ten commandments in the process. This is also another cherry-picking fallacy; he ignores Maximillian Kolbe, a Catholic priest who was arrested for sheltering Jews and later volunteered to starve to death in place of a Jewish man (the Jewish man survived the camp). He also ignores the fact that Hitler discouraged going to church, and had many Christians killed for opposing him. I could go on and on things like this if I only had the time. Now I will respond to your last arguments: Judgment I am shocked by your ignorance on the subject. Muslims believe in God and we have had an atheist president (Abraham Lincoln). I will ignore everything you say here until you confirm your assumptions. False hope Christians do not think that God will do everything for them. They simply ask for help. Conclusion So far, you have found one negative effect of Christianity (radicals), while I have found four. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... http://listverse.com... [2] http://www.faith.org.uk... https://www.quora.com... [3] http://clashdaily.com... http://www.christian-community.org... |
b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00006-000 | Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. | I will now list all the bad that has come from Christianity: 1.Dark Ages "There was once a time all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages" -Richard Lederer The Dark Ages referred to the period of time ushered in by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. This took place when the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, a barbarian. AD 476 was the time of this event. This era takes on the term "dark" due to the backward ways and practices that seemed to prevail during this time. Despite the religious conflicts, the period of the Dark Ages was seen as an age of faith. Despite the religious conflicts, the period of the Dark Ages was seen as an age of faith. Men and women sought after God; some through the staid rituals of the Catholic Church. Intellectuals view religion in any form as, itself, a type of "darkness." These thinkers assert that those who followed religious beliefs lied to themselves, creating a false reality. They were dominated by emotions, not fact. Religion was seen as contrary to rationality and reason, thus the move towards enlightenment -- a move away from "darkness." Science and reason gained ascendancy, progressing steadily during and after the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment. As you can see above, religion hindered are progression in science,literature,math, and other subjects that if we avoided this we could be extremely more advanced than we are today. This link goes to a picture showing the drop in technology during the Dark ages http://3.bp.blogspot.com... 2.Wars While many believe Christianity promoted peace, it actually has brought great damage. Not only has it affected it's followers, with believers and even his disciples being crucified, burned, ect. for believing in Christianity, and even today with 100 millions christians being prosecuted for their faith. It has also impacted other people, as it has brought wars and slaughterings. Tons of examples can be found at this site http://articles.exchristian.net... Also, at this site, http://addictivelists.com... it list 10 biggest religious wars ever fought, and Christianity and its denominations(catholic) are involved with around 5 of them. 3.The offering At church(Atleast for Catholic Churches) they go around asking for offerings(money donations). The church wants you to give 10% of your works pay that week towards the church. Some people aren't wealthy enough to just give 10%, but some will do it anyways. This could lead to a financial burden to the family/individual. Also, the donations do not count as tax deductions, so no benefits go to the donator in that sense. Think about the money donated. If all of that money was donated to a charity how many lives it would impact. Think about if it was given to St.Judes or another organization similar to that, how many lives it would save and help further medicine. Church taking the offering is putting a burden on struggling families and the growth of medicine/well being of others. 4.Judgement Let me ask you, what is the ... Amendment? It's the Freedom of Religion. However, it is no secret we support Christianity. With 77% of our citizens being Christians, it is the most dominant religion by a extravagant margin. Because of this, our nation has put christianity and made it part of our society and government, breaking our amendment and the separation of church and state. They put in our currency and in our Pledge of Alligence. Tell me, how would you feel being a Muslim having to say "One nation, under God..."? You would feel like a minority. With everything around you, including your government, supporting a religion, you almost feel obligated and self conscious about your own personal belief, and feeling as if you need to change. This is violating a persons belief and amendment. Also, another demonstration on how Christianity runs our government is how no atheist have been President of the United States. On this poll http://www.gallup.com... it shows how people will less likely vote for an atheist than any other option. An atheist, no matter how good a politician, is less likely get elected, taking away their job opportunities. Christianity is making the land of the free every judgmental. 5.False hope For many, christianity is hope. It's assurance that no matter how tough the times are, things will get better. Yet the harsh reality is, it's uncertain there is a God. And if there is no good, then chances of your situation getting better become more slim. Take, for example, a man who just lost his job. He prays for everything to get better, and for God to help him. He is hopeful as his omnipotent omnibenevolent God will surely help him, yet he is devastated as loses his house. His hope turned into false hope, which led to no hope. For some, they rely too much on this hope, and won't do anything as they feel God will do it for them. Along with that, I found a site listing 40 harmful effects of Christianity http://www.patheos.com... So in total, that is 45 negatives to Christianity. Sources: http://www.gallup.com... http://www.allabouthistory.org... http://articles.exchristian.net... http://addictivelists.com... https://www.opendoors.org.nz... http://www.patheos.com... http://3.bp.blogspot.com... |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00006-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | I'm not sure just what you mean, sir. You'll have to do better than that if you want to ace this debate. Let's talk in real sentences, please, not gibberish. I'll hear what you have to say about the flat earth, to begin with, then we rebut each other, and so on. If this isn't a productive debate, then I'll have to continue making rematches until I get a good debate. Let's go. Tell me why you think the Earth is flat. |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00007-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | dlcfkdklfjdkfjkdfjodofokfoskkkkkkkkdrorooroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00008-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | Attention all flat Earthers! You are hereby invited to try and prove your stupid theory about the Earth being flat! Normal people can't accept! I await to see how you try to prove something that's clearly impossible. I'm going to mash you to a pulp. I wonder if you can pull this off with good evidence and no flaws in logic. Oh, also, there's a neat website, where you confident weirdos can try and prove the flat Earth and if you can prove it to this guy, you win a million dollars. I'm not sure if it's a joke or not, but I think it might be a joke, but you might want to try and prove it to him, if you're so confident about your junk. Just a fun little online activity. tinyurl.com/flatmillion Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, let's have a knock down, drag-out, fight to the end and try to prove, once and for all, what shape the Earth is! Only flat Earthers can accept! I await hearing your insane garbage! |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00000-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | Well, I suppose I'll have to make a new debate, then. Only accept debates you think fit your opinion. |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00001-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | yea i know im not the an idoit |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00002-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | The Earth is round. That's obvious. We've proven it. |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00003-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | yes i am soory for that |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00004-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | If you're on my side, you should not have accepted this debate. The opening argument clearly states that only flat Earthers should accept. |
196753f-2019-04-18T11:45:35Z-00005-000 | You can't prove the Earth is flat. | idk and i am on your side sir sfdgfggfrgfggggggggggggggggggggggggg |