_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00000-000 | Music Competition Debate | I'm a bit disappointed, but I'll close this off with a final bass cover. This is "Livin' on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi.; |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00001-000 | Music Competition Debate | Thanks! My and my bass intructor work on a a ton of Rush songs, Red Barchetta is just the most recent one I've learned. Good job on your songs as well, although I can't say I'm familiar with either of them. :PMy next cover is of "Clocks" by Coldplay. |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00002-000 | Music Competition Debate | Awesome playing and song choice Tn05! I'm a bit of a Rush fan myself so that was pretty awesome. -This is a cover of Keep Your Head Up by Ben Howard. |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00003-000 | Music Competition Debate | This is a bass cover of Red Barchetta by Rush. |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00004-000 | Music Competition Debate | - This is my cover of On the Bus Mall by the Decemberists Ignore the awkward faces I make while I play. |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00005-000 | Music Competition Debate | I accept. |
5e0d8774-2019-04-18T16:06:04Z-00006-000 | Music Competition Debate | This debate should be impossible to accept. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission they will therefore forfeit the debate and all 7 points will go to me. This debate is.... DADADA! A Musical competition! Here are the rules: 1. First round is for acceptance. 2. Each round we will post a video of us playing a song. 3. The song can either be an actual song, or be one you created. 4. Playing an instrument in the video is required; singing in addition to playing is optional. Any instrument may be used, and any song may be played. 5. All videos will be uploaded to Youtube Voting Rules These rules will set the standards for all voting. Any votes that do not adhere to these standards will be removed. 1. Source points will go to whoever sounded better. Do not take the music itself into question, rather how well they played the song. For example, if you hate heavy metal and someone plays heavy metal, do not take away arguments points from them just because the type of music they played is music you don't like. Judge them off how well they performed the song 2. Arguments points go to song difficulty. Whoever all-together played more difficult songs will win this point. Singing should be taken into context when awarding this point. 3. No other points will be rewarded for any reason. Any vote that adds points outside of the listed voting points will be removed. If there are any questions or concerns about these rules please post them in the comments section. Post in the comments section if you would like to accept this debate. Let's do this thang! |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00004-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | I accept |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00005-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many. |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00000-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | ExtendVote Reformist! |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00001-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | Extend |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00002-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | Lol you copied and pasted r1 to r2 Okay on to the argument Teachers should not have guns 1. The presence of a gun can turn a petty or small situation into a lethal one When a teacher needs to diffuse a uncontrollable situation they have to call the school police officer. If they happen to obtain a gun then the teacher may pull a gun on them or the student themself may snatch the gun and use it against a teacher or another student. The school is a gun-free zone for a reason. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... (This source is linked to police shootings but can easily be applied to any situation) 2. Intimidation Students may feel intimidated or threatned with the very notion of a gun near them. I am a high school student myself and lockdown drills (Drills where a shooter is in the school) make some kids very scared, one even passed out. Now make that a gun in the classroom and you will see my point. Not only this but this will make teacher to student interactions a lot more tense. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. Talking can be a greater weapon than a gun If a student or an intruder comes into your classroom pulling your gun will not only endanger you but the children as well in the classroom. Pulling guns on people makes them even more enraged and can lead to a massacre if you aren't the fastest trigger puller. Talking someone out of it is not only easier but is widely used by teachers to defuse situations. Here is a story of a teacher who defused a situation really quickly with just words. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. Guns just make things worse Guns are 22 times more likely to be used in suicide than for self defense A gun in a petty situation can make it lethal and not even for the defender. Sometimes the defender is the one who dies. Do we really need that in our classrooms? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... |
52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00003-000 | Teachers should have guns in school | I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many. |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00000-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | Nothing more to say. |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00001-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | I will pass this round to make things fair. |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00002-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | Here is my argument against legalizing Necrophilia: 1. It is Unsanitary This link states that "To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others" (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In other words, if getting in close contact does these things then it is dangerous for a person to even consider having sex with a dead person. These diseases could then be further spread when the necrophiliacs encounter with other people. 2. It is Immoral Not only does this disrespect the dead (when they have permission or not), but it is a practice that is highly immoral. Having sex with the dead does absolutely nothing good. It only causes harm to the necrophiliacs mental state and it causes diseases to spread. The only thing it does is satisfy some creeps desire to have sex with a dead course. I can guarantee that the majority of people will not be interested in allowing some creep to have special privileges especially since the practice causes harm to society. 3. If you legalize this for the reasons mentioned you could also legalize pedophilia (https://www.google.com...). Are you aware that there is a movement for pedophiles to have the same rights as homosexuals (http://www.greeleygazette.com...)? These ideas about legalization are so bad that I couldn't have made it up. Your arguments could literally be used to support pedophilia. As long as the children agree to what happens and as long as it is deemed as safe, it should be legal. Don't you understand how messed up your argument is? The line has to be draw somewhere. Most of the time we make decisions on what benefits society. Since Necrophilia and pedophilia only (sort of) benefits some creeps and not the society as a whole, it should not be legal. Refuting your arguments: a. Economic Benefit? You make a huge assumption with this point. You assume that there are enough people out there that want their bodies to be molested by some creep after they die. I can assure you that most people don't want this to happen. The business' would fail because the majority of people wouldn't want necrophilia to be legalized. Normal people don't want to have sex with dead people. You also need to provide some evidence that this would benefit the economy. b. Happiness Benefits? This sure wouldn't make me happy. The only people it would make happy are the lunatics that want to have sex with dead people. But legalizing it would cause unhappiness to society since it causes diseases to spread. And furthermore, the governments main focus (if at all) is not on the happiness of the people. Governments have to think of the society as a whole and not just on the very few people out there that want special privileges. You also make the assumption that there will be many people would be willing to pay for such a service. |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00003-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | In order to win this debate, I have to prove that necrophilia should be legalized. I do not have to prove that every instance of necrophilia should be legalized, just that it should be under certain circumstances. Outline: Under my plan to legalize necrophilia it will be legal under the following circumstances: 1-Permission was given by either the dead person prior to their death or by their family to be used for sex after they die. 2-The body is preserved, the same way bodies are before burial and thrown out if deemed unusable. (1) Now that has been established, I’ll enter my arguments. C1-Economic Benefits This is simple. The majority of people who would be willing to have their or their family’s corpse for sexual reasons would need some sort of incentive. Incentive wise, this will probably be financial. This means that a business will probably have to be formed dedicated to necrophilia and people would have to pay for it. This will create economic growth, because it will create jobs needed to preserve the body and could be a quite profitable industry. The extent to which this will create economic growth is unknown, but it likely will occur. C2-Happiness Benefits Legalizing necrophilia would increase happiness. If people are willing to pay for necrophilia, it is clearly something they want. Governments obviously want their people to be happy and necrophilia can bring pleasure to people (while not harming anyone). Everyone knows people like sex and necrophilia can be an easy way to get sex, for people who may otherwise have trouble doing so. Plus, many people have sexual fantasies of various types and necrophilia opens up the opportunity for that. However, even if some people don’t understand it, it need not be understood to know it increases happiness for people paying for it. If anyone wishes to pay for something, they deemed it worthwhile. Pretty much everyone values money (to at least some degree), so anyone willing to part with it felt that they would receive something better. Thus, anyone who would pay for necrophilia would see it as worthwhile way to spend their money and believe it is a positive impact and therefore it increases their happiness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *This argument was pretty short and to the point, but I imagine Con will have a lot to rebut with, so I’ll have more to say in rebuttals and defense.* Source: 1-http://www.afif.asso.fr... |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00004-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | I have a feeling this is going to be a fun one. |
19540073-2019-04-18T13:55:46Z-00005-000 | Necrophilia Should be Legalized | Resolution is self-explanatory (necrophilia being sex with a human corpse). Rules:1. No forfeits2. No new arguments in the final round3. First round is acceptance only4. No trolling5. No kritiks6. Violation of rules results in automatic loss. |
563469cd-2019-04-18T12:21:21Z-00000-000 | The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel. | My arguments will be divided into five separate categories, so bear with me. Argument 1: Veteran Populations are Subject to Statistically Lower Rates of Crime. According to the BJS (Department of Justice), veteran populations on a whole are subject to statistically lower rates of crime than almost any other community, in particular males. By comparison, incarcerations per 10k were nearly double that of veterans among civilians (630:1390), and veterans on average held much shorter criminal records. Furthermore, less than half of convicted vets reported prior drug use, compared to civilian groups pushing upwards of 60%. And on average convicted vets held higher educations than other criminals. Source: . https://www.bjs.gov... Argument 2: Values. One of the staple goals of any fighting force is to promote leadership and cooperation among troops. This is exemplified not only in basic courses, but in officer training as well. Furthermore, values such as empathy, honor, and respect are instilled into the fighting forces on a daily basis. Given this, I believe mandatory service will help promote a more cohesive national identity. Source: . http://usacac.army.mil... Argument 3: Valuable Skill Set. Troops trained in skills such as GIS (Global Information Systems), communications, engineering, mechanics, and intelligence are often sought after by respective agencies and corporations for their skill sets. Even combat personnel are likely to go into private security firms and manual labor industries. Overall, even the least specialized troops have numerous practical uses here in the private sector. Argument 4: Strong Standing Military. Times are changing. And given the recent funding cuts and reduction in size of the armed forces, at our current rate, we are destined to fall behind global competitors such as China in areas such as innovation and standing size. In order to have the influence we would like to have to sway global events in our favor, we need to have a large and well armed military. The amount a new recruits surging into the forces inevitably would bolster the size, and in accordance the funding given. Argument 5: Military Inventions The military has been consistently been responsible or heavily involved in some of the major inventions of recent ages, such as computers, satellites, rocketry, and other fields applicable into daily life. Many of these directly impact and improve the modern quality of life. With the new staffing provided by conscription and funding, how many more innovations would stem out of this? Some examples are GPS tech, the EpiPen, the pioneering of the internet, radio communications, among others. Source: . https://mic.com... As for draft dodging, there need to incentives provided for completion of this service. This could range from small benefits in healthcare and insurance, to other forms of compensation. Regarding higher education, students who attend college would be allowed to delay their term until completion. This would help staff officers and other more qualified troops. Given their higher education and field experience in the military (These people would be applied in areas relevant to their field of expertise) they would be much more valuable in the work force. As for those who were not able to meet the standards, they would not be forced to continue trying, but would be exempt from benefits after completion. They would fill the lower and necessary echelons of the work force. And I absolutely agree, there cannot be discrimination within this process. My intent with this process is not to go out and conquer the world. My main concern is the enrichment of the American people with essential skills and values, as well as to increase the capability of our military to fight for and defend our country. Danka Schoen and good luck. |
563469cd-2019-04-18T12:21:21Z-00001-000 | The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel. | I believe that there should not be a mandatory military service law similar to the one in Israel. Let's start by stating the obvious: The law in Israel is discriminatory against Arabs. Arabs are not conscripted into the army, and this would need to be fixed if a law like this were to be implemented. People who are conscripted are usually unable to pursue higher education, and although some join the army for free education and similar benefits, I doubt a conscription law would allow this, beside if we decided to implement something similar to the Talpiot program, which is only for the highest achieving students and would not let others get a college degree. This seems like it would be similar to the draft, but on a larger scale, which would bring back so-called "Draft Dodging," which was a very common occurrence during the Vietnam war, and would cause the population of the US to take a small bottleneck. Another way to dodge being conscripted is doing drugs, which would cause many people to start using drugs such as Marijuana and Cocaine, which would degrade society for obvious reasons. Finally, Israel is following in the US and Europe's footsteps by trying to copy how they ended drafting. Draft-dodging is at an all time high in Israel, as well as budgetary reasons calling for its closure. I look forward to seeing my opponent's justification of his side of the story. Cert |
563469cd-2019-04-18T12:21:21Z-00002-000 | The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel. | I will be taking the pro stance on this one, and the opponent will be delegated as con. Rules: Round 1 - Opponent may make opening argument Round 2 - Argument Round 3 - Argument Round 4 - Rebuttals Round 5 - Opponent will use this round for a brief summary ONLY, and pro will be allowed to continue and summarize argument, for an equal distribution of speaking time. Definitions: Enforce - (verb) Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation) Mandatory - (adjective) Required by law or rules; compulsory. Military - (noun) The armed forces of a country. Service - (noun) The action of helping or doing work for someone. Please, no trolling or offensive language. I am looking for a serious argument. Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com... |
d4d6ef7b-2019-04-18T11:34:41Z-00000-000 | The Body Positive is not really positive | Ok! Thank you for your answer once again. The information seems to be quite interesting. I've watched some videos about Kristina Golovchenko. Though I believe this case has nothing to do with The Body Positive Movement - Kristina just requires some medical and psychological help. She doesn't even love her body, right? Thus, the case represents a perfect example for my first argument, which was health. Besides, I agree with you that "there is something in us that needs to be accepted" though I've already mentioned it above claiming that "self-acceptance is a long road." Like self-acceptance, tolerance is something that need to be learnt.However, let us go back to the Body Positive Movement. And here goes my third argument, which is FASHION. I explain it below. I will try to be as brief as possible.On the one hand, there are some people who like to show off. On the other hand, there is social trends (such as The Body Positive) that provokes a disruptive social reaction. As a result, people who aim at drawing public attention use these social trends in their own selfish way. For instance, some girls cease shaving their legs and armpits only to post the hairy body parts photos on Instagram etc. People sometimes do stupid things just to show off. The Body Positive Movement here works as an instrument of crime. I do not want to say that showing off is a crime (an instrument of crime is just a figure of speech). Still, we should be careful with such peculiar trends and shouldn't cross the line of prudence unless we want be freaks of course. Besides, people shouldn't follow all the trends blindfold. Fashion changes but a bit of critical thinking is never too much.Considering my third argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention! |
d4d6ef7b-2019-04-18T11:34:41Z-00001-000 | The Body Positive is not really positive | I understand you perfectly. I share your opinion that it is necessary to work on ourselves. and we must do this, so as not to justify our flaws in appearance. But what about those people who, for example, have burns all over their body, the most terrible form of acne, which can not be eliminated even by the beauticians of Hollywood, or a psychological dependence on food in connection with a child trauma due to rape (for example - Kristina Golovchenko). Sometimes there is something in us that needs to be accepted, because people are not almighty - they are sometimes really powerless. |
d4d6ef7b-2019-04-18T11:34:41Z-00002-000 | The Body Positive is not really positive | To begin with, thank you for your answer. I find your arguments quite curious. I agree with you that The Body Positive was meant to serve for solely positive goals. Still, as I've already said above something went wrong. Thus, I can't agree with you completely. So here goes my second argument, which is JUSTIFICATION. I suggest to take a look at the argument, considering two major aspects of each person's life: self-acceptance and self-improvement.Firstly, I insist that self-acceptance is a long road. Even Rome wasn't built in a day therefore it may take you years and years to make the skin you're in better. Self-acceptance is a winding road. It requires direct action including physical exercises, medical intervention, psychological training and so forth. No one disputes that perfection is unreachable. Still, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. They say practice makes perfect. I say action makes perfect. Self-improvement is a continuous process that shapes our personality, making us stronger and boosting our confidence. Conversely, The Body Positive Movement claiming that "Women of any weight, age, race, measurement or proportion can be/are BEAUTIFUL" may serve as a justification for inaction.Secondly, there is a well-known fact that some people are lazy, weak or simply indifferent. They simply lack initiative or boldness to take action. Therefore, some Body Positive ideas including your argument "The <...> movement sets the challenge of getting women to accept themselves and other women on a fundamental level, in spite of "flaws" and "imperfections," so that we may embrace and adore those oddities." may serve as a justification for indifference. Such concept make you calm down, sit down and be happy with what you get. Personally I suppose that people should not stand still. Conversely, I suggest that self-improvement constitutes an essential part of every person's life. Unlike self-acceptance, self-improvement is a road without an end. Seneca once said that Vivere militāre est which meant to live is to struggle. Now let me paraphrase it saying that to live is to develop as self-improvement is a struggle as well. Considering my second argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention! |
d4d6ef7b-2019-04-18T11:34:41Z-00003-000 | The Body Positive is not really positive | MEDIA makes us believe that there is something wrong with our bodies. After all, companies and organizations gain greatly when women waste millions on diet fads and untouched gym memberships, when those women could save hundreds by being comfortable in their own skin. The body positivity movement is about health, identity and self-respect. Women of any weight, age, race, measurement or proportion can be/are BEAUTIFUL. The appreciation of curves and physical diversity reduces fat-shaming, bulimia, anorexia, depression and bullying among women everywhere, based on the fact that it"s about acceptance. The body positive movement sets the challenge of getting women to accept themselves and other women on a fundamental level, in spite of "flaws" and "imperfections," so that we may embrace and adore those oddities. A great way to talk about what body positivity is, is to talk about what it isn"t. It isn"t about eroticizing or sexualizing, nor is it about tolerance" it"s about softening the frown of superficiality, and revisiting points in history where women were praised for curvaceousness outside of a subgroup. |
d4d6ef7b-2019-04-18T11:34:41Z-00004-000 | The Body Positive is not really positive | Perhaps, many people have heard something about the recent trend - The Body Positive Movement. At first the movement seems to be completely healthy. What could be wrong with accepting your body as it is? Still, the question is not as simple as it may seem. The concept of the Body Positive is often misinterpreted. Such misinterpretations are fatal not only for a single person, but also for a whole society. Therefore I insist that the movement can't be called positive. And here goes my first argument, which is HEALTH.Firstly, you can accept your body as long as it's healthy. I believe there are some things that can't be accepted. Moreover, there are some problems that can't be solved by simple acceptance. For instance, health problems. The thing is that by chance particular health problems affect our appearance, thus causing lack of self-confidence and making the unhealthy person disgusting for other people. To solve the problems person should consult a doctor, which sometimes represent another problem due to psychological and economic factors.Secondly, I'm convinced that one can't make himself or herself love his or her body simply saying "Ok, I accept myself as I am because each body is perfect" It's a delusion. It's a self-suggestion. It's a placebo. Time spent on worthless declarations and exclamations may negatively affect your condition leading to the health aggravation. On the contrary, to love your body means to respect your body. To respect your body means to take care of your body.Finally, I believe The Body Positive Movement represents a radical reaction to another recent trend which is plastic surgery. While the 2nd variant helps you achieve fake perfection with an operating knife, the 1st one denies perfection as it is. And as a result, it cuts both ways. These two variants only create the illusion of self-confidence. The Body Positive, just as plastic surgery, works for those who refuse to take direct action. Besides, both are unhealthy. People tend to see things in black and white. Why couldn't we see the shades of grey? Or - what is even better - why couldn't we mix them up with more vivid colours?Considering my first argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention! |
66cdcf8d-2019-04-18T17:57:55Z-00000-000 | Whoever can write the worst essay wins! | YO LISTEN UP NIGGAZZ MY ESSAY IS BOUT TO DOW DOWN YO.... http://www.youtube.com...1, 2, 3, on the page I write my poetry,This is meant ot be an essay but I structure it stupidly,The writer of the worst essay is me that's too easy to see,It's like a mystical, beast that came in the midst of a bunch of sexy... mother? sister? grandmothers?... sh!t dude... I need to rhyme better...Anyway... LEMME GET STRAIGHT TEW DA POINT YEH?!!BAYSIKALLEE I CANNOT POSSIBLEE FAIL TEW WRAYTE DA WERST ESSAY CAWS YA MATHA, MY MATHA, YOUR SISTER AND HER FRIENDS AWL DISAGREE WIV DA STATEMENT INIT BRUV?!!!Wait what the fck am I writing 'bout?!... Oh sh*t I'm meant to not be writing as I think... Oh sh*t WHAT THE HECK YOU LOGICALLY CRAZY BRAIN SCREW YOU STOP IT I MUST GET TO DA POINT OF DA ESSAY BLADRIN! FOW FARCK'S SAKE DEWD!!OH YEHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????WTEWYHERETE%$$^%RTU^%DA PONT OF DEE WHOLE ESSAY IS AS FOLLOWS...DA NEEDS OF DA MANY IS ACTUALLY LESS IMPORTANT DAN DA NEEDS OF A POWERFUL FEW COS LAIK WELL... YEW SEE...Basically, if I were to take your mother, and believe me the MAJORITY of guys needs dat b!tch all up on their d!cks, and say yo niggaz dis white b!tch is up in da ghetto let's bang here as a gang you know bad man 'ting? DEN she would be all like... "NOOOO SAVE ME!" YOu gettin' me blud?! So DEn you comes in wiv your... like guns an' sh*t and you iz all laik "YO LISTEN ME I GON AN AK 47 bout to blow yo brains out to save my muttha and actually DIS IS IMPORTANT!" now yew iz powerful few while dem is da majority ad your muttha DOES NOT GGET RAPED THANKS TO SELECT FEW BEING POWERFUL WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!Dat is all for now bladrin, I wish you a nice day, a nice life and hope to see your muttha some time soon innit ;) |
66cdcf8d-2019-04-18T17:57:55Z-00001-000 | Whoever can write the worst essay wins! | Assignment: Should the needs of the many outweigh the desires of a powerful few? This is my essay that I wrote and I am here today to talk about the prompt that you had gave. I agree that majority rules and the few shouldnt be special. My examples are next The majority rules cause on my basketball team thats what my coach says. Also! in school my teacher says that our class gets to vote on what we do sometimes. And sometimes we get to do what we want. These are my examples This is my first example heres my second one out of the 3 that I will be talking about today. Sometimes when I don"t want to do something I will tell my parents what I shoud do; and they say to do stuff. So I listen and I am the majority and they are the special few so that happends someitimes. I don"t have a 3th example cause I forget I only have 2 not 3. SO: as you see by many many well thoughted examples. my essay is very nice and thoughtful. and I hope that you see how well it is done. My conclusion is yes to the prompt if you had been wondering. |
66cdcf8d-2019-04-18T17:57:55Z-00002-000 | Whoever can write the worst essay wins! | 2000 characters is rather minimalistic but I can definitely write a worse essay than you.Worse: of a nature more hilarious than relevant. |
66cdcf8d-2019-04-18T17:57:55Z-00003-000 | Whoever can write the worst essay wins! | Prompt: Should the needs of the many outweigh the desires of a powerful few? Do you accept the terms? Please say "accepted" before writing your essay.Your essay will be submitted in round 2. |
946d6b45-2019-04-18T13:13:49Z-00000-000 | Marijuana legalization | Con has forefited, I extend all arguments. |
946d6b45-2019-04-18T13:13:49Z-00001-000 | Marijuana legalization | Me and Con had a small debate on Facebook and in the private messages. This is just to clear that up, incase Pros argument didn't make sense, or seemed random to someone.Why I'm against legalization:1 - It's a harmful drug: Marijuana is not harmless, as many believe. Some studies suggest that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a day, is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes [1]. Another study reports that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a year increases the users risk of lung cancer by 8%, versus 7% for a pack of cigarettes [2].Other health risks include Trouble thinking and remembering Bloodshot eyes Dry mouth (cotton mouth) Fast heart rate Slowed coordination Harmed blood flow in the brain Less attention span Stifled brain development Anxiety Depression Suicidal thoughts Increased chance of heart attacks [3]2 - It's addictive: Many legalization proponents claim Marijuana is not addictive. It, however, is addictive. The addiction rate is thought to be 9% [4]. I would argue that if something is harmful, and addictive, it should not be legal.3 - Legalization increases use: The current legal status of Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug has caused prices to stay high. Legalization would cause the prices to plummet [6] Legalizing Marijuana in Colorado has had consequences. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report, highlighting some of the consequences. "The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally." [5]. If Marijuana were to be legalized, the prices of Marijuana would drop [6]. A decrease in the price of Marijuana encourages more people to use the drug. More users means more abusers. Cigarettes and Alcohol both cost the U.S. 100x more in damages than they will ever generate in tax revenue. With 1 joint of Marijuana equalling 7 cigarettes, the cost of Marijuana abuse would likely have the same effect (if not, worse) as cigarettes on the economy.Rebuttals: "I believe in freedom for all."I also believe in freedom for all, but your rights end, where other peoples rights begin. If you were to smoke Marijuana in a public area, it could affect other people. Second hand smoke from cigarettes kills 45,000 non-smokers a year, and as I've shown above, Marijuana may be more harmful. We can assume the effects of Marijuana second hand smoke would be the same, if not more deadly than cigarettes second hand smoke."If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke"Here, Pro is referring to something I said in a private message. Unfortunately, he misunderstood me. I made the argument that because the second hand smoke can effect other people without their consent, your right is use the drug is outweighed by their right not to not be effected by Marijuana's second hand smoke. I also made the argument, that if you become addicted, you lose the right to say no. Your right to say no, is more important than your right to say yes, in my opinion. If you become addicted to Marijuana, you lose your right to say no, otherwise you are forced to go through withdrawal."my advice is to avoid such places"Why should I have to give up my freedom to move? If I have to stay away from places, in fear of second hand smoke, that is infringing on my right to move. This is another reason you do not have the "right" to use the drug."I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well."That's a bit rude. Since I didn't post any rules for this debate, I guess it's okay, but I would like to ask Pro to stop being hostile towards me. I would like a civil debate.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... |
946d6b45-2019-04-18T13:13:49Z-00002-000 | Marijuana legalization | I believe in freedom for all. If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke (LOL) my advice is to avoid such places. Especially cool cities such as Vancouver and Denver. I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well. One would think if we truly did live in a democratic society the majority would have a say on the subject and we both fully understand that the overwhelming majority can think of better ways the police and courts could use their tax money. The law truly is as laughable as the rule of thumb law that was one day actually in writing. Do you believe marijuana to be a gateway DRUG ? (Lol) |
946d6b45-2019-04-18T13:13:49Z-00003-000 | Marijuana legalization | I was unable to accept blackwidow-1's challenge in time. I've decided to re-challenge him to a debate on the topic.Because he originally challenged me, and I was unable to accept, he may present his arguments first. |
e557c794-2019-04-18T15:06:41Z-00000-000 | Should drones be illegal in the USA | The Pro repeatedly mentions the fact that he/she fears the idea of a drone/plane collision, and bases their arguments on that. This fear is not illogical. Plane/drone collisions are possible (though not frequent, if existent), and have lately come closer to colliding than other times. [1]However, the Pro argues that drone should be completely and utterly illegal, which I strongly disagree with. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sets rules and regulations as to who and what are allowed in the big blue sky; and they are seemingly coming closer to an agreement on approving drones above. [2]As the Con, I am arguing that drones should not be illegal in the USA, but rather that the FAA aproves drone use with the given rules and regulations. I do believe there are limits to what drones should be able to do, however, they are generally beneficial and should not be outlawed in this country.[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2]: http://www.usatoday.com... |
e557c794-2019-04-18T15:06:41Z-00001-000 | Should drones be illegal in the USA | while I do agree with some of your points, people flying these drones could and have caused major problems. Personally I would be freaked out if a drone hit a plane I was on and the pilot had to turn it around because the engine was failing or if the plane fell. Planes carry dozens of people and it would be a serious tragedy if all of them (or most) had lost their lives to some guys joyriding their toy drone for amusement. |
e557c794-2019-04-18T15:06:41Z-00002-000 | Should drones be illegal in the USA | I want to start off by thanking the Pro for the debate.Also, because there are only three rounds in this debate, I will go ahead and lay out my main points.I will be arguing that drones should not be illegal, and here are my reasonings.The definition of a "drone": "an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously,without human control or beyond line of sight:"[1]This includes all drones, including UAVs (figure 1.) and camera drones (figure 2.) Figure 1. UAV Reaper Drone [2] Figure 2. Camera Drone. [3]Because the Pro does not specify which drones, I will argue for them all. Despite what Pro states in his opening thesis, drones can actually be extremely beneficial in many ways.1: Drones aide in saving lives. Immediately after natural disasters in which the damage is not yet determined, drones can be used to easily assess the amount of damage and find out the level of danger, and acts as a safe alternative to sending in first responders.2: Drones help in agricultural management. Farmers can use drones specifically to manage crops and pinponts areas that need special attention. This way saves time by only providing care exactly where needed, and improves crop yield.3: Help safely in architechtural maintenance and inspection. Drones can obviously go places where humans cannot, and can also do it without risking lives. For example, drones would easily help inspect places of infrastructure such as below bridges and high buildings.4: Drones give the media access to places: They can film places never reached before, for news and film production. This can be done easily, efficiently, and safely, thanks to drones.Because of my limited time, I will limit my arguments to those above and wait for the Pro to present his. I look forward to this debate and the rebuttals along with it. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2]commons.wikimedia.org[3]www.bostonmagazine.com |
e557c794-2019-04-18T15:06:41Z-00003-000 | Should drones be illegal in the USA | I believe that drones should be illegal. Drones have caused a lot of distress to pilots and could one day be a great problem and could cost people their lives. |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00000-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Oh, man, you really went off the hook there with those grizzly bears. I knew it would be something like that. You don't even know what you're saying, do you? You're a lost mind in a simple world. That's why I like debating with you, sir. I always win, because you continuously fail to provide any sources. We are not going to kill 350 million people for the polar bears. It would be roughly the population of the United States and Australia. But if we killed that many people, the United States and Australia would have far less people and we would be worse off because we would have labor shortages, the people would rebel against their government for killing all the depressed people, and the like. There are cheaper, more humane, efficient ways to deal with global warming, like solar, wind, nuclear, and so on. We do not need to kill everybody to stop global warming. Humans are not the problem, the problem is how we produce energy. If you actually cared about global warming, it would be nice. But you don't you just use global warming as a way to express how you hate 95% of all the people on Earth. Actually, though, we could kill all the white supremacists and hate groups. That would help. I ask you, sir, in the comments, to give me just ONE source, one graph or chart which shows that global warming is brought about by the farts of pessimistic people. I doubt you'll be able to. Because that's not true. You choose what we debate next, surprise me, send it out, I'll be waiting. In the meantime, here's another picture of you: https://i.pinimg.com... |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00001-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Look. I hate grizzly bears because they are brown people. They are no different from African people. All grizzly bears do is play basketball and eat fried chicken. 350 million killed is a huge favor to the polar bears. Polar bears did nothing to deserve this evil, yet humans contribute to overpopulation and global warming. That is the population of the United States and Australia combined. Think about it: if the United States and Australia never existed, there would be much more polar bears in today's world. People who are depressed are always paranoid and sad. Paranoid and sad people are always pessimists. Statistics have shown that pessimists fart too much, which is also bad for the environment. Oh, and here is a picture of you, frankfurter50: http://files.jungiananalysisliterary.webnode.com... |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00002-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Depression is not just low self esteem, it's a mental condition, and people should try to resolve their mental conditions, we should not kill people because they have a mental condition. people with low self esteem are not useless to society. Many great comedians have low self esteem, that's why they became comedians. Stand up comedy is a kind of mental therapy. Everybody has low self esteem at some point in their lives, we should not have to hide our emotions. When emotions are suppressed, and people only feel happiness, and the happiness is being forced, then that person is not happy. Many people with depression have jobs, stupid, boring jobs, and that's why they're depressed. They're depressed because they're contributing to society. We should change society so people are less depressed. We should make life more fun. Then they wouldn't be depressed anymore. We should allow more pay, shorter work hours, more career diversity. We should make life better for them, not worse. What kind of sick monster ARE you? You said that 350 million people suffer from depression. Killing them would be killing a lot of people. Then more people would be depressed about the people they killed. Sadness is a part of life. We cannot eliminate it. We can only turn our society into a smiling utopia by embracing sadness as a reality. To Hell with your polar bears. Polar bears are not affected by overpopulation, they're affected by CO2 emissions. We need to stop emitting CO2. Then polar bears would be fine. I'm sure some polar bear scientists have depression. And what about the penguins of the walruses? Do you care about them? Or just your stupid POLAR BEARS WE ARE NOT GOING TO COMMIT MASS GENOCIDE UPON ALL MINORITIES TO SAVE ONE ANIMAL What do you think about grizzly bears? Do you hate them for the color of their fur? That picture you gave is a striking likeness. Here's one of you. https://cdn.drawception.com... |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00003-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Okay. Depression is when you have low self-esteem. People with low self-esteem are useless people who achieve nothing and are useless to society. Therefore, it is a good idea to kill off everyone with depression because that helps solve overpopulation and save the planet, before all the superior polar bears are gone. Below are some statistics about depression: https://www.healthline.com... 350 million people worldwide suffer from depression. 350m/7b=5% So 1 in every 20 people suffer from depression. To put this into perspective, only 1 in 200 people are redheads, so depression is much more common than you think. America is the 3rd most populated country in the world, currently at a population of about 324 million. So if we kill off all the depressed people in the world, it is equivalent of killing off everyone in America. That is a big solution to overpopulation and global warming, and polar bears will be happy. Here is a picture of you: https://sikorski.ca... |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00004-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Number four. Let's have at it. |
1455d8bf-2019-04-18T11:51:05Z-00005-000 | Depression Should Be Illegal | Let us debate that depression should be illegal. Here is how it will work: Round 1: Acceptance Rounds 2/3: Debate Here we go! Number 4! |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00000-000 | Two is equal to One | Thank you as well for offering the topic - I enjoyed it! |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00001-000 | Two is equal to One | My opponent is correct that the series is divergent. As a result many algebric operations I have performed are not valid.Since my opponent has spotted the mistake, I will concede. Thanks to him for debating this topic with me. |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00002-000 | Two is equal to One | My opponent’s argument breaks down at step 2. The Taylor expansion for ln(x) has a radius of convergence of 1, around the point x = 1, such that 0<x<2 (as opposed to 0≤x≤2) as I will show below, meaning that the Taylor expansion of ln(x-1) likewise has a radius of convergence of 1 around the point x = 0, such that -1<x<1. By inserting x=1 into the Taylor expansion for ln(x-1), he is causing the series to become divergent, thereby inducing the error in the proof that appears to make 2=1. Proof that the Taylor expansion for ln(x+1) fails at x=1: 1) Differentiating ln(1+x), we have: d/dx (ln(1+x)) = 1/(1+x). 2) Trivially, 1/(1+x) = 1/(1-(-x)) = 1/(1-y), where y≡-x. 3) Taking the Maclaurin expansion of 1/(1-y), we have: 1/(1-y) = 1+y+y^2+y^3+y^4+… 4) Note that the result in step 3 is the expression of a geometric series, which has limits of evaluation at |y|<1. Since y≡-x, |y|<1 is equivalent to |-x|<1. Substituting 1 for x, we have |-1|=1<1, which is false, since 1=1 (again, note the difference between 1<1 and 1≤1). For example, substituting x=1 into the previous expression yields: 1/(1+x) = 1/(1-y) = 1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+… This expression is divergent, resulting in the error that causes 2 to appear to equal 1. This concludes the proof.****************************************************************************I greatly enjoyed this debate; you’ll have to challenge me to another some time! |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00003-000 | Two is equal to One | I agree that it feels nice to debate mathematics. I am numbering the steps in order to assist discussion. |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00004-000 | Two is equal to One | I accept this challenge - it'll be nice to actually be able to argue mathematics on here for once, since I've tried starting quite a few math debates before. I'll post my solution as soon as I find an error in whatever proof you offer, and I commit to working this problem alone. Good luck! |
33b0610d-2019-04-18T18:10:18Z-00005-000 | Two is equal to One | In R2 I will present a proof that 2 = 1.Please don't worry. The proof is flawed. In R2 it will be task of Con to spot the flaw. If she is able to do this, she wins the debate. If she is unable to spot the flaw in R2, I win this debate.If Con is unable to spot the flaw in R2 (or provides an errenous explanation), I will provide the correct explanation in R3. Con need not do anything in R1 and R3.I will be using Taylor series expansion and logarithms. Nothing in much detail. But you need to be comfortable with basics of these two concepts and series calcuations to accept this debate.Hoping to get a sincere opponent. |
67fb6492-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00000-000 | Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare | Whelp, this is going to be dissapointingly short.My opponent never responds to the first Blum et al. card talking about how drone strikes and targeted killings of terrorists only cause more to come up, increasing the number of terrorists for us to watch out for. Extend this out as a reason why drone strikes aren't working, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.My opponent also never responds to the second Blum et. al card talking about how drone striking terrorist leaders hurts our intelligence gathering abilities, which harms out abilities to stop terrorist plots long-term. Extend this out for why drone strikes hurt our ability to fight terrorism, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.She also never responds to the Hunter card talking about how drone striking terrorist leaders actually doesn't significantly hamper terrorist activities. Extend this out for a reason why drone strikes don't actually work, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.Also, extend out the Speigel Online card talking about how killing one terrorist with drone strikes took sixteen attempts and cost 321 innoncent lives just to get one terrorist. She responds to this by just saying that it's "collateral damage" necessary to stop terrorism, but a) we don't even need to be fighting terrorism right now, refer back to the Mueller evidence which says that more people die from drowning in their own bathtubs than from terrorist attacks, and b) just brushing off the deaths of 321 innocent people as "collateral damage" doesn't actually justify the use of drones. We shouldn't be contenting ourselves with a faulty method of offing terrorist leaders. We need a method that takes out the man we want to take out and only the man we want to take out on the first try. If it's taking sixteen tries and costing hundreds of innocent lives just to take out one leader, that's not #worth, that's inefficient and ineffective. We need to stop drone striking and come up with something better, not justify the murder of innocent lives as "necessary for the safety of America". All of these independantly work to show how Drone striking doesn't work and only makes things worse for us, which shows that we shouldn't be using drone strikes for modern warfare. If we shouldn't be using drone strikes for modern warfare, they certainly aren't necessary for modern warfare. Then, my opponent doesn't respond to a single claim I make in my second argument. Extend out the Mueller evidence which is showing how terrorism really isn't something to worry about right now because more people are dying from drowning in the tub than from acts of terror, showing how unnecessary drone strikes are right now. She also never responds to my alternative to drone striking, which is to send a small detachment of US special forces to support the local Pakistani military to limit cross-border travel and to help train local forces to better combat terrorism. This a) works to stop terrorism over the long-term, which means it's going to work better than the ineffective drone striking, and b) meets her criteria of not letting American soldiers die because it's putting them in a supportive role, meaning they won't be in the line of fire. This means that my alternative is better by my criteria as well as hers. So, to put it simply: my opponent doesn't really respond to anything I said in the last round, rather just restates her own points. My points are a direct counter to her points. Extend them out. I win. |
67fb6492-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00001-000 | Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare | Drones do work, they are safer The real reason the majority of Americans tired of the perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? For some at least one factor was the consideration of the hundreds thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan people died and suffered over near to the length of a generation. These same people could also be expected to be angered by the death of our own sons and daughters, friends and family, who sacrifice their lives, physical and mental well being, to serve the Country's interests. The majority though lose sleep over the death of the innocents not counted as our allies and brethren. They are collateral damage, necessary to keep America and our children safe. That what we are told, not just by Fox News, but by the other major networks as well. Imagine a world where people who had the same financial interests in the military industrial complex were also heavily invested in the mass media. Welcome to it. The drones remove a large number of our soldiers from harms way to carry out certain missions, or executions, as the case may be. This is good, we don't want our soldiers to die, and could any ethical or moral reason be good enough to surmount that? It depends how the drones are used of course, but those who control them are those in power, and those in power usually, historically speaking, probably don't have the best interests of the people at heart. Not really. Not the people beyond the sphere of their family, friends and co workers, or their bubble, to be precise. They might believe they do, but that to better sleep at night. Argument 2: Drones are always necessary. Its a more effective way to destroy our target then actually going out there and risking there life's. You say if we had drones that we wouldn't have soldiers, in fact they could be National guard which is almost the same thing but instead they are in their hometown helping out, |
67fb6492-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00002-000 | Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare | Thanks to pro for starting this debate. I intend to attack the resolution from two different angles:1. That targeted killings are actually effective. If they're ineffective, then there would be no reason to employ them in modern warfare, thus making them not necessary.2. That drone attacks are necessary to conduct modern warfare. If there are other avenues of waging warfare other than using UAVs/Drones, then they aren't necessary for modern warfare.With that let's dive right into things.Argument One: Targeted Killings don't actually work/make things worse. Killing a terrorist leader causes more to grow and retaliate. Hezbollah empirics prove. Blum et. al(1) "eliminating leaders of terrorist organizations ... may ... effect, the rise of more—and more resolute—leaders to replace them. The decapitating of the organization may also invite retaliation by the other members and followers of the organization. ... when Israel assassinated ... Mussawi ... a more charismatic and successful leader, ... Nassrallah, succeeded ... The armed group then avenged the assassination of its former leader in two separate attacks, blowing up Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, ..." Targeted killing which relies on intelligence hurts the ability of the government to gain intelligence on terrorists. Blum et. al(1) "Targeted killing may also interfere with important gathering of critical intel ... The threat of being targeted will drive current leaders into hiding, making the monitoring of their ... activities ... difficult. ... if these leaders are found and killed, instead of captured, ... counterterrorism forces lose the ability to interrogate them to obtain potentially valuable information ..." Really big and strong terrorist groups are not affected by targeted killing empirically. Hunter(3) "attempting to reduce a group’s operational capabilities through targeted killing is of limited utility when posed against groups practicing advanced security measures. ... to ensure al Qaeda’s operational effectiveness, the group stresses the need to maintain internal security, dividing its operatives into overt and covert members functioning under a single leader…al Qaeda’s global network has survived by its members strictly adhering to the principles of operational security. the continued “success” of al Qaeda (measured in its ability to conduct major terrorist attacks worldwide despite international efforts to eradicate it) is a testament to its members’ adherence to operational security. ... this ongoing viability is evidence of the ineffectiveness of targeted killing (as practiced by the U.S. in this case) ..." In trying to kill one man, drones killed approximately 321 people, from Spiegel Online(5) "What is the cost of rendering a terrorist harmless once and for all by killing him? During the course of 14 months, the CIA used unmanned and heavily armed small aircraft known as drones to stage 15 strikes against the presumed locations of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. On Aug. 5, 2009, on the 16th try, the drones finally managed to kill Baitullah Mehsud. ... and 11 others were killed. ... But the hunt for Mehsud cost the lives of far more than 11 people. According to estimates, ... 321 people died in the course of the 16 attempts to eliminate Mehsud -- and it is certain that not all of them were Taliban fighters." Argument Two: Drone Attacks aren't necessary/Other avenues of warfarePost 9/11 Terrorist attacks are overrated – more people die from drowning in bathtubs. Mueller(2) "Two publications ... have independently provided lists of violence committed by Muslim extremists outside of such war zones ... whether that violence be perpetrated by domestic terrorists or by ones with substantial international connections. ... The lists include not only attacks by al-Qaeda, but also those by its imitators, ... as ones by groups with no apparent connection to it whatever. ... the total number of people killed in the five years after 9/11 in such incidents comes to some 200-300 per year. ... it hardly suggests that al-Qaeda's destructive capacities are monumental. ... over the same period far more people have perished in the United States alone in bathtubs drownings ..."Alternative to Drone strikes: Support and Cooperate with Pakistani security forces, Innocent(4)"A better strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is for the United States to focus on limiting cross-border movement by supporting local Pakistani security forces with a small number of US Special Forces personnel. To improve fighting capabilitiesand enhance cooperation, Washington and Islamabad must increase the number of military-to-military training programs to help hone Pakistan's counterterrorism capabilities and serve as a confidence-building measure to lessen the Pakistan Army's tilt toward radicalism." As such, I've shown that not only do drone strikes not work, not only that they make things worse, but also that we have no need for drone strikes right now and that there are other options for combating terror outside of drone strikes. Resolution = negated.Sources:(1) - Blum, Gabriella and Heymann, Phillip B., Law and Policy of Targeted Killing (June 27, 2010). Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 1, No. 145, 2010 (2) - Muller, John John Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, Mershon Center Professor of Political Science Department of Political Science, Ohio State University. THE ATOMIC TERRORIST: ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD [Prepared for presentation at the Program on International Security Policy, University of Chicago], January 15, 2008 (3) - Hunter, Thomas Byron. 2009. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism. Journal of Strategic Security, 2 (2): 1-52. (4) - Malou Innocent foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington DC and fact-finding trip to Pakistan, CATO Institute, 8/25/09, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10479 (5) - Drones Are Lynchpin of Obama's War on Terror By SPIEGEL ONLINE Staff 03/12/2010 SPIEGEL ONLINE correspondents have investigated this new method of warfare and conducted research in the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Germany. Read about Obama's drone campaign against terrorism in the following articles. http://www.spiegel.de... |
67fb6492-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00003-000 | Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare | I would like to start of by just saying I have great respect for our military and we have lost many soldiers due to man-to man war. More soldiers die fighting face to face then actually drones that due the job. So why send our troops into war and risk their life's when sending in a nuclear drone, which wont take our soldiers life's but take down the target. |
67fb6492-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00004-000 | Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare | Accepted. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00009-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Kids should definetly have cell phones. I will give 3 main points to back my position. (1) Emergencies (2) Socializing (3) Responsibility Kids need phones for emergencies. What if your at a movie with some friends and an adult comes and starts walking around you and acting creepy. Without a phone you can't call somebody to pick you up you will just have to deal with this strange adult. This is just one of many scenarios of an emergency. Kids need to be social in order for them to develope correct social skills and learn how to act around people. With cell phones kids can talk to each other whenever they want and can arrange hang outs much easier. Cell phones teach kids responsibility. They have to make sure they don't lose their phone and not send mean texts and things like that. I'm not saying this is the only way to teach responsibility but kids will enjoy learning this way. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00000-000 | Kids should have cell phones | At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00001-000 | Kids should have cell phones | You have offered no arguments against cell phones that have not been refuted. Kids can have plenty of fun on cell phones by texting their friends and if they have the right phone, apps. And no my only argument is not emergencies all of my points are arguments. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00002-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Yes you can. Nonetheless kids should not have cell phones, they should have fun. This is a stupid debate because your only backup is the hope that in an emergency they are able to get to their phone. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00003-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Well what I am saying is kids should not be completely independent with the phones but their should be some restrictions. If you are not allowed to sext you can still be responsible. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00004-000 | Kids should have cell phones | You are now saying parents should be making sure their children don't sext but this is causing invasion of privacy which doesn't make them maturely accept RESPONSIBILITY! |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00005-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Not all communication needs to be face to face. You are turning this debate into a debate for cell phones completley not just for kids. Your video was irrelevant and so was your argument. I understand their is some sext with phones but parents should be making sure that does not happen. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00006-000 | Kids should have cell phones | no it's a way of dumping over text, making 'love' over SEXT my goodness all responsibilities of face to face communication and basic maturity in life are out the window the pandora's box is opened! REVERT TO THE WAYS OF THE AMISH TODAY! http://www.youtube.com... |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00007-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Cell phones are part of a social life. My points and arguments still stand. |
a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00008-000 | Kids should have cell phones | Kids shouldn't have cell phones, kids should have a life. |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00000-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | I apologize, but I have to concede this debate due to IRL issues and since 3 hours is insufficient to create an adequate rebuttal. Vote PRO. LK, it was fun. I hope we have a rematch on this topic someday or some other topic. Good luck on the next phase of the tourney.Again, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00001-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | C1:Fetus=HumanMy opponent dismisses my argument that the fetus/embryo is part of the H. Sapiens species without any valid justification. Also, my opponent has dropped one of my most important points which is that the fetus/embryo has all the human DNA that will ever be developed in its lifetime. Biologically speaking, the embryo is not a potential human life, it is a human life. Coupled with the facts that is it from the H. Sapiens species and has all human DNA, there is no valid justification for not considering the embryo to be a human being. My opponent tries to dismiss my "coma argument" by saying that a person in a coma already already has legal rights and is not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights. Legal Rights The argument is moot and invalid from Round 1. Current legality is not of a matter of concern in this debate. Therefore the fact that the person in the coma already had legal rights is dismissed. Not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights I quote from my opponent:"embryos have no legal rights because they are inside the wombs and will only have rights once they are separated from the mother (Embryos are not recognized by law as having rights because person hood is defined by the state)"The second part of the argument can be dismissed. How the State currently defines person hood is irrelevant. My opponent states that there is a distinct differentiation between supposed rights of a human being outside the womb and inside the womb. First of all, he has not provided any valid justification for why the human being inside the womb should have less rights than the human being outside the womb. Second, if being inside/outside the womb makes so much difference, then what is the difference between a fetus ten minutes before birth and immediately after birth? Except for the surrounding environment, there are absolutely no differences between these two circumstances. This point of my opponent is therefore refuted. C1: Bear ScenarioIt seems as if my opponent has misunderstood the bear scenario. First of all, the point isn't whether or not the person who shot the gun was doing it accidentally. The point is that it is not worth it to take the risk when there could be a real human being behind the bushes. The man did not think that he was shooting a bear. He knew that it could have been a bear or a human, a 50/50 chance. Whether or not society condemns him is irrelevant. C1: Spiegel's Argument My opponent has virtually dropped this point and he untruthfully proclaims that he will rebut it in the morality segment. His only defense was "dying is something natural and (one might say) essential, should we consider modern medicine unjust too? ". Death is natural, but that whole argument also hinges on pregnancy having special social value and being the precondition to society. Death does not have any special social value. In fact, if everybody was immortal, and therefore without death, society would be able to function. But without pregnancy, the precondition for society in our world, we would all die out. My point is that even though death is natural, it is not the indispensable means by which society is created nor does it have any special social value. C2: Economical Disadvantage My opponent has done literally nothing here nor in the previous round to rebut my points. I have shown them to be valid under average statistics. I have also left out the fact that many abortion are taxpayer funded which adds to the economic societal detriment. He states that "Again, having the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state is NEVER a good idea to society and economy. " However, he has nothing to back up his assumption. Black market profits are still economically beneficial as the provider obtains money which he can spend on various societal goods. The people who illegally performed the abortions still spent the money back to society. C3: Hippocratic OathI will address each of my opponent's concerns:1) This oath is not historically taken by physicians; it is still taken by physicians. This also an appeal to novelty. Just because something is old, does not make it any less valid.2) This oath focuses on morality, instead of binding legality. Not only does this debate have nothing to do with current legality, but just because something is not binding, does not make it any less valid.3) False. In the US, only physicians can perform abortions. (8)4) False. According to the National Library of Medicine, that is the original oath. (9)C4: MoralityJust because I did not put it in Round 2, does not mean that I concede that killing innocent human beings is acceptable. Not only is this common logic, but also backed up by my Round 3 rebuttal. My opponent has provided two examples of when he thinks that my case would fall apart due to technicalities. I will rebut both of them. It is highly unlikely that both birth control and physical contraceptives would fail when used together. Anyways, it is possible. My opponent has completely neglected the part where I previously said that by engaging in the act of coitus, the participants are automatically taking up a risk. Contraceptives might reduce the risk, but they don't eliminate them. Whether sub-consciously or consciously, the risk has already been taken and the blame is put on the people engaging in the act of coitus. To put the blame on the baby is absurd and illogical. When a woman's life is threatened, abortion is permissible, as stated by our rules. Also, even if the woman's life is not threatened but she is somewhat temporarily disabled, the killing of the baby is not justified simply because of a temporary "disability. Would it be justified to kill your child if he would not let you go to work? No. C5: Fetus =/= Legal HumanAgain, the term legal is irrelevant to this debate. You have definitely not proven that the coma argument is invalid. Readers can refer back to "Fetus=Human". C6: Fetus not really innocentRefuted as part of Utilitarianism last round and Morality this round. C7: Violates RightsMy opponent mentions "moral, universal or God-given rights". He has introduced these so called "rights" without any proof of them even existing. My opponent's introduction and statement of these so called "rights" absurd and rendered moot. Right to choose and to have dignity- Nobody is forcing women to have children. If they really don't want to then they can abstain from having coitus. Just because birth control fails, it does not automatically give the women the right to abort. As previously discussed, a certain level of risk is accepted simply by engaging in coitus. Just because someone cannot economically handle a child, does not give them the right to kill it. Many different approaches can be taken such as adoption. Also, having lived is better than never having lived. C8: CrimeMy opponent's evidence is not based in the US and therefore is nullified and moot. There is no proof that these patterns would have been replicated in the US. I provided a source which stated otherwise, but apparently my opponent automatically thinks that a book source is invalid with no justification whatsoever. Also, President of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians. " It seems that the vast majority of the alleged “back-alley butchers” eventually became the “reproductive health providers” of our present day. (7)Conclusion Embryo is a human. Immoral to kill humans. Abortion is an economical detriment. Women do not have a right to abortion. By having coitus, they are exposing themselves to the risk. I hope that my opponent does not introduce any new information or sources in the next round. Sources:. http://goo.gl...Great debate. |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00002-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | Thanks for responding. I’m sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy with IRL stuffs. REBUTTAL Re: Fetus = Human Again, all my opponent has argued here is that the potential life inside the woman’s womb is part of the species homo sapiens, and that it will evolve and eventually become a human being. But again, is this enough to justify on illegalizing abortion? No. My opponent dismisses my ‘sentience’ argument because it is a failed theory and unnecessary. It isn’t, that’s why embryos/fetuses have no rights in the first place. I will focus on the sentience and consciousness, which the embryo has not. My opponent states that my theory of the embryo having no sentience relates to a person in a coma. Two things, first, embryos have no legal rights because they are inside the wombs and will only have rights once they are separated from the mother (Embryos are not recognized by law as having rights because personhood is defined by the state). Second, a person in a coma was obviously already born, and with legal rights thus making him a human being. Let’s take a look at the ‘bear’ scenario my opponent gave in R2; where one man mistakes a person for a bear thus shooting him and killing him accidentally. Now, even though we can say that the benefit of the doubt will go life, we still wouldn’t consider this action to become a killing of an innocent person (i.e.: murder). Why? Because the man thought he was shooting a bear (which can be a danger to him), rather than a real, sentient human. Relating to abortion, if we outlaw most abortions, and when a woman and her doctor think they're killing a non-viable being, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but it’s hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-sentient embryo is a viable person when we don't actually know this to be the case. There isn’t any sufficient evidence to prove that an embryo is a human being in mind. If we’re following PRO’s logic on embryo being humans, then abortion would be tragic and lethal and should result to murder in all cases, there should be no exceptions, meaning that this will result to many bad consequences. As for it being just and moral, I will address my opponent’s Spiegel argument and morality rebuttal in my Utilitarianism defense below, but to his statement saying, “To deny something natural and essential to life is unjust.”, If I may ask, dying is something natural and (one might say) essential, should we consider modern medicine unjust too? Re: Abortion: Economical Disadvantage? I’ve already addressed this issue and my opponent hasn’t fully accurately backed this claim up. Please extend my previous rebuttal and the arguments regarding the advantage of abortion and the disadvantage of back alley abortions on the economy. Again, having the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state is NEVER a good idea to society and economy. Re: Hippocratic Oath Violation 4 Issues: All arguments from this source {10}. 1) This oath is obsolete and irrelevant since it is historically taken by physicians. This oath is also invalid since it’s a stretch to even argue it. 2) This oath is not binding by law, there is no law required that forces doctors to take this when performing abortion. So what if they break it? 3) Non-doctors perform abortions too. ‘Nuff said. 4) Quoted oath is false. The quoted statement my opponent cited is from the original version, which has already been modernized. And performing an abortion isn’t stated in it. ERGO) This argument is false, invalid and irrelevant. DEFENSE/CASE De: Morality My opponent dismisses this argument stating that it is irrelevant and that I have the BOP. But please note that PRO made this argument first (but forgot to put it in R2), so it’s already proven that killing innocent humans can be morally permissible, and that an embryo is NOT a killing of an innocent human being. Now, to address his rebuttal: Okay, let’s say that contraceptives failed, thus the woman woke up pregnant. It was the woman’s intention to use birth control and wished not have a life attached her, but it failed. Thus making this Utilitarianism argument very much valid. There are also cases where women are morons, they are promiscuous and do not know the outcomes of having sex, we shouldn’t let the woman and the baby suffer. Actually no, there are different kinds of pregnancies {11} which can complicate and danger the woman’s everyday life, like Ectopic pregnancies, RH negative diseases, Group B Strep, Gestational Diabetes, etc. These illnesses limit the woman’s ability to do things, work, shop, take care of stuff. De: Fetus =/= Legal Human I’ve already proven why a fetus is not a human and that the ‘coma’ argument is blatantly false. I’ve also argued why fetuses shouldn’t receive or be considered human. Extend. De:Fetus not really innocent This relates to my morality argument. De: Violates Rights OK, I apologize. I haven’t read the definitions accurately. But the ‘rights’ I’m talking about here are not only legal, but moral, universal or God-given rights that are being violated. In a Utilitarianist view, we need to consider on what is morally permissible and we must consider what the best interest of the mother and child is. Right to choose & to have dignity: Women should have the right to be respected by society, if they do not want children that should be respected. Again, there are cases where birth control fails, where women do not know the outcomes of having children. Most of these women are mostly in poverty where they couldn’t economically handle having a child. {12}. Mothers are responsible for their children, we need to value their right on what they think is safer and right for their children and environment. Do you want children to live in the streets, to suffer and live with abusive parents? De: Crime Yes, this is a US-only debate. I’m introducing the NYT source as pattern evidence. My opponent counters this argument by citing a source from a book, thus must be considered unreliable, I don’t normally attack sources that way but it’s crucial to what we’re arguing. Now, to further clarify abortion=crime correlation; I will quote what I said in the previous round; Before Roe, illegalization didn’t reduce abortions. the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, this is almost the same as the number of legal abortions now, we can also assume that millions of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion, this process is more dangerous, expensive and of course, unlawful {9}. That source also states that and I quote, “Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.” Now, obviously, illegalizations have no effect due to that source, also this that statement wasn’t accurately refuted by PRO. About my NYT source, please note that the WHO did a research (in countries where abortion is illegal) where they found out that 20 million unsafe abortions are performed per year & 67K of those women die, and between 2 -7 million of these risky abortions result in long-term damage or illnesses. This is only a pattern or what might happen to the US if we illegalize abortion due to back-alley abortion {8}. My opponent needs to prove that illegalizing is more beneficial to society regardless of back-alley abortions where criminals profit more than the state, where mothers have more health risks and are endangered. CITATIONS http://www.debate.org... |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00003-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | Before I proceed, I would like to point out that I made a mistake. Most abortions are in fact performed in the embryonic Period and I will slightly change my argument according to this. This should cause no problem to my opponent as all of his arguments will apply this also. Fetus=HumanA human is defined as (1):A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. SapiensBelonging to a species is determined from the DNA of an organism. From the moment of conception, the new organism is a member of the H. Sapiens species. The organism has all of the human DNA that will ever be used or developed in its lifetime that is neither the mother's nor the father's. My opponent has failed to address perhaps the strongest point of my case, the fact that an embryo has all human DNA that will ever be obtained in its life. If a human is a member of the H. Sapiens, then a embryo is a human. My opponent has stated that sentience and awareness are necessary for human life. This is obviously not true. By my opponent's theory, a person who is in a coma is not a person, even though he is. Coma patients cannot feel anything outside of them and are unconscious, yet they are still human. This proposition that human life depends on sentience is absurd. Also, pregnancy is an essential tool in the building of society. It is responsible for the development and growth of mankind. Not only this, but it is also a natural cycle by the human body. To deny something natural and essential to life is unjust. Consider an alteration of this argument made by Jim Spiegel:(2)1. Pregnancy is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Abortions which seek to terminate and reject a pregnancy constitute a rejection of the special value of pregnancy.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, abortion is unjust. My opponent has also asked me to prove that if a embryo were a human, abortion should be banned. This premise is self-explanatory. It is immoral to kill innocent human beings that have done nothing wrong and are coming into existence because of a natural cycle called pregnancy. Economical DisadvantageI used average statistics to determine the calculations. Some people people might have had a worse job, some better. Some might have lived longer, others shorter. These are averages. Some people might have migrated to other countries, but there are no concrete statistics. Even if an unlikely 10% migrated, it would still be an economical detriment. Also, about 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 17 states pay for abortions for some women. (6) This adds on to the detriment. Also, the average abortions costs about $350. (6)My Opponent's CaseC1:MoralityMy opponent is stating the government should have no obligation to enforce morality to human rights. However, the concept of human rights in it self, requires a certain set of morals to recognize them such as not murder, stealing, etc. .. Again, my opponent is stating that it is not necessarily immoral to kill millions of innocent human beings. He has the massive BOP to back this up. C1:UtilitarianismMy opponent has brought a seemingly irrelevant argument into this discussion.1. The person who randomly woke up with a violinist connected has not been previously aware of any sort of risk that this might happen. It simply happened. But this situation does not happen in a pregnancy. Unless CON can show me a woman who doesn't know that sex might lead to pregnancy, the woman has taken the risk upon herself just by having sex. Whether it be subconsciously or consciously, by knowing the possible circumstances in which the sex might result in, she has subjected herself to the risk. When somebody chooses to be subjected to a risk and the risk happens, the blame should only be on themselves, not the innocent human being inside of them. The only time that this might not happen is in cases of rape but this has been defined as no part of this debate in Round 1. 2. The circumstances of the attached violinist and pregnancy are highly different. Pregnant women can still work, earn a salary, go to school, and our society does not condone embarrassment of pregnant women. C2: Fetus not legally humanI already partly addressed this argument in the "fetus=human" rebuttal. What I have to mention is that in Round 1, it was explicitly stated that "This debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid. ". My opponent has accepted the definition as this point is not only violating the rules, but also an invalid point as was mentioned in Round 1. This point should automatically be thrown out, but I will provide a brief rebuttal. My opponent has stated that because an embryo is not conscious, it should not be granted rights. This is false. People in a comatose are given rights are not conscious nor viable. My opponent stated that I need to " provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being". This has already been done. An embryo or a fetus has all the possible DNA that a human can ever obtain in its lifetime. DNA makes an organism part of a specific species. The embryo cannot be described as "can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens," (by my opponent). The embryo is a member of the H. Sapiens. C2: Fetus not really innocent1. By having sex, the women is taking the risk of pregnancy. If the woman allows the sex to happen on her own will, then she is allowing the embryo to be inside her. My opponent also has not stated why the embryo or fetus does not have a right to use the pregnant women's body. If it does not have a right to do this, then all pregnancies should be aborted as it is a violation of the rights of the female.2. My opponent has stated that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances. I agree. This was addressed in Round 1 rules. In circumstances in which the female is at the risk of dying or has been raped, abortion is permissible. C3: Violates RightAgain, this has all been addressed in the rules of Round 1. Abortion is permissible in cases of when the women has been raped, incest, or when her life has been threatened. This point is again a violation of the rules and should be disregarded. C3: CrimeMy opponent and I have previously agreed that this debate applies solely to the United States. My opponent's sources are flawed. If you take a look at his #8 source, it applies to worldwide trends in the legalization/de legalization of abortion. It doesn't mention the US and instead talks about Eastern Europe, Uganda, and South Africa. This source and information is invalid. In fact, "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the pre legalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year. "(3)Compared to the 1.5 million+ abortions per year after Roe v. Wade,(4) we can conclude that the legalization/de legalization of abortion causes massive differences. Case:My opponent has given me a chance to post another small contention:The Hippocratic OathAs all abortions today are performed by doctors, all doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath. (5)It states that:"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion". An abortion is clearly a violation of the Hippocratic Oath and cannot be deemed to continue. Sources:. http://goo.gl... |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00004-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | Thanks for responding. REBUTTAL Re: Fetus = Human My opponent first noted that he’ll focus on the fetus because most abortions happen in the fetal period. This is false, since he didn’t give a source, I’d like to point out that 9 in 10 abortions in the US occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy {1a} {1b}. That means that the fetus isn’t fully developed yet {2}, which means that the pregnancy is still in its embryonic period {3a}. An embryo is not (yet) a fetus and it’s also not a person and therefore doesn’t have rights. The embryo is not viable or sentient, it cannot survive outside the uterus/womb {3b} so it would be ridiculous to grant them rights. As for his argument on fetuses being human, as you can see, all my opponent has argued that a fetus has life and that it will eventually be human, this is insufficient. It needs more concise evidence, PRO needs to prove that a fetus is conscious, that it is sentient and is aware of its surroundings, existence, thoughts, sensations. But still, this fetus = human argument isn't enough and doesn't entirely mean that we should illegalize abortion. Considering that I’ve shown that the vast majority of abortions occur in the embryonic period, this argument pretty much falls. Furthermore, PRO must prove that an embryo is still as equal as a fetus or a human being, he also needs to show sufficient proof that it is enough to ban them. I’m expanding my rebuttal on this in my contentions below. Re: Abortion: Economical Disadvantage? My opponent seems to be confusing us with calculations and claims that the USFG could have saved 21 trillion USD if Roe wasn’t decided because 50 million un-aborted people could’ve lived by now and each would have earned an average of $42K. This is utterly ridiculous and misleading. Out of those 50 million, how can you say for sure that they didn’t migrate to other countries, or if they even have a decent job, or if they died or have an illness. How can you say for sure that if Roe was overturned by then, this won’t affect 50 million abortions? Women will still abort nevertheless, since they have the means and free will to do whatever they want, regardless of the rule of law. Overall, this argument is a shallow attempt made by PRO which is ambiguous. Next, abortion costs vary {4}, but it isn’t necessarily $350 since there are private orgs funding women and helping them on family planning. There are clinics that provide cheap abortions for women who are poor. There are also state-funded clinics that operate on these practices. So this just means that the state has some profits. Also, since an average of 1.21 million abortions happen each year {1a} and if we multiply that to the costs ($300 to $1000 approx.) {4}, the total would be over $1B profit. Seriously an economical advantage. But let’s look at the downside, if we illegalize abortion, back alley abortions will happen anyway. Would you want the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state? CASE These are my contentions for now, I reserve the right to drop or add more arguments & references later on. C1: Morality This premise actually irrelevant to the topic since this is too broad and controversial. Morality and religion has nothing to do with the legislature and that the government has no obligation to enforce morality to human rights. Furthermore, my opponent failed to show that killing innocent human beings (in this case, the fetuses) are wrong. It seems he forgot, but nevertheless, I will show you why this is not always the case. Utilitarianism A simple definition of Utilitarianism is that it determines the moral worth of an action only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences {5}. Now, a moral philosopher, Judith Thomson offered a thinking experiment {6} {7}: Imagine waking up one morning and find yourself attached to a famous violinist by means of a long tube, that violinist is unconscious. Doctors tell you that if you remove this tube, the Violinist will die. Doctors also tell you that you have to limit your time and you have to eat more. Also, because a parasite-like being is attached to you, you can’t go to work because you cannot concentrate and may suffer from public humility. What if you are poor and you need to work? Is it permissible to kill the violinist? What would most people do? This argument theory proves that even though fetuses/embryos have the right to life, it’s still morally permissible to abort them. Thomson argued that it is. She says that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. This moral argument relates to women’s rights and why fetuses shouldn’t have rights. See below. C2: Fetus Argument Since the vast majority aborts during the embryonic period, I’m not sure why we need to debate the fetus’ biological form since it has no relevance to the illegalization of this practice, but I’ll proceed anyway. A fetus being human is highly a controversial issue and it will probably never end. Fetus not legally human. Though a fetus can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens, it is not a sentient human being that is a full-fledged member of society. It is neither conscious nor viable. Thus making it not have rights and must not receive the same rights as fully developed humans. If we declare abortion murder should we declare miscarriages manslaughter? Furthermore, as I said, my opponent needs to provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being. ‘Having a life and eventually being a human’ is NOT enough. Fetus not really innocent Addressing the theory presented, J.T stated that even if the embryo/fetus has a right to life, it does NOT have a right to use the pregnant woman's body, so technically, the fetus is not at all innocent as it invades the woman’s privacy and violates women’s rights. Ergo, abortion is permissible in certain circumstances. C3: Illegalization Downside I’m running out of characters, so I’ll make this brief and continue next round. Violates Rights The mother’s right to life is essential, and if we illegalize abortion, we are violating that right. There are many scenarios where the mother’s life is at risk unless she aborts, if we deprive them of aborting, we are not only killing the mother, but also giving society a bad name. It also violates dignity and respect. Women who are raped should not suffer 9 months of carrying a child she did not want, especially if she is poor. A woman should not suffer or be forced to carry a fetus for months. This is a breach to human dignity. The government has the obligation to protect its citizens from harm, if a doctor knows that the baby is ill in the womb, he should advice the mother for her to make a decision. Criminalization also deprives women on the right to choose and healthcare. Since I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion violates rights and that it poses a danger to women, this practice should remain legal. Esp. in the circumstances of rape, incest, health risks, medical need, etc. Crime Before Roe, illegalization didn’t reduce abortions. the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, this is almost the same as the number of legal abortions now, we can also assume that millions of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion, this process is more dangerous, expensive and of course, unlawful {8}. The NY times also showed statistics that abortion whether legal or not will not change society {9}. CONCLUSION In other words, I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion is very much a disadvantage to economy and society and does more harm than good. I’ve negated my opponent’s premises and made my arguments. I await PRO’s response. Good luck! CITATIONS http://goo.gl... |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00005-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | Now onto mine. The fetus is a humanMy first contention is that a fetus is human. I will choose to focus on a fetus, not a zygote or an embryo because most abortions happen during the fetal period. A fetus is simply the combination of the male sperm, and the women’s ovum. Combining the two creates an entirely unique organism, not alike to its mother or father. There is no doubt that the fetus is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction. (1) A fetus will, in no doubt, become a human being. There is absolutely no question about it. A fetus will turn into a living, breathing, and thinking organism like you and I. So why deny it the same rights that are given to us? Lets take this for an example: You are a hunter out in the woods. You see something rustle in the bushes. You aren’t sure whether it’s a bear, or a human. Is it worth it to take that shot, knowing that there could be a human there? That directly relates to abortion. Even if you aren’t sure whether the fetus is a human, is it worth it to take that risk? Benefit of the doubt should always be given to life, not death. One very important point is that the entire biological and scientific communities agree on one common definition for human life: one human individual’s life begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation. " This is according to the one of the only embryology textbooks used in medical schools: Langman’s Medical Embryology written by Thomas W. Sadler PhD(2) Continuing on with the point that a fetus is a human, we have to realize that not only is the fetus being created by the human’s natural processes, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female gamete (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male gamete (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new—although tiny—individual. A fetus has all of the basic components needed for human life, so to kill it with an abortion would be equivalent of killing a human. It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique human individual. In fact according to biology, human development begins with conception. From the moment of conception, the being is complete. Nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be naturally added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxygen. This being is programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. To argue the fact that this is not human goes against any scientific and medical standards, which is what our current society is based upon. (3) According to Keith Moore in Essentials of Human Embryology: "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being. " To summarize the first contention: I have concluded that a fetus is a living being, is a unique human individual, and is simply a stage of development in the human process. Abortion is economically harmful Abortion is, in fact, economically detrimental to society as a whole. Lets look at some stats. Since the legalization of Roe V Wade in the United States, there have been about 50 million abortion. (4) Abortions cost about $350 dollars to the average citizen. (5) Therefore, over the years that abortion has been legal in the US, the private sector has received 1 750 000 000 000. In other words, one trillion seven-hundred fifty billion dollars. That seems like a large amount, but the amount that the state lost is more. The average US salary is 42 000 per year. (6) The average life expectancy in the US is 78.1 years (7). Abortion was legal from 1973 to current, or 38 years. Since we can assume that every person who wasn't aborted would live to this day, the calculations are relatively simple. Multiply the number of abortion (50 000 000) by (42 000) the average salary per year and then multiply it by 78, the average life expectancy. We receive the number 2 100 000 000 000. That is the amount of money that the State could have gained by not performing abortions. That is considerably larger than the money gained from abortions. Therefore, abortion is a societal economic detriment. ConclusionThe fetus is a human being It is immoral to kill innocent human beingsAbortion is economically harmful to a society(1) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...(2) . http://books.google.ca...(3) . http://www.abortionfacts.com...(4)http://www.guttmacher.org... (5). http://www.positive.org... (6). http://www.worldsalaries.org...(7)http://goo.gl...(8)http://www.nrlc.org... |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00006-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | I apologize for the delay. Thanks for instigating, good luck and happy holidays! |
a7778ae3-2019-04-18T18:32:59Z-00007-000 | Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances | This is for Spinko's debate tournament.Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegalAbortion-The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.Ought- Should beIllegal- Outlawed Most Circumstances- Includes almost every cirumstances except those of rape, incest, and when the female's life is threatened.THIS DEFINITION WILL NOT BE UP FOR EXPLOITATIONThis debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid.R1: AcceptanceR2: PRO's arguments/CON's arguments/rebuttalR3: Rebuttals/DefenseR4: Final rebuttals/conclusions BOP is on me.Good luck! |
1c393b9a-2019-04-18T19:07:40Z-00000-000 | Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator | All that's all good and all, but why would the terminator need to time travel? Spongebob is clearly no threat. Also, all that doesn't take into consideration the fact that Spongebob is at best an amphibious creature, remove the water and he'll probably just suffocate. |
1c393b9a-2019-04-18T19:07:40Z-00001-000 | Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator | I am sorry for not being around last round as I had urgent business. However I would like to elaborate and say that it is only one Terminator coming to Bikini Bottom through time rather than the entire Skynet army. It is not revealed the Terminators motivations except he wants Spongebob dead. as this is no holds barred we will herefore give this little sponge alll of Skynets abilities. Living in a house with small children I have wacthed a varity of episodes including the movie and deduced that spongebob is invulrable. Here are a list of examples. (I am sorry but I can not source these I can not source these.) Indestructability: (1): In an episode where Spongebob eats a bomb in a pie (don't ask.) after a specific point in time the bomb detonates with an obvious explosion, blowing up a neigboring wall and injuring a bystander to a burning crisp, and spongebob doesn't notice. Even the terminator would be killed by an internal explosion. Although this and almost all of the examples are comic relief, he can assumingly use these powers at will. Unlike Roger rabbit rules. (He can only use them when it would be funny.) (2): In an episode where Squidward is describing a murder (Nickelodeon material, right)Spongebob imitates it by chopping off his own arm and grasping it regrowing his arm and cutting off the opposite hand in a wash rinse repeat fashion. I can liken him to a silver terminator right now. (3): Although he is not physically destroyed, in a bullying episode an extremely schwarzenneger-esque fish repeateadly punches him with not a single wince of pain or a drop of sweat. This proceeds for a period of over 24 hours and the fish eventually passes out. As spongebob says, "I must be made out of some spongy material." Stamina: (1): In a complex plot where spongebob gains superpowers. He has the ability to run cartoonishly fast to the point of creating a tornado and burning himself into nothingness. He still sruvives of course and is fully able to gain these superpowers again but never does. (2): In an extremely creepy episode when he is locked in a cave and trying to eat a freind as cannibalism he uses a few lures and traps but manages to last a long time without food. Although the terminator does not need food this could help in the case of Bikini bottom turning into something similar to the deserts and wastelands in Terminator 4. Mentality: (1): When spongebob is fighting a co-worker over a promotion, he goes into a military attitude similar to that of patton and lays elaborate predator style traps to prevent him from going to his workplace. These are so ingenious and cartoonish they would no doubt alone defeat a terminator easier than a pool of molten metal. As an added note for stamina he runs extremely fast to beat the opponent he runs to the workplace for a long point of time although not a supernatural amount. (2): As he is constantly practicing karate with a freind he has (I am serious) trained himself to be aware for any sneak attack and even has Karate gloves handy. Strength: (1): Spongebob has over the past been trained in Karate, Wrestling, Olympics and even has a spatula which can shoot patties as projectiles with shotgun force. I am not making this up. (2): As a phenominally bad driver, it is a running theme to have him destroy the town, buildings and all unintentionnaly. He would be great in a drive by. Over all spongebob wwith no holds barred would be a perfect opponent for anyone out there and might even compare to a silver terminator. |
1c393b9a-2019-04-18T19:07:40Z-00002-000 | Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator | Due to the forfeiting of sonofkong, in lieu of an argument, I will begin to tapdance. Sadly I do not possess a webcam, however. Enjoy the show. |
1c393b9a-2019-04-18T19:07:40Z-00003-000 | Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator | Alright. My opponent is instigating that Spongebob Squarepants...oh dear god this is painful already...Spongebob bleedin' Squarepants would beat the T-800, however, my opponent also said it would be a no-holds-barred fight, since every T-800 is controlled by Skynet, Spongebob wouldn't be fighting the T-800, he'd be fighting skynet, skynet that has access to nuclear weaponry and has been polluting the seas and killing all organic life for a good couple of decades. (who's dead in a pineapple under the sea?) In other words, in order for the T-800 to even exist, Skynet must dominate the earth, have already polluted the seas to the point of wiping out all life within them, and have turned the entire earth into the earth we see in Terminator 4, mainly ruined cities and deserts punctuated by small swamps and forests. Spongebob, just like Squidley and Patrick and that squirrel thing, would already be dead from the pollutants poured into a certain coconut before the T-800 even began production. |
1c393b9a-2019-04-18T19:07:40Z-00004-000 | Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator | I believe that it is a little known fact Spongebob Squarepants is a BAMF. Anyone with a reply may answer and for the time being I will not give away spongebob's powers. All I am saying is no holds in the fight will be barred and by Terminator I mean the standard T-800 Schwarzenegger model. I look forward to this most epic of battles. |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00000-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | Apologies for forfeiting the previous round. Certainly Christianity is the largest single organization for healthcare in the world, but with over a billion members there aren"t many organizations that could offer that level of service, but that"s not to say they wouldn"t if possible. This has nothing to do with Christianity, this is a want to help your fellow man, an instinctive drive that all people and societies need in order for us to survive and evolve. To dispute your point on the church starting the orphanage movement I will direct you to this piece from the writings of Plato, many hundreds of years before the church was helping orphans, by the way, no doubt they were orphans due to some war funded by the church. Plato (Laws, 927) says: "Orphans should be placed under the care of public guardians. Men should have a fear of the loneliness of orphans and of the souls of their departed parents. A man should love the unfortunate orphan of whom he is guardian as if he were his own child. He should be as careful and as diligent in the management of the orphan's property as of his own or even more careful still."(1) Furthermore, you mention Jane Addams, but a recent study of her found that Jane Addams "had come to epitomize the force of secular humanism." Her image was, however, "reinvented" by the Christian churches.(2) Here we can see that you have fallen into a trap laid by the church, claiming that one of the brightest lights of humanity belonged to their ranks, when in reality Jane Addams was agnostic at best and indeed a secular humanist. Now to quote you directly: "He (god) wants us to be loving and caring, and when humanity strays from those values, who is to blame? Not The Lord, but in fact ourselves." Now this argument is heavily flawed to me, why should this apparent god receive praise for all the good humanity achieves, yet when something bad happens it"s the humans who are at fault, now to me that seems to be a slight double standard. Now I will leave you with this. In mathematics a positive multiplied by a positive equals a positive, but, a negative multiplied by a positive equals a negative. So if we take all the negatives Christianity has done and all the positives and multiply them together, it is still a negative. To put this in more simple terms imagine a serial killer with 50 innocent victims. Should he be forgiven because he did some charity work on the weekends? The answer is of course no. Christianity is not a force for good in the world. The hatred found in Leviticus and the pedophilia dispersed in the places of worship are enough to see this on their own. Not to mention the other points I have raised. People are good and just enough already to need a bronze-age book dictating their lives. (1)http://www.perseus.tufts.edu... (2)Christie, C., Gauvreau, M. (2001). A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900-1940 McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, Jan 19, 2001 pg 107 |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00001-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | Ultimately the question being asked is if Christianity is a force of good in the world. IS it a force for good, not HAS it been a force for good. And ultimately even when you look at it from two different angles, it's apparent that indeed our God is a God of love. He wants us to be loving and caring, and when humanity strays from those values, who is to blame? Not The Lord, but in fact ourselves. Thank you. |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00002-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | While you are correct about the crusades and other battles fought over Christianity, remember that while the humans may not always make the right choices, the religion governing them wants them to. The bible itself is indeed a strong force for good, and there are countless major benefits from Christianity. The church is the single largest provider of healthcare and education in the world, especially in the poorest countries where it is needed most. Christianity also pioneered social work. The first American woman to ever be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was Jane Addams. The church also co-founded the first settlement house in the US, hoping to bridge the gap between poor and rich. The London society for the prevention of cruelty to children, or the London SCCP, campaigning from the wider church, was the first force to stop cruelty towards children, and from them the first UK law about child neglect and cruelty was created. Churches were also the first orphanages, opening their arms in the Middle Ages to unwanted children that were left at the Churches' doorsteps. This practice ultimately started the orphanage movements we have today. I could go on for hours listing the countless things Christianity has done for the world. |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00003-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | When I observe the horrors in the back catalog of Christianity, it seems fitting that the image chosen as their earthly symbol, is one of most abhorrent forms of bronze-age Middle Eastern execution. In order to fully understand the role Christianity plays in the world today we must first look back at the terrors conducted in its repugnant name. Here I will name but a few of the achievements of Christianity: The crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, the African slave trade and the deafening silence during Hitler's Final Solution. A list of accomplishments, which perhaps, would not be towards the top of ones curriculum vitae. Now to look towards the modern day, the Christian church remains a patriarchal establishment. The injustice to women is institutional. That is half the world"s population who are doomed to be listed with the livestock. On top of the patriarchy there is of course anti-homosexuality, these are people who are being punished by the church, not for what they believe, but for who they love and how they express it. This cannot be good for the world. Love is so desperately lacking in life, love needs dispensing not suppressing. Another unforgivable aspect of the modern day church is the idea that AIDS as a disease is bad, however, not as bad as condoms. Millions dead, for whom? And for what? It certainly wasn't for any force of good. Finally in this opening statement I will briefly touch on the most reprehensible part of Christianity in recent times, the long-standing institutional child rape. I do not think I need to expand on the point of pedophilia and why it is wrong. A force for good? Well, unquestionably not a good that I would fight for. No one can argue Christianity doesn't have some wonderful morals, however, these morals are not exclusive to Christianity, and the works of charity done by Christians are not exclusive to Christians. The force for good is already within human beings, Christianity, perhaps not intentionally, but undoubtedly persistently, distorts it. |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00004-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | Hello, thanks for putting out the challenge. Shall we hear the opening argument against the matter? |
2e465d2c-2019-04-18T15:47:29Z-00005-000 | Christianity is a force for good in the world. | I will be arguing against the premise. The debate will go as follows. 1) Acceptance 2) Opening statement 3) Rebuttal 4) Closing statement |
8c4414ad-2019-04-18T11:26:45Z-00000-000 | Valentino arbitrarily with | Straight up. He tripped over a chair in his flat and hurt his foot. Sitting not sat, not Saturday but Sunday it shouldn't affect the lemons. Squeeze the lemons, pick up a penguin and don't leave the pen on the sill. The flat was 500 square feet and his foot looked square as it swelled. Football in the flat, soccer on the pitch, he was heavy, heavier than he's been for along time, big man pig man haha charade you are as it were. Meat, a poor track record, slip on some shoes, not on the slippery surface, he was a proper Bobby dazzler, something of a stud in his day, not a right Charlie like some. Low end meat, quantity over quality. He got his most important kicks screwing, Charlie not Bobby. High end driver, high end bit if you know what I mean, the girls were appreciative, especially the northern European ones, Charlie sure played the field, high end Scandinavian action. no sloppiness, tight and well lubricated was his watchword, G.G.G. always as a back up (apply by hand). Feet, bottoms G.G.G. (applicator available) if you get my drift and talking about cleats, high end carbon interface for sure, in the woods or on the road and Charlie looks swell in that tight gear, a Scandinavian girls' dream. It was traditional in the North and accounted for Lars's apprehension, but didn't deter mine at all. Periods are a feminine issue, quality products available, feminine equality is always an issue and production differences are negligible, no I didn't say negligee, don't be sexist, remain arbitrary you nit. Period products, captive market, growing market, gender neutrality doesn't come into it. High absorption for sure and easily disposable low environmental impact. Competition in the raw meat market too and Bobbys your man and Bob's your uncle and Fanny's your aunty. She liked the company and a boost bar yummy yummy caramel sensation threeway chim chum choo. Good margins on the material and enough left over for Constance when she went into labour, there was profit in watching those old Valentino films too, mental absorption and period stress elimination, let it all out! Caroline got tar on he heels, high end stiletto and hosiery to boot, top draw and Jordan was careering all over the place trying to get her attention, talk about decadence, threeway decadence a go go. Nick won the game though, he was pinpoint and shot accurately and got Caroline's immediate attention. Jordan felt a draught, when he was in year five he contracted something which left him vulnerable, I thought it worth mentioning, he was a man in a million though for sure, a bull of a man actually but not a bull of a man where it matters if you get my drift. Drifting shifting and don't forget Mike, he was courting Caroline as long ago as 1984, black and red top drawer accessories. Caroline was an au pair by the way, and they've got a reputation, classic! Jordan's hair was a bit of a let down though, 80's classic maybe but a new millennial monstrosity, threeway millet mullet moo and the chest hair failed to drive them wild anymore. They all used to go hiking together, Charlie Bob Mike Nick Jordan Caroline and one big important tent. Not Aunt Fanny and Uncle Bob though, they couldn't stand the midges and were allergic to the Deet. Slipping and sliding and skidding, you can imagine, sixway intentions and Caroline was a good un, no what I mean! On her back, on her knees, legs akimbo, they were supportive and kept discomfort to a minimum G.G.G. all round application. Shoulder or neck of lamb not easy on the camping stove, if you're feeling peckish. Need to keep your strength up for all that weekend hiking action though. Nonetheless don't forget the foot protection, high end, mid sole impact absorption, technical lacing system for sure, wear them in first, let's avoid any blister discomfort. Super! Wow! Knee length boots and lacy top drawer accoutrements in the rucksack. Wide eyed boys and the calves and the thighs and those other regions phew! Up the front up the side and all over the place they had a job containing themselves. The versatility of the Singer Vogue takes us back to the 60s though. Lars met Constance through a dating agency and go hiking together in Finland. Constance is more technical in all departments, likes to take it seriously, separate storage for her hiking gear. Intentions at the end of the day though and Lars is never disappointed. Don't be fooled by the high end on the trail seriousness, back home the top drawer is nicely stocked, she's longer in the leg than Caroline and carries it all off very well despite her age. Lacy, front lacing, sheer hosiery and the bit in the middle brief and to the point, footwear obligatory. All fantasy, all forgiving and tidy up in the morning. |
8c4414ad-2019-04-18T11:26:45Z-00001-000 | Valentino arbitrarily with | Sit on a chair with [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino[/url][/b] your back straight up and your feet flat on the ground. Pick up the pencil using your affected foot. To do this, squeeze the pencil between your toes and the ball of your foot. The shoes cost twice as much as the heavier boots of the time but allowed soccer players to attain trackmeet speed as they sprinted, as well as achieve better feel of the ball for kicking. Most important to kicking was the Dassler introduction of screwin studs to match the stud length to the sloppiness of the playing field, important especially in rainy Northern Europe. like cleats because they have extra support at the bottom of your foot. Traditional cost accounting systems such as absorption costing determine product pricing by dividing the period costs equally or arbitrarily with the number of units produced during the same period. In a highly competitive business environment, the direct costs such as raw materials and labor remain more or less constant, as do profit margins. Companies try to boost profitability [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Outlet[/url][/b] by trying to eliminate period costs. Jordan began his career over three decades ago, after playing for the North Carolina Tarheels and gaining national attention with his gamewinning 3point shots. Immediately Nike saw his potential, and after Jordan was drafted to the Bulls, he signed a fiveyear contract with the brand worth half a million per year. In 1984, Michael hit the court in the first ever pair of Air Jordans in a classic Bulls red and black. Hiking shoes or boots [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Shoes[/url][/b] are the most important item for a hiking trip. A bad pair of shoes can lead to slipping, sliding, skidding, falling, and injuries. Most hiking shoes also have a good amount of support to protect you from feeling any discomfort in your legs, feet, knees, back, shoulders, or neck. Super Wide Lace Up Boots: If slouchy super wide boots do not appeal to you then lace up boots are another option. Lace up super wide boots that come up to the calves or are kneehigh, are very much in vogue and they are very versatile too. The lace up wide calf boots are of two varieties, the frontlace type or the sidelace type. |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00000-000 | animal testing | My opponent hasn't responded to any arguments. I extend all arguments. xxhellogoodbyexx I had a great time debating with you. Thank you for making this debate possible. |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00001-000 | animal testing | no further arguments..... thank you opponent for your participation. I still believe there should be a better alternative to animal testing and hope we solve soon into the future.... thank you! Thank you, best regards! |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00002-000 | animal testing | The excuse does not revolve on capacity to consume. It deals with the human values we believe are fundamental to mankind. We are more important. Selfish as it seems, a human's collective thinking would contradict. Would you seriously consider killing a man before killing a chicken? This is why it is legal to kill an animal for eating. It is not, however, legal for someone to kill a human, especially for cannibalism (crime against humanity). It is undebatable that human nature leads us to believe that we are more important than any other animal. Why so? That is irrelevant to the resolution. It is only used for comparison. On the other hand, with my opponent's logic a person should die in place for a chicken. That said, I would like to add that I believe cruel treatment of animals is wrong. However, my opponents alternative is clearly contradictory to most beliefs. If a couple of chickens have to die in order to create a cure for cancer, so be it. I extend all my arguments made in the previous round. I have voided all rebuttals and await any further argument in round 3. |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00003-000 | animal testing | Why is it so impractical for humans to endure this? what makes them so different than animals? why are animals more greater and more important than animals, they are larger and consume more? that i believe is no excuse. we basically already test the products ourselves. Would you look at a bottle of body lotion, body soap, makeup and say iam going to put it in my mouth..... probally not... so why would you force down someone else's throat. If you think its alright and just natural to do so..... we should shove you in cages and shove tubes down your throat, force foreign objects down your throat and beat you senslessly. And you still have the heart to say thats okay? |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00004-000 | animal testing | Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings. |
573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00005-000 | animal testing | Why should animals have to suffer for our society to make medicines and makeup for humans. just because they dont have a voice to speak, makes them an easy target to take advantage of for their own uses. Its very selfish and unnesscary. Why dont we make people get tested on these prodcuts, what makes animals the target for being abused in such unbelievable ways. What makes animals different then humans? every year 100 millon animals are killed just so your hair stays in place? |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00000-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | Sometimes I like to dress up in women's clothing and eat turkey. |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00001-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | 1) "the concepts of "Will anybody be lucky enough to have 2 or more prom dates and look like hes pimping? ," "getting laid," and "dropping a baby eight months later" don't seem like very gender-equal principles. "I can see why girls completely degrading a man for dropping a baby eight months later might not be gener equality, but that happens to women to so your argument is invalid"This doesn't really correspond with the actual concept of a prom. This is more like the parody of a prom"Things to do for Prom in real life,- 1) Ask people to go to it- 2) Talk to other people about Prom- 3) Reminisce about it a week laterThings to do at a DDO Prom- 1) Ask people to go to it- 2) Talk to other people about it- 3) Reminisce about it a week laterThey are pretty much the same concept. .. . "33% of DDO is anti-gay marriage, so this would not be the most gay-friendly event. "If advocates against gay marriage are mad about two guys hooking up to go to a made up prom on a debate website then they need to get friends or a life or something. .. ..2) "many DDO members are beyond high school (and prom) age. "Almost half of DDO is near Prom age. http://www.debate.org... "This prom idea excludes many important members of the DDO community who are married or whose partners are not interested in joining them in a virtual prom. "If your pissed off that youre too old to go to a made up prom on a debate website then you need to get friends and not be allowed on the internet. .. .. . "I'm posing the idea that this would make younger DDO users more vulnerable to predatory attacks by pedophiles "Sounds like something a PEDOPHILE WOULD SAYThis wont cause a pedophile attack because there arent going to be pictures posted or date rape drugs or acid in the punch, its - just - a - gag - for - people - to - do - on - the - forums. 3) "I don't know if this prom thing would even catch on, so I wouldn't emphasize the gossip argument too much. And if the event fails, then the gossip will simply be negative"People are already making threads about it and in the comments section of this debate people are thinking this would be fun. .. .. http://www.debate.org...^ BOOM, 110 COMMENTS AND COUNTING4) "So basically it consists of baseless voting from anyone on DDO who chooses to vote? " I see what you mean in that youre complaining that people who vote dont have to give a well thought out reason explaining their vote. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . How is the president of DDO elected again? Just submitting your vote and thats it? Yeah I dont think that baseless voting would be that controversial on a site that uses baseless voting to select a leader. .. ..5) The argument about Prom mafia has been dropped 6) "From what I see, this whole idea would be forum-based. .. "THE WHOLE THING WILL BE FORUM BASED YOU DING-DONG! !! !! !! !! !Ok let me summarize my points. Prom on DDO isnt going to involve actually meeting people in real life, it is only going to be on the forums, it will just be a community activity for people to gossip and chat about, and will be harmless. People ask people to Prom and thats about as serious as it will ever get, from there you simply announce who your prom date is and participate in all the prom games and gossip that comes with the event. Older people can stay out of it, People dont have to go, its all for fun. |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00002-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | 1) I don't think that a prom that you explain will not be taken seriously later in your argument will help the cause of improving DDO members' views on females. Moreover, the concepts of "Will anybody be lucky enough to have 2 or more prom dates and look like hes pimping?," "getting laid," and "dropping a baby eight months later" don't seem like very gender-equal principles. The opponent states, "Prom on DDO isnt supposed to be as serious as the one on real life, its supposed to be a fun hook up game." This doesn't really correspond with the actual concept of a prom. This is more like the parody of a prom, which is not addressed in the resolution or in the initial argument. Guys will hook up with guys, and then the anti-gay marriage people will be offended and violence will ensue. Let us remember that 33% of DDO is anti-gay marriage [1], so this would not be the most gay-friendly event. 2) Regardless of how they act, many DDO members are beyond high school (and prom) age. Take RoyLatham for example [2]; he is married and probably has no interest in finding a date for an online prom. This prom idea excludes many important members of the DDO community who are married or whose partners are not interested in joining them in a virtual prom. And I'm posing the idea that this would make younger DDO users more vulnerable to predatory attacks by pedophiles who lurk all over the internet, including DDO. 3) I don't know if this prom thing would even catch on, so I wouldn't emphasize the gossip argument too much. And if the event fails, then the gossip will simply be negative (i.e., how moronic imabench is for coming up with this concept.) 4) ...What? So basically it consists of baseless voting from anyone on DDO who chooses to vote? This has nothing to do with the traditional concept of Prom King and Prom Queen, which actually typically involves votes from people who actually know them. 5) Well, that really has little to do with the actual concept of "prom," but all right, then. 6) "Hook up" with anonymous people on an online debate site? What would that even entail? Where would the gossip arise from, by the way? From what I see, this whole idea would be forum-based... ... So, uh, in conclusion... Um, in conclusion... Why the **** am I debating this? ... [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00003-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | 1) Respect towards women"There is no indication that girls are not treated well by guys right now"RoyalPaladin and Rogue both briefly left the website because of how sh*tty guys (one in particular who shall for the sake of this debate remain anonymous) treated them. Also look at the treatment that Gabbie222 got from guys on this site who trolled the hell out of her when she spammed a couple debates. Girls are treated poorly in some cases and a DDO prom might help them be respected more on DDO. "The anonymity offered by the internet allows for people to not take this "prom" thing as seriously as they would in real life"Prom on DDO isnt supposed to be as serious as the one on real life, its supposed to be a fun hook up game that everyone does for maybe a few days or so, then they announce who their prom "date" is, a couple of other Prom things are done and then thats the end of it. A DDO Prom would basically be a little populatiry stunt done once a year like Gender Change Week, Avatar Week, or something like that. DDO Prom is designed to be more like a 1 week fad then a serious thing. "it will be likely that many guys will be left without prom dates and therefore be vengeful, leading to a number of prom-crashing attempts"1) And wouldnt that be funny as sh*t?2) Guys can hook up with guys if they want......3) You wont get chastized very bad for not having a Prom Date on DDO......2) Guys need this"Many of the males on here have already completed high school"And many of them act like they are still in Middle School, and I proudly can say I am one of those people depending on what I am debating (See Poop has DNA Debate)"Having adolescent males staying in contact with people who state that they are males on this website is not a good idea."Well im against online gay pornography rings too but the DDO Prom wouldnt be in real life it would just be on the forums where everyone posts who their date is and what they do during the prom and stuff like that.....3) The Gossip"The opponent hasn't proven whether or not the gossip would benefit DDO or not"DDO sure lights up everytime somebody gossips about something. Look at any trial or any case where one person accuses another of cheating, votebombing, voting unfairly, yatta yatta yatta and people eat it up. This gossip though would be harmless since its just a bunch of people having fake hookups....4) Prom King + Queen"What would be the criteria to vote for Prom King and Prom Queen?"It could be the cutest couple, the surprise couple, the weirdest couple, its a popularity contest and the winners are just chosen by voters who vote for any couple for any reason. 5) Prom Mafia"This argument would just shows that a prom, in general, can have fun things going on during it. It is not germane to the resolution"DDO Prom would be 1/2 anouncing who is with who on one forum and then 1/2 fun prom action stuff in the game forum with other things sprinkled in. 6) How would it even work?Prom will be held on 1 week every year, and it would be the same week each time. In the time leading up to it people would "hook up" with others online and then when the time comes simply announce who their prom date would be. Then as the week progresses Prom activities and games are done as people discuss who hooked up with who, who got stood up, and gossip while a host of Prom games are held in the game forum which will be based loosely off of other mafia style games. At the end of the week a contest will be held to determine the Prom King and Queen, along with a few other awards for other things, and then after that Prom ends, the site goes back to normal, gossip dies down, and in the end everyone becomes a little more friendly with each other in this website that over time has already grown into its own warped definition of a community. The next year at the same time the same thing happens again and a few tweaks are made to fix problems seen last year, etc etcThat is how Prom would work on DDO :) |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00004-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | 1) There is no indication that girls are not treated well by guys right now. And it is not plausible that a virtual prom would lead to a strong increase in conduct; in fact, I think trolling would spike. The anonymity offered by the internet allows for people to not take this "prom" thing as seriously as they would in real life. On the point that "the number of guys on this site heavily outnumbers the number of girls," it will be likely that many guys will be left without prom dates and therefore be vengeful, leading to a number of prom-crashing attempts; hence, the opponent's theory that there would be an upswing in conduct is nullified. 2) Many of the males on here have already completed high school, but for those that have not, it would be risky for them to attempt to contact "prom dates" on this site, which consists of many anonymous members whose true backgrounds are unknown to us. Having adolescent males staying in contact with people who state that they are males on this website is not a good idea. 3) The opponent hasn't proven whether or not the gossip would benefit DDO or not. Moreover, the whole "acid in the punch" and "getting laid" stuff seems to be a little.... Uh, how would this prom even work? 4) What would be the criteria to vote for Prom King and Prom Queen? It would most likely just be based on debates, because that's how most of the people on here know each other... So what is the use of incorporating the "prom" concept in their names? 5) This argument would just shows that a prom, in general, can have fun things going on during it. It is not germane to the resolution (whether or not DDO should have a prom.) --- 6) Feasibility: How would this happen? I kindly ask the opponent to define "prom" in a context that would suit what he is trying to argue. |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00005-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | Very Well then, reasons that DDO should have a Prom 1) It will make everyone more sociable and appreciative towards the females on DDO. It is a well known fact that the number of guys on this site heavily outnumbers the number of girls on here (at a rate of 2:1). If DDO had a prom then guys on DDO would in theory become more sociable and act more gentlemen-like towards women on DDO. Such a spike in conduct here on DDO among its members would also be welcomed to offset the usual amount of d*ckish behavior one normally sees between members in the forums and debates. 2) Guys need this Lets face it, people who spend a disproportionate amount of time on DDO most likely do not have as much luck with the ladies as they would like. A prom on DDO though allows those men to exercise their age old pickup lines, learn how to talk to women, and learn how to get the courage to ask a girl to prom, something that could benefit them later in life when their actual high school Prom comes around. 3) The gossip This is the biggest part about why there should be a prom in my opinion.... All the gossip that would be started once it was realized who showed up with the prom to who, it would be awesome! Does inferno get a date? Who is lucky enough to show up with Danielle as a date? Who does Royalpaladin choose to go with? If Jimtimmy gets a prom date then HOW THE HELL did he pull that off? Who was lucky enough to show up with Rogue or Mirza? Who will Thaddeus and FREEDO ask to Prom? Who will Innomen go to Prom with? Will anybody be lucky enough to have 2 or more prom dates and look like hes pimping? Does somebody have a prom-night-dumpster-baby? Who tries to put acid in the punch? Who wakes up the next morning with a guy she doesnt know? Who gets laid that very night? Who drops a baby 8 months later? The gossip it would cause would diffuse all of the usual feuds we see going on in the forums, allow everyone to cool off, and have a bit of fun just gossiping over stuff. 4) Prom King and Queen This would be the biggest election on DDO next to the presidential election of DDO, Prom King and Queen would hold their title for an entire year (longer than the president would hold his) So if prom were to be held on DDO then a great honor would be given to the winning couple, and a tradition could form out of it, giving DDO some swagger and class. 5) Prom Mafia Yes you heard me right, Prom mafia. A game where everyone makes strategic moves against one another at Prom for personal reasons. During such a game one may "accidentally" spill their drink on someone they dont like, change the song midway through the dance, hit on somebody else's prom date in an effort to try to catch them all (Pokemon!), or even to start dropping it like its hot and showing off some wicked dance moves. Such a thing would make Prom way more fun both for those who socialize on here and for those really into the gaming culture here on DDO. Those I believe are sufficient reasons to have a DDO Prom.... |
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00006-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | DDO shouldn't have a prom. Let's see your arguments. |