_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
2fac60ff-2019-04-18T18:24:01Z-00007-000 | Debate.org should have a Prom | I will argue that Debate.Org should have a Prom, Con will argue that DDO should not have a Prom4 rounds, 4000 characters |
493ddd5-2019-04-18T19:22:25Z-00000-000 | There should be a World Cup for American Football | This debate is nulled since there IS a Football World Cup. My opponent stated " we should be debating if this would cup 'should' exist". Well it does, there's no debating that. Cancel the debate and reword the topic so there is something to actually debate. VOTE.....Nothing; in fact don't vote at all. |
493ddd5-2019-04-18T19:22:25Z-00001-000 | There should be a World Cup for American Football | Extend second post; all went dropped by my opponent. For voting, most look at the fact the the current World Cup has produced close games, their are 50 countries with intrest in the sport and over 20 fielding teams. The only exception is media perception in the US is that other countries don't want to play, but that's not a reason that Football shouldn't have a world cup. The Current World Cups have been successful, and the Junior world cup currently be held in Dayton, Ohio is having huge success. Vote Pro. I guess that's it.....I was kind of hoping this debate would be more lively, but o'well. Thanks anyway to my opponent for excepting this debate. |
493ddd5-2019-04-18T19:22:25Z-00002-000 | There should be a World Cup for American Football | Ok, so there is a football world; though noone in the US has ever heard of it. For the sake of debate, we should be debating if this would cup 'should' exist, or the con would say that its useless. My oppenents, and everyone's for that matter, is that no other countries beside the US would be interested in playing, however (http://www.ifaf.info...), "American football is a fascinating sport and its popularity has grown in more than 50 countries on six continents. American football began in the United States, but the sport has generated fans in other countries as diverse as Australia, South Korea and Finland." Football ball is being played all over the world, by all kinds of people, in all kinds of countries. A championship to highlight each countries skills wouldn't be bad, it would be great because the game would gain exposure. The whole problem we have in America is that we assume that noone else plays this game so we fear even trying to expose it. IF we just expose the game more and more people will play it. My opponents other argument revolved around saying that, even though we have a world cup it is not 'exiciting' enough. Well, ok, first of all you didn't look at all the score: The Championship game saw the US winning in double overtime against Japan 23-20 (http://wc2007.info...), and all of the games except the prelims involving Japan and the US (Where they both won there two prelims games handily) the other games remained very competive, especially the 3rd/4th place game and the 5th/6th place game which was 7-0 and 3-0 respectivly. Anyway, Americans don't care if the game is close, hell they encourage a blow out, as long as its for the Red, White, and Blue. Look at the Olympics, the 'Reedem Team' (Named so because the US actually lost a basketball game in the Olympics and World Championships and didn't walk away with a gold) walk away from Bejing with an 8-0 record, a gold medal, and a 21.5+ Scoring Margin. No game was close, even against Spain and Argentina (Ranked the highest in the world) the US still won by 11 and 20 points respectivly. After not being tested in the Olympics, the Redeem Team returned home as hereos for restoring honor to the US by winning their sport. A football World Cup would be no different, at least not for a long time. If IFAF would just simply market they're product then people all across the US would openly watch and watch enthusiastically. No in the heat of June/July is going to turn away from Team USA playing a football game no matter how lopsided it is because 1) Its they're country 2) They haven't seen anthing but a few spring football games in six months. Once we convince Americans, I don't think we'll have to do to much to convince the rest of the world http://en.wikipedia.org...) For the "2007 [World Cup] the total number of teams in the competition exceeded 20 countries" including qualifications. If you already have 20 countries activly participating, and 50 countries showing interest in the sport, the competion is only sure to grow. They're is plenty of competition out their for the US, we just have to be willing to accept it. Quiet Simply, all America has to do is embrace the World Cup that already exists and then the Sport will propel into a new era of international football. With the biggest proponent of Football behind it, the World Cup would be able to expand and grow just like soccer has untill it truely an honorable international championship. |
493ddd5-2019-04-18T19:22:25Z-00003-000 | There should be a World Cup for American Football | World Cup of American Football? There is one... It's called the IFAF http://en.wikipedia.org..., and just like the soccer world cup is held every 4 years. There has been 3 so far and America participated in the last one, and predictably won it. Surprise! We sent over 3rd and 4th rate players to play against foreigners. The results were a joke. Here are some highlights: America 77-0 over South Korea and 33-7 over Germany. http://wc2007.info... It's no wonder my opponent has not heard about it. It sucks. The games are blowouts, not exiting, and quite frankly no one cares. There just isn't enough demand for American football when soccer is so popular over the world; it's embedded and people's culture and serves are a symbol of a nation's pride. It's for the same reasons soccer has failed in America that football fails over seas. There is no reason for it when other nations have soccer and we have football. We all go home happy with our own sport. |
493ddd5-2019-04-18T19:22:25Z-00004-000 | There should be a World Cup for American Football | The world is changing. With faster communication, satellite television, and air travel. Any one anywhere can communicate with people all over the world about sports, watch sporting events from all over the world, and even fly to any sporting event anywhere in the world. The ultimate winner from this has been the World Cup of Soccer (To simplify this debate I will use Soccer for the international game of Futball and Football for the American game of football.) What happens there? Countries send teams from all over the world, that spend the two leading up years trying to qualify, to the world's biggest stage, with the game's biggest stars, competing in a tournament with team as well as national pride on the line. FIFA (The international soccer organization) rakes in the money on their ideal invention, Qualify countries rake in money and international exposure and pride for winning. The world stands still and the entire sports world turns to one event that is seen all over the world. In America, we have long dis-enfranchised soccer, we set out to make a new and better sport: We call it football. And to America's credit, we have certainly embraced the sport. Developing it to a level of local pride and power that no use leagues or even our own US national teams can compete with: The NFL. The world stands still for soccer, America football. The problem with the American dream to create a sport to compete with soccer is that they actually have to compete with it not hide in their own corner and pout. Football, like soccer, has to become an international sport, contended on a world level, that does not limit its to the confines of the US. The will to play the sport is constently expanding, the sport itself is perhaps even expanding faster then American perception. The fear is that if we let other people play our sport, they might get better at it then us. Though the US may not be able to keep its dominance in the sport forever, like in Basketball, a little competition isn't that bad is it? What I'm proposing is a World Cup, or International competition of Football, where teams from around the world send national teams to advance the game to its highest level. The Format of the Cup would depend on the number of teams participating, obviously if to many want to participate then the issue would arise for regional qualifying and such, but the simple truth remains the need exists. The goal and orginal purpose of Football was to contend with soccer, and the only way to do that is to take the competition inter-national. The main American resent is that no one else plays, so why bother? If you build it, they will come. http://pointme.to... Illustrates numerous international Football sites and leagues (though some outdated) which Play Football. The obvious initial entries would be the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britian, Germany, Japan, and China. Several other European countries show interest, and small countries would probally jump in at least at first just to fill numbers and get international exposure. Yes, it is true the competition could get lopsided if NFL plays all go in on the side of the US, but playing gap would thin out and competition would increase. Even international Soccer competition outside of the upper crust is extremely titled to the bigger teams who's talent alone allow them to crush their opponents. Though constents blow outs wouldn't be fun, some games would be close. If not necessarily the US's games, the other competition would be on the same field. International Basketball has grown even with the US as a dominating leader in the sport really unbeaten when they try, however through time and exposure of the game, the sport has been able to grow in ways previously unimaginable. http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com... The sportsbusiness Journal reports the NFL in 9 Billion dollars in debt, that was over a year ago so no it probally a lot more. The NFL despite its huge popularity and selling out its games is running a defecit due to the few amount of games played and the large stadiums they build and then allow to sit empty most of the year. Cities could bid on having the world cup of football and thus bring in money, and if the NFL was smart they could create the world cup and thus add to their revenues with very little actual cost out put because the Stadiums are already built so just play in one of them. The World Cup could even be played in the Spring/Summer to give football fans, going through off-season withdrawl, the abiality to see new live football action with some of their favorite stars. The enjoyment of the Nation watching the redeem team this year capture the gold in Beijing could be seen on a football field. The Cup could be stage ever 2 or four years, but probally 2 since they won't add it as an Olympic sport. Having international games in the off-season would allow fans to get tastes football all year round, and also promote international fans with a taste of the NFL drawing in more viewers and potential markets for the NFL to dive into. A Football World Cup would be very profitable to anyone who hosted, I mean if Colleges can bring in 60,000 for their spring games (which are inter-squad), I think a little real competition would go over with the public quiet well. The Purpuse of football was to compete with the world, and untill they do that its purpose will not be achieved. |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00004-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | Challenge Accepted! |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00005-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | My proposed debate is based on the social paradigm that women shouldn't indulge in casual or frecuent sex, and those who do be frowned upon by society. I will be arguing CON, which means I will defend women having the right to practice sex freely without being discriminated or condenmed. |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00000-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | I have no response for my opponents argument. points to con for his outstanding rebuttal. |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00001-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | My opponent stated:"Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. ""Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. "I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding the terminology. The point of sex-education is not abstinence. The point of sex education is to reduce risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity. What my opponent is referring to is called abstinence-only sexual education, an obsolete approach that focuses solely on abstinence as a tool to fight unhealthy sex practices. What I am proposing is called comprehensive sex education, which also adds the options of contraceptives, safe sex and non vaginal sex practices. Of course, at first glance, abstinence seems like the better choice, for it is a 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Nevertheless, it has been proven to be very inefficient as an approach to sex education: Abstinence-only sex education has been found to be ineffective in decreasing the HIV risk in the developed world. [1] Abstinence-only sex education has also been found to increase unplanned pregnancy. [2] The concept of no premarital sex is evidently flawed, for it completely neglects the issues for individuals to whom marriage is not valued or desired, not to mention those for whom it's not allowed (specifically LGBT). It distorts information, revealing only the failure rates of contraceptives and not their high success rates and benefits. [3] The whole approach is focused on a compulsory dogma of chastity, rather than an informed decision taking methodology, unsuitable with our free thinking society. Why should abstinence be regarded as the one and only way to prevent sex related problems? Why not tell teenagers that the average condom has a 98% success rate when used correctly, or that the contraceptive pill has a 99.7% success rate? [4] Why should they be discouraged from practicing non vaginal sexual activities such as anal sex, mutual masturbation or oral sex? If there are efficient ways to practice sex with relative safety, the social paradigm is pointless. The truth is that "slut shaming" is not a matter of public health as much as it is a matter of sexism and socio-religious principle. My opponent claims:"The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. "My case is not against prevention. It all depends on how the advise is presented. Of course women should not get in strangers' cars or accept beverages handed to them by unknowns. We must accept the fact that sick individuals exist, and they should be handled as the threat they are. We must raise consciousness the same way we would advert a kid against a pedophile. What I find offensive is when females are told they shouldn't dress in a particular way, or that they should build up an image of chastity for themselves in order to reduce the risk of rape. This is almost like endorsing the animalistic instincts of some degenerates, treating them as poor souls tempted by desire instead of the degenerate criminals they are. As to my opponent's arguments, they all derive from pregnancy and STD's, let us go deeper: Undesired Pregnancy. I share my opponent's opinion on the disadvantages of this issue. However, I don't see how it's a valid reason to indulge in hatred and discrimination of promiscuous women. As it's already been discussed, there are ways to live an active safe life and avoid pregnancy. It is absurd to condemn someone over the mere possibility of pregnancy. Why should a girl who has successfully avoided pregnancy by the correct use of contraceptives be victim of bigotry in the hands of society? It is not fair. Similarly, there are women who accept the responsibility of their mistakes, and become caring and loving mothers. These brave women shouldn't fall under the judgemental eye of society either. A group can never, ever be judged based on the behavior of some of its individuals, this means all promiscuous females should not be judged on the behalf of their irresponsible peers. So, instead of judging promiscuity, society should put the pressure over irresponsibility. In other words, as long as the woman is not causing the social damages of giving birth to an unwanted child and neglecting him or her, she has no reason to be criticised. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. This is even less of a reason to endorse "slut shaming". Again, people who are promiscuous but have taken measures to remain clean have no reason to be frowned upon. Assuming people received the appropriate sex education my case is arguing for, there should be no doubts concerning the risks of sexual acts. If one party decides to engage in a sex act with another party, he or she does it in full understanding of the risk that implies getting infected. Contrarily, if a person unknowingly contracts a disease it is not a problem of promiscuity but of sexual ignorance. Finally, I will address the portion of the debate where my opponent argues promiscuity is a cause of rape, and should therefore be rejected. Let me reduce this un-cited argument with an example. It is known that middle and high class citizens are more likely to be targeted by kidnappers. Do we ask them to stop earning money? Do we judge them for having large amounts of money? No, it would be illogical, they make money because they obtain pleasure from it. The same applies to our issue: women should be careful, the same way affluent individuals take safety measures to prevent kidnapping, but they should not be told to give up an active sex life just to prevent rape. Moreover, this debate is not about promiscuity being right or wrong, or about the pros and cons of abstinence versus promiscuity. This debate is about women having a right to practice sex freely, without being discriminated. It needs to be understood that the mere fact of having frequent and casual sex has no immoral value on its own. It's an issue of the tolerance and acceptance (not necessarily approval) that these women deserve. Sources:[1] Underhill, K; Operario, D, Montgomery, P (2007 Oct 17). Operario, Don. ed. "Abstinence-only programs for HIVinfection prevention in high-income countries"[2] Kohler, Pamela; Lafferty, William (2008 Apr). "Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy". Journal of Adolescent Health[3] Effective Sex Education, Brigid McKeon, 2006[4] "Planned Parenthood IUD Birth Control" - Mirena IUD |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00002-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | My opponent… “The declaration grants every human being, including women, the right to live a sex life as they desire, as long as it does not violate other people's rights.” Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. “Virgin praising is yet another factor that contributes to this culture. It is usually desirable for a woman to be a virgin, and virgins are well seen by society.” Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. “Girls should not be taught to be chaste and careful just to avoid rape, instead, men should be thought rape is as unthinkable as cannibalism, and not justified in any way by a girl’s appearance or behavior.” The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. My arguments First of all I would like to clarify that promiscuity in both males and females is wrong but for the sake of this debate I will argue how and why it is wrong in females. Unexpected Pregnancy One major social issue our society deals with is abortion. While some are pro-life and some are pro-choice I think it is clear we can all agree that abortion should be at least the last resort. The most effective way to prevent abortions is not getting pregnant and the most effective way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Effects of Unexpected Pregnancy The majority of the women who get pregnant before they are married will not end up getting married. This of course leads a huge burden on the mother having to deal with. According to the U.S Census Bureau %27.3 of single parents live in poverty. Also, the effects of children growing up without a parent can be drastic… Drinking problems.Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households Suicidal Tendencies.In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families. Disturbing news:Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem. Expelled:Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents. College odds:Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families. Criminal Behavior:The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way. As you can see promiscuity can lead to unwanted pregnancy which leads on to abortions and fatherless kids which carries out to more drastic measures such as the statistics mentioned above. Spread of STD’s Another result from promiscuity is the spread of STD’s. Often enough promiscuous women having unprotected sex will contract an STD. The woman could have it without knowing which is putting potential future partners at risk. Sad but true... A woman who is sexually promiscuous is more likely to be raped then a woman who is not. I am not saying that all rape victims are promiscuous or victim blaming in any way but a woman who dresses sexually provocative is more likely to be targeted by a rapist. Although it is not the victims fault in any way, women should make sure to be away and use protective measures to reduce the chance of falling victim to predators. I have proved that promiscuity leads to terrible things such as unexpected pregnancy, STD’s, and even rape. It is obvious that in today’s society men and women are held at double standards but I feel it is fair to say promiscuity is harmful regardless of your gender. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal :) http://www.policymic.com... http://www.photius.com... |
939a10f1-2019-04-18T17:47:16Z-00003-000 | It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous | Thank you for accepting my challenge, I hope it's an enlightening debate.To clarify what i am debating against, I will introduce an unofficial but popular term that describes my case perfectly: "Slut shaming" is defined as the act of making a woman feel guilty or inferior for engaging in sexual behaviors that violate traditional expectations. [1] Observe:In its declaration of sexual rights, the World Health Organization (the public health branch of the United Nations) states:Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:the highest attainable standard of health in relation to sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality;sexuality education;respect for bodily integrity;choice of partner;decide to be sexually active or not;consensual sexual relations;consensual marriage;decide whether or not, and when to have children; andpursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life. [2].Let us examine some particular points, like "right to decide to be sexually active or not", "right to consensual sexual relations", and the "right to pursue a satisfying safe and pleasurable sexual life". The declaration grants every human being, including women, the right to live a sex life as they desire, as long as it does not violate other people's rights. This means that if a woman finds it sexually satifying and pleasurable to lead a promiscous life style, she should be allowed to do so without any form of discrimination or social disproval, for she is only excerting the sexual rights mentioned above.Please note that I am not advocating for a society that encourages promiscuity, less one that promotes unprotected sex or other unsafe sexual practices. I am in favor of sex education (in fact, the delcaration states that as a right). My debate only rises from the common conception that a promiscuity in women is something rejectable and that deserves social criticism (whereas promiscuity in men is usually admired and even encouraged.) Virgin praising is yet another factor that contributes to this culture. It is usually desirable for a woman to be a virgin, and virgins are well seen by society. Why should a woman who choses to have sex automatically be relegated to a lower social category? Why should sexually active men prefer virgins over sexually active women? It is unfair, and should not be accepted under any circumstance.This phenomenum causes many social illnesses, like rape culture, victim blaming, sexual bullying and objectification, based on the belief that a woman who choses to live an active sex life is not worthy of respect, and just represents a source of pleasure for men. Not only are women judged on their sex lives, but also on the clothes they wear, the places they visit, or the partners they engage with. This constitutes an essential violation of human rights, for no person should be discrimintaed on the basis of gender [3]. Women should be allowed to chose how they dress, what places to visit and how many times they have sex without being frowned upon or objectified. Girls should not be taught to be chaste and careful just to avoid rape, instead, men should be thought rape is as unthinkable as cannibalism, and not justified in any way by a girls appearence or behavior. Women should not be told to dress conservative in order to "get respect", respect should be inherent, and men should be expected to respect any woman, regardless of her looks.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.un.org...[3] http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com... |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00000-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | What you're arguing about is completely off what the title suggests 'Both Christianity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals' means that the ideology that the person follows encourages the follower to torture animals, and be excessively cruel towards them. Thus far, all you've proven is how many farms are owned by Christians / Muslims, and statistics shown about how much meat is consumed by people who follow Christianity / Islam. You haven't proven how each ideology promotes excessive amounts of cruelty to animals, you've only shown how much meat is eaten and how many farms are owned by people who follow each religion. There has been no evidence about the Bible or the Quran, no criticism of the ideology, and nothing about excessive cruelty. You've only criticized the people, of the religion and not the religion itself. Needless to say, your statements have only been promoting veganism, and only proves about the excessive amount of meat eaten, which is an entirely different topic from this, and not a single word about how each religion promotes animal cruelty. Christians work in factories + Factories are cruel to animals = Christianity promotes cruelty. This is your logic and reasoning behind it as far as I can tell, which only adresses the people, but not the ideology. You also mentioned how the factory farming industry is cruel. Yet, this doesn't equate at all to how Christianity or Islam promotes excessive cruelty towards animals, and have strayed completely off topic. You said that referring to the text for each religion would result in bias. That means that you haven't argued the topic AT ALL. For the part about turning Christians into vegetarians / vegans, you're doing nothing more than forcing your own ideals onto other people, which obviously doesn't work, and losing your faith over such a thing. Like how people complain about Christians shoving Christianity down their throats, you have been doing the same with veganism. In summary, throughout this entire debate, you haven't argued the point at all. I would be willing to continue this, but if we are going to, please change the title to something more appropriate and fitting for what you've argued thus far. Thanks for debating. |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00001-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | "or any real life cases about the topic related to Christianity." I've talked about factory farming in r1. It is well known that Christianity is around 70% in the USA and factory farming is rampant the USA. [3]99% of animals are raised on factory farms in the USA. [4] The majority of USA citizens are Christian. 99% of animals raised in the USA are from factory farms. Factory farming is infamous for its terrible cruelty. Therefore there is a strong positive relationship between Christianity and factory farming. I can only come to the conclusion that Christianity causes animal cruelty. As for other religions, this may also be true, but is a red herring. If religion x causes cruelty to animals, this won't change the fact that Christianity causes cruelty to animals. As for judging a religion by its religious texts, I've already gone over this in this debate any many others. Religious texts have many contradictory passages. Since people are self motivated they often select the passage that benefits them the most, using conformation bias to ignore the contradictory passage. "Gee, God says animals don't have souls, gave us souls, gave us dominion over animals, Jesus ate fish, and Jesus said it was moral to eat meat." Completely overlooking the anti-cruelty passages. If I had to point to one event that turned me from a Christian to an agnostic it is this.Nevermind that the body is a temple of the holy spirit. That if you defile your body God will destroy you. Oh no, Jesus ate one fish so then we can rationalize every single misdeed we perform to animals based upon this. I just found it was impossible to convince Christians to turn vegetarian. I honestly lost my faith arguing vegan issues with Christians on this debate site. I couldn't help but see my opponent's as heartless, ruthless, merciless, self interested, ignorant, self destructive, and just plain old evil. Thanks for debating. Sources3. http://www.answers.com...4. http://www.aspca.org... |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00002-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | I fully know what you are trying to say, that to this day, christians and muslims are putting animal sacrifices into practice though it has been abolished for centuries. This may be the case for Islam, but what about Christianity? In your example, you didn't give any direct quotes from the bible, or any real life cases about the topic related to Christianity. The bible doesn't encourage EXCESSIVE cruelty to animals, it says to end them quickly. And animal sacrifices for Christianity have been long put out of practice, by the bible itself. And your comment on looking at the actions of people rather than the belief. Since in the title you are criticizing the ideology (christian / Islam) rather than the people (christian / muslim), the statement made about looking at the people's actions is irrelevant, considering this is a conversation about an ideology, rather than the people. By the looks of what your statement said, a more fitting title would be 'Muslims encourage excessive cruelty towards animals'. |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00003-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | One problem with religions is that on many topics, including this topic, is the contradictory nature of religious texts. You can make point A and then complete opposite from a different passage in the same religious texts. Which then leads to confirmation bias. A reader will then pick which side of the topic to follow based upon his/her person agenda and bias. Therefore, we must judge how a religion treats animals based upon the actions of its followers. As already seen in r1, Christians an Muslims tend to treat animals horribly. Note this same train of thought could be made for violence. That religion x states in part A of its religious texts peace and part B war. That means a person following the religion will pick whatever benefits him/her the most. Finally, to really determine how a religion treats animals, we must compare the actions of followers of various religions. That way we can see how they stack up. Overall, Christianity and Islam treat animals much worse than Hinduism and Buddhism. Also, note many animal rights activist gravitate towards atheism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Which also shows that these religions have more respect for animals. Thanks for debating. |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00004-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | Though I am extremely anti - Islam (due to the fact they encourage violence to all non believers rather than just non - innocent people), I can't find evidence relating to how they are cruel to animals. There are an excessive amount of quotes from the Quran that disprove curelty towards animals, for example: "He who takes pity even on a sparrow and spares its life, God will be merciful to him on the Day of Judgement." " The Qur"an "A good deed done to an animal is as meritorious as a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as an act of cruelty to a human being." " The Prophet Muhammad: Hadith Same thing for Christianity, I cant find any quotes telling you to kill animals with no religious purpose. So for both religions (Keep in mind im anti islam), the mindless cruelty towards animals is not justified by either holy book. However, if you it is taken into context about killing an animal just for a sacrifice, I get where you're coming from. |
a5690da4-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00005-000 | Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals. | More and more I am seeing little use for either of these religions in modern day. Perhaps in a past era these ideas were necessary to survive. Yet, with no evidence of God I am beginning to question a religion who claims a supreme being created these morals, yet is very cruel to animals. I think it is well known about the Christian capitalistic factory farms. The old testament Kosher slaughtering of animals. That Christians can morally use animals for food, clothing, and experimentation. Yet, what about the newcomer to the western world? Is Islam any better? No, in many ways Islam is just as bad if not worse. I. Ritual slaughter"Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law. This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter." [0]II. Animal sacrificesThat's right, I think this would be hard for a western to swallow, Muslims perform animal sacrifices. "This year, Eid al-Adha will occur around November 16 (the precise date will be determined by lunar observations). At Eid, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sheep and goats will be sacrificed to celebrate the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, making the timing of the article particularly significant." [1]III. Discrimination against dogs. "Muslim countries, in particular, are rife with unimaginable cruelty toward animals. Walid Shoebat has been chronicling horrific cases of Muslim animal abuse. Below are two recent examples:#1: In Iran, government gets rid of stray dogs by injecting them with acid. Acid is chosen because it is the least expensive poison, but the method is cruel because it consigns the dog to a painful and slow death, as the acid slowly corrodes the dog’s guts." [2]This is heart breaking for anyone who loves animals. I find it disturbing that these two religions have so many followers in this modern world. Thanks for reading. 0. http://www.bbc.co.uk...1. http://www.animalliberationfront.com...2. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com... |
3c836432-2019-04-18T19:52:51Z-00000-000 | Conceding and voiding debates. | If a person already has arguments to offer or wishes to over them for posterity that should be that side's right rather than forcing me to forgo my rounds as well just for a "win" in my box. What if I was waiting until the last round to put the moralistic hammer down against my opponent. Should I actually be forced to let it get buried in comments. Just because my opponent gives up, doesn't mean I should give up my potential soap box. If I want to, go ahead and let me. Rather than post when my opponent has forgone his following rounds I could forgo mine and truncate the argument earlier. There is still value in your rounds outside the debate. I have had opponents quit out and still wanted to point out how my argument succeeds. I shouldn't be forced to give up my platform because you did... not unless I don't want to. |
3c836432-2019-04-18T19:52:51Z-00001-000 | Conceding and voiding debates. | Your suggestions are good, and I've already thought of them before. However, none of them address my main concern, which is to push a debate to voting status as soon as the debate has come to a standstill. Conceding the debate automatically registers it as a WIN on the opponent's part and nulls voting. Voting wouldn't be necessary in that case. If we followed your suggestion on forgoing the extra rounds, the opponent would get to give a response, but for what purpose? The debate is over. All it would do is delay the voting period, which as I have said before, has no use in a conceded debate anyway. Any additional comments should be made in the comment section. As for your recommendations that we forgo our responses to show the strength of our arguments, that seems like a tactic aimed at winning based on votes, which I am against. If we are to debate, we should win based on the validity and strength of our arguments, not necessarily on tricks to convince voters. Besides, your opponent, no matter how terrible, deserves a response. It's just plain courtesy. All in all, your suggestion to be able to "forego" rounds is just a slower version of my conceding or voiding debates. There's no reason to choose to forego rounds as opposed to conceding or voiding. You also recommended extending debate time to busy opponents. I find this to be a bad idea because we would have a floating debate making absolutely no progress. I find this to be a problem already. Currently, it would take 3 days per round to end a debate that has come to a standstill. Your suggestion would make it even longer. With my method, all you do is void the debate and start it again when your opponent isn't so busy. That way, no one's scores get hurt, there's no unnecessary voting, and we free forum space. Your final point about lengthening the number of rounds, I'm so-so about. While it seems good in theory, there really should be a limit. Debate is about putting your points forward as succinctly as possible, not who gets the last post or who's the most long-winded. Adding in extra rounds may be more enjoyable to debaters, but not to voters or spectators. And it definitely takes away from the integrity of debate. If we implement these ideas of yours, debates would definitely be longer, but not necessarily better. I'm trying to improve quality by trimming out the crappy debates (when one person leaves, when one person concedes, when one person just doesn't want to respond or can't respond, etc.) Your suggestions prioritize quantity over quality. Bad debates don't need to be longer, and good debates don't need to be dragged on forever. That would make them bad. |
3c836432-2019-04-18T19:52:51Z-00002-000 | Conceding and voiding debates. | You don't need to concede the debate or void the debate. You need to have the ability to change the stats on the debate while the debate is ongoing. I have had debates where they were too short, where there was still a large amount of on going debate to be had by both parties. As such, all you really need is the ability to forgo future rounds in the debate. Which would still allow the other side to make remarks about your debate. But, forgo the 3 day wait between rounds on your side. Secondly, there should be an option to change the number of debate rounds or increase the debate time. If one party isn't going to be around for a week, they can ask that they be given a week delay. If a debate is going better you can ask your opponent to expand the debate rounds. If your opponent seems to be around, you should be allowed to give your opponent more time unilaterally. I understand the need to concede a debate due to a changed position or because somebody picked out a major flaw in your argument. However, due to time constraints there should be simply better responses than concede or void debate. Further, you should be allowed to declare victory perhaps. What if I crush your argument in round one with such an overwhelming argument that to add to its force I choose to simply forgo all my future rounds? Boom, crushed that argument. I'm done. That wins. I'll forgo the rest of the argument here. I think that your view here is a bit narrow and that resigning and voiding debates due to time constraints would be excessive. You simply need to allow a person to choose a bit more about the time constraints. If my opponent wants to reply and posts such in the comments. I should be allowed to give him or her some additional time to for the argument. Or to allow additional rounds to be requested by both parties, or a truncation of rounds if the debate is settled. Further, what if I don't concede. What if I've won the argument and don't care to write that I've won. I should be able to forgo my future rounds without conceding or forfeiting. We don't need those features as there are better features to deal with the problem you are describing. |
3c836432-2019-04-18T19:52:51Z-00003-000 | Conceding and voiding debates. | I won't get too flowery with this opening statement. There are many instances where a person may start a debate and not be able to finish it. Schoolwork, family emergencies, etc. These can interfere with a debate. In addition, a person may have made a fatal error in judgment, or realized that an opponent's point cannot be countered. I believe that there should be two extra options: 1. Concede debate. This automatically takes you out of the debate. The benefit of this is that in a multi-round debate, if you find you cannot win, or want to concede for any other reason, you don't force the rest of the site to wait 3 days per round before they can vote. 2. Void debate This sends a request to the opponent to void the debate. In this case, there are no winners and the debate is deleted. Thus, a person cannot be voted for unfairly if the opponent has encountered some emergency. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00005-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | But I would argue it does. If the supernatural is either impossible or meaningless, it cannot exist. If it is impossible then it is impossible. But what does it mean to say "the supernatural exists" if one accepts it's meaningless? It means nothing. Thus as it means nothing the supernatural lacks any possibility of being true. Yes we have limits on our knowledge, but one would need unlimited knowledge to make an appeal to magic when confronted by seemingly inexplicable events. It is an argument stemming from our lack of knowledge. A reversal of the theist claim that I would need to be omniscient to rule out the supernatural. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00006-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Still, this did not rule out the possibility of supernatural existence. It just showed it was not possible to prove definitely. You said it yourself. We have limits to our knowledge. We can not rule out anything as impossible. We can say on is more likely, but not impossible. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00007-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Thank you for your response. If supernaturalism is only meaningful in the context of negating natural causes and it is impossible for us to know that natural causes have been negated. It follows that supernaturalism is impossible and therefore false. A theist could take the defence of stating that the supernatural is meaningless and therefore not even false, but whilst that may be open to the theist position it hardly seems to improve it. Apologies if that was not clear from the premises. Is it clear now or do you believe I have missed a step here? P1 is probably the premise to attack. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00008-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Well, congratulations on proving it is not meaningful. However, you didn't prove it was impossible. Just we have no way to detect it. You did not affirm the resolution. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00009-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | To rule in the supernatural, we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way: P1) Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes. P2) Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge. P3) Human knowledge is limited. C1) Supernaturalism is impossible. (from P1, P2 and P3) C2) Naturalism is an absolute. (from C1) P1) through P2) Human knowledge is limited. Naturalism and naturalistic causes are assumed in each and every example of human experience, through a process of induction and an appeal to the simplest possible explanation. Supernatural explanations are always more complex as they invoke mysterious, un-knowable, mystical agents. There is a 3 step approach we can consider: Step 1) if we see a potentially supernatural event we first question of the validity of the observation, equipment, method and approach. If this completely rules out a natural explanation we go to step 2) Step 2) we question as to whether a new area of science has opened up and look to establish repeatable observations, and assess them through an explanatory natural framework. If we can rule out this possibility we go to step 3) Step 3) we are left in a meaningless position because of we can only rule in a supernatural explanation, anything could be happening to our sense and reasoning and there is no way to determine truth To overturn this and rule in the supernatural, we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way: P1) Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes. P2) Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge. P3) Human knowledge is limited. C1) Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3) C2) Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4) |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00000-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | I thought that you meant meaningless as in it is impossible to prove, not that it is impossible. All Pro has done is prove that it is impossible to know if a cause was supernatural. How that translates into supernaturalism being impossible is a mystery. In fact, Pro's own reasoning is his own downfall. Since we don't know the cause, we can't rule out supernaturalism. Somehow, we are obliged to still say that naturalism has to be the answer. It may be the likely answer, but without proof either way, it remains a 50-50 chance. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00001-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Hi, Thanks for the debate. I refer you to your responses in Round 1 (R1) and Round 4 (R4). You appear to contradict yourself in stating: R1) "Well, congratulations on proving it is not meaningful. However, you didn't prove it was impossible...[snip]..."; then R4) "...[snip]...All we proved is that super-naturalism isn't a definitive cause. That doesn't show it's meaningless...[snip]..." To summarise the debate, I have tried to argue that the Supertnatural is impossible - because it is not possible for humans to ever know whether it applies. Humans are obliged to argue for naturalism as an absolute. The challenge presented in R1 - R3 was that one could argue that the argument only concludes the supernaturalism is meaningless, but still possible. I have to conclude that if the supernatural is meaningless, then in a sense it is in a worse position of being 'not even possible'. Thanks again for the exchange. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00002-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Wait, I think we have a confusion. All we proved is that super-naturalism isn't a definitive cause. That doesn't show it's meaningless. It is in the sense that it is an unproven answer, but not that it serves no purpose. |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00003-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Yes of course I see your point. But I struggle to make sense out of your analysis of this. Impossibility would presuppose a zero chance of being possible. Being possible would presuppose a likelihood. A likelihood would presuppose there being something with attributes to be likely. But, meaninglessness entails that the attributes of something are without meaning, they/it mean nothing. If something means nothing it has no attributes that make it ikely in the first place, if it has no likelihood it has no possibility, and is therefore impossible. I suppose a simpler rejoinder is what does it mean to say "the supernatural is meaningless, but still possible"? |
847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00004-000 | Supernaturalism is impossible. | Precisely since it stems from our ignorance is why it can't be disproven. If this debate was if I it was impossible that I am holding up four fingers, then you would lose. You need to prove 100% that it is impossible. You have yet to show that it is impossible. Meaningfulness has nothing to do with this debate. |
da224417-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00000-000 | Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified | My opponent has made no arguments. As Instigator and Pro he has the burden of proof. I have given six well-documented reasons why the legislation is not justified. The resolution therefore fails. |
da224417-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00001-000 | Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified | Sorry about the forfeit KFC |
da224417-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00002-000 | Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified | My opponent made no case and no rebuttal. The resolution is negated. |
da224417-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00003-000 | Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified | Pro picked a good topic, because cap and trade legislation is said to be next on Obama's agenda. It's a shame that Pro had nothing to say about the subject. Pro failed to define "justification" or to offer any proof that the legislation passed by the House meets any standard of justification. I will assume that "justified" means having "having benefits outweighing its costs." 1. The theory of global warming crisis is at this point proved largely invalid, so there is no climate justification. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, so that increased CO2 causes some global warming. The physics of carbon dioxide are such that doubling the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would produce about 1.5 degrees of temperature rise. That's comparable to past prosperous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was named for its greenery, and the Holocene Optimum, about 6000 years ago when civilizations rose in the Middle East. Global warming crisis theorists claim secondary effects in the atmosphere multiply the CO2 effect to crisis proportions, causing not just 1.5 degrees of warming, but 4.5 degrees of warming or more. The claim was based upon the warming that occurred from 1970 to 1995. Crisis theorists claimed that there was nothing else going on affecting climate: no solar effects, no volcanoes, no ocean cycles ... nothing except the rise in CO2. Therefore, they argued, there must be a multiplying effect for the CO2. The disproof is that even the UN now admits that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase. If there is nothing else going on, as crisis theorists continue to claim, why have the predictions failed? Clearly there *is* something going on that is at least as important as CO2 effects. In fact, it is probably a combination of several factors such as multiple ocean cycles adding, a lack of volcanic activity (that causes cooling), and lower cosmic ray activity (that provides cloud seeding). In addition, analysis of "natural experiments" where CO2 has increased locally shows that the effects of CO2 are as the physics predicts, and are not multiplied. http://www.junkscience.com... Also see the book "Chill" by Peter Taylor for a discussion of the recent science. 2. Let's assume for debate purposes that there is a CO2 crisis, and also that the legislation will work exactly as proposed, an extremely unlikely outcome. Even under those assumptions, computer models developed by the Government for the purpose of justifying the legislation show that the reduction in temperature rise would be only 0.05 C. http://gwswindle.blogspot.com... It is in the realm of a symbolic act to appease climate gods. If one believes in climate crisis, the right approach to fixing the problem lies in climate engineering. Climate engineering solutions could provide and actual cure, and do not pose all the international challenges and disastrous consequences posed by cap and trade. http://www.newscientist.com... 3. Cap and trade is not justified because it formalizes a system of payoffs. The system takes money from people who need to heat and cool their homes and from industries that provide jobs and gives it to a vast enforcement bureaucracy, to politicians who use it to dispense favors, and to middlemen who make a fortune trading the credits. Politicians control who suffers and who gets the riches. It has been tried in Europe, with widespread corruption the result. http://online.wsj.com... The system makes the middlemen trading credits rich. It the US, a prime trading beneficiary would be General Electric. http://thecommonconservative.com... GE has given huge support the Obama and the Democrats. They will be paid off handsomely for their support. The corruption is inherent. "The cap-and-trade system being touted on Capitol Hill would create a multibillion-dollar playground that would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost everything else they buy." http://www.usnews.com... 4. Cap-and-trade will have an insignificant effect on global CO2 emissions. Europe has had both cap and trade and subscription to the Kyoto Protocol. The US has neither, but the US emission history is better. "In recent years, despite all efforts following the Kyoto Summit, CO2 emissions have been rising more steeply in Europe than in the U.S.A. Like it or not, those are the hard facts." http://www.leonardo-energy.org... 5. Cap-and-trade causes industry to shift out of the developed world into the lesser developed countries, so even the tiny reductions in CO2 promised will not be achieved. In Europe, a third of their CO2 emission are transferred out. http://www.theecologist.org... In the US, California has its own green energy initiatives that dramatically increased energy costs. The result so far is that half the industry has moved out of the state. Nationwide cap and trade legislation would punish energy-intensive heavy industry in America, moving it China, India, and other countries that refuse to destroy their economies with exorbitant energy prices. http://hotair.com... "According to an analysis of climate legislation performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the cap-and-trade system favored by President Barack Obama and many congressional Democrats could potentially damage the U.S. manufacturing sector and force jobs to move overseas. ... s the EPA states: "A cap-and-trade policy increases the price of energy-intensive goods. The majority of this price increase is ultimately passed onto consumers. … [L]ower income households are disproportionately affected by a GHG (Green House Gas) cap-and-trade policy because they spend a higher fraction of their incomes on energy-intensive goods."" http://www.cnsnews.com... 6. In an odd twist, cap and trade may actual increase CO2 emissions, by making conversion to natural gas uneconomic. Improvements in technology have made supplies of natural gas cheaper and more abundant. Gas burns producing less CO2 than coal, so initially it seems that cap and trade would benefit the gas industry. However, to win approval in coal producing states, Democrats included special dispensations for the coal states. (It's like the Pope giving out indulgences in the Middle Ages.) In a free market for energy, cheaper natural gas would displace coal over time, reducing CO2 emissions. But under the proposed legislation, carbon credits go to coal and not to natural gas, keeping coal viable where is would ordinarily be displaced. Cap and trade is unjustified because it would have no significant effect on global warming and might even increase it; it will dramatically increase energy costs to consumers for the benefit of the politically favored, and it will drive jobs and industry other countries. " ... estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015." http://www.usnews.com... There is no justification. The resolution is negated. |
da224417-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00004-000 | Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified | I will let my opponent go first. "resolved that the cap and trade legislation of 2009 was justified" may the force be with you |
10433681-2019-04-18T19:29:13Z-00000-000 | Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries. | Your argument is good, your points are well made, and I have just realized one thing. That is, that each of us agree that education and punishment should be balanced, right? Now that I have isolated the things that we agree on, we can look at more concerning matters. Harlan: "I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring." Can I just say, that criminals decide to donate their organs, as with the case of the gang leader in Singapore. He said to his wife and mistress that he wanted to donate his organs. After he was hanged, the organs were given to needy people, saving at least 5 lives. Harlan: "You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life." Harlan, do judges really put them in for life? Face the reality, they will not be put in for life. After another 10-20 years, they'll come out and kill more. 'One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions.' That is a good point made by whoever made that. Harlan: "'Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe.' Well, too bad. It's their job." I can point out that people can find new jobs. Harlan: "Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness." If everyone was as narrow-minded as Harlan, people would kill more openly, knowing that they won't be jailed up for long. Knowing that they will be out soon. To do it all again. Thats usually/always the case. 'Two gun' Crowley: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do no body any harm." And when Crowley arrived at the electric chair, did he say: "This is what I get for killing?". No. He said: "This is what I get for defending myself." Al Capone: "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." So I would like to conclude, that I reckon that education and punishment should be used together with greater effectiveness and greater efficiency. The death sentence will be used in appropriate situations. But if possible, be deterred. Therefore, the death sentence should stay, and be used under certain circumstances. Also, alright has one L. |
10433681-2019-04-18T19:29:13Z-00001-000 | Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries. | You know you don't need to put my name in quotation marks. Allright, my opponent's rebuttal was quite lengthy so I will answer each of his points in turn. "This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases." This is false. Punishment does not necessarily mean death. Punishment can mean exile, jail, a fine, or even public service. You have twisted my words around so that the punishment means death. That's a cheap card to play, man. "I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose?" I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that education will completely eliminate all crime. And likewise, the fear of being punished will also (and does) not eliminate all crime. By citing a single incident of education failing to discourage a man from crime in no way proves that education is completely useless in the effort of decreasing crime. If I so pleased, I could do the same thing with your method of decreasing crime via fear, by citing incidents of people going on killing sprees despite the fact that they will almost certainly wind up in prison or in the electric chair. But regardless of the effectiveness of education when compared to fear, it must be acknowledged that education is a better foundation for society than fear. It creates a healthier atmosphere, and makes the populace moral people, rather than immoral people who are scared to act out their immoral ideas. And once more, I am not saying that punishment should be completely eliminated, I am saying that a balance should be made, with alot of emphasis on education, and less emphasis on punishment. "So what 'Harlan' is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to 'kill more people in order to get organs'. Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment." Here you go again twisting my words. I never said that the death sentence is in place for any purpose. This is a hypothetical debate (see resolution), and has nothing to do with any death-sentence policy that exists in real life. I was merely responding to your hypothetical death-sentence ideas, which you happened to justify on the basis that "organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them" (see round 1). Those are your words, not mine. What you have done in the above quote is completely changed your argument to "The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment.", while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your original point (the one you just pretended you didn't make), which was that the felon's organs could be used. "This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person." It's not so much a matter of "feeling sorry", as you have twisted my words to say, as it is honoring every Human being's fundamental rights, regardless of their personality. Once more, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and with that in mind it can be said that it is not justified to deny a fellow Human being of his rights, no matter what the scenario is. I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring. "Why doesn't 'Harlan' feel sorry for those who were killed?" Where could you have possibly made this conclusion out of anything that I said in round 1? Now you are simply making up stuff that I said. "I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues." Once more, this is a problem that has a simple and practical solution: don't release them. You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life. "Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe." Well, too bad. It's their job. "We are not trying to get rid of people." Neither of us said this. "We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood." Those were your words, not mine. "We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population." I never said this either. "We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done." Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness. "And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in 'Harlan's' argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in 'Harlan's' argument." Fine, if we ARE playing that game, then I guess I'll play too. In the above quote, his first sentence did not need a comma and should have had a quotation mark instead of a period, since it was phrased as a question. Also (I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose I will), he misquoted Al Capone earlier. -Harlan |
10433681-2019-04-18T19:29:13Z-00002-000 | Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries. | The Contender has many flaws in his argument. Firstly, "Harlan" says "I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear." This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases. The other half of his point tells us that he would like to see more "education" rather "than fear". I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose? A famous gangster and killer called Al Capone once said "I have spent the best of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." Yes. Thats the word of the most feared gang leader in Chicago. As you can see, criminals don't see how they are wrong, and they won't see how they are wrong through "education". Men like Al Capone think like that. There is no way of escaping that fact. Secondly, "Harlan" doesn't get the point of a death sentence. Here are his words: "Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs." So what "Harlan" is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to "kill more people in order to get organs". Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment. The organ donation is just a way of a 'repayment' of the people they've killed etc. And also, only healthy organs will be chosen (I would also like to add that healthy blood can also be donated). And as "Harlan" said:" I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized." This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person. Why doesn't "Harlan" feel sorry for those who were killed? Why, "Harlan"? Thirdly, "Harlan" says: "The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one." This proves that "Harlan" does not understand the point. I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues. And as "Harlan" says: "Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution." Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe. And also, "Harlan" still doesn't get the point. The death sentence is a fair punishment for a an "attrocious" crime. "Harlan" is relating the death sentence as a way of getting rid of people. That's not my point! And even more important, isn't a "mental institution" just another phrase for "jail"? They do have rehabilitation places in prisons you know. And lastly, "Harlan" says: "There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary." This proves again that "Harlan" does not understand. We are not trying to get rid of people. We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood. We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population. We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done. And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in "Harlan's" argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in "Harlan's" argument. |
10433681-2019-04-18T19:29:13Z-00003-000 | Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries. | My opponent has 3 main parts to his argument. I will answer each of these in turn. 1. That the Criminals have to "pay the price". It is a commonly accepted moral concept that two wrongs do not make a right. Basicaly, immoral acts are never warranted, even when the victim of said acts is inhumane and immoral to the extreme. The moral aspects of this ideology are obviously flawed. The only practical aspect of this is idea is that it may discourage people from performing horrible acts. I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear. 2. The organs of felons could be harvested and put into the bodies of other people. Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs. Furthermore, I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized. Or at least consent from the family. It also seems unlikely to me that the sort of people who end up getting the death sentance are people who are very healthy. 3. It would decrease the # of murders. The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one. And even if this were a genuine problem, the most serious of prisoners (that might have people on the outside who could break them out), could simply put in a higher security prison, such as alkatraz. This seems like a practical and humane solution to the same problem. Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution. There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary. And while it would be more efficient, it is inhumane. It is not absolutely necessary, and therefore it should be avoided, considering the matter at hand. |
10433681-2019-04-18T19:29:13Z-00004-000 | Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries. | There once was a man who killed a couple of people, went into jail, came out to kill more people, went back in again, and killed more people after coming out. There wouldn't have been so many deaths if a death sentence was introduced. This may seem inhumane, but since when did killing people become humane? In some countries, there is no death sentence, and since there isn't, it should be introduced. First of all, death sentences reduce the number of cold criminals behind bars. They carried out serious offences, now they have to pay the price, it all seems pretty normal. Secondly, the organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them. This is a good way to repay all the lives that the criminal has killed. Thirdly, a death sentence introduced could decrease the number of murders every year. When pre-criminals hear that a death sentence is being introduced, they usually stop. This is a good way to stop serious assault and murder and a way to save lives. Thus the death sentence should be introduced to countries who don't have such a law. |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00000-000 | Health Care | Health care is a hot topic right now. I would love to have debated whatever facet the instigator offered. He refused. 1. I asked for definitions and Con refused. 2. I asked for clarification on broad terms and Con refused. I cannot debate the Pro side of a topic the instigator refuses to define and clarify. When a new debater offers a debate with vague terms, I generally attack whatever premise can be culled and I ask for definitions and sources. This method allows for a solid round 2 and a chance to offer a conclusion. I was more than fair in this debate. I am sorry to voters that Con insisted on using broad terms so as to move the definition when challenged. The best method to deal with rhetoric is to force the user to provide definitions for the offered terms. Con simply refused to define his position, so I had no need to present mine. He formed the debate; he posts the requested information. I was not asking for much, just some support and some definitions for the terms he decided to use so I could clash with them. I challenged the few positions Con offered and none deal with "health care". I recommend Con try much harder next time. Con offered nothing but rhetoric and hot buttons words, but still finds the need to compare me to a politician. Con is experiencing psychological projection here as politicians avoid direct answers and, generally, refuse to define terms. The Pro/Con here is not relevant. Con instigated a debate and refused to clarify the resolution or provide some context and meaning to the used terms. I cannot be forced to support a burden for a position that the instigator refused to define. |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00001-000 | Health Care | Wow, Pro is quite the technical debater. I have a lot of respect for his skills. To be honest I was expecting to have an ideological debate. I think Pro would make a fine politician. However, here is the problem as I see it. Americans hate politicians because they are masters at doing the same thing you are doing. They talk and talk about data and polls and margins of error and everyone is left with their heads spinning. It is a very calculated technique used to where down opposition until they just throw their hands up and say fine just do whatever. To use another sports analogy, I shoot and you block over and over again. This is a very safe way for you to win a debate and you most likely will but we still have little idea of why universal health is good for America. Instead of only blocking how about a shot. Pro chose to be pro on health care. So lets hear some pro commentary. Pro does not need to sit there on his high horse waiting for me to deliver the perfectly executed and statistical debate. Pro should just state where he stands. If Pro was a politician, what would his platform be. I want to hear why moving toward more government control of our health care is better. I believe the reason the health care bill is having so much trouble is because no one can really explain why and how it is better. Admittedly I spend most my time working so I do have time to hear or read everything but this is true with most Americans. So why doesn't Pro educate me and tell me and anyone who might read this what part of the health care monstrosity bill is good and what part is not. I will be honest about my ideology. Brace yourself because it is very radical. I want to return to the constitution. What is Pro's ideology. |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00002-000 | Health Care | I thank Con for his response and I want to be clear that I am not trying to be difficult. I ask for definitions so I can see your full point and I can avoid misunderstandings. At this point, Con has only used hot button terms like "big government". I enjoy debating not punditry. Television personalities like Hannity and Olberman enjoy throwing out vague terms so they can change the definition when a guest responses well. I have no time for such nonsense. I asked for definitions and Con refused to provide them. I asked for sources and Con made little effort to supply them. Am I asking too much? I will try to deal with Con's response. Con agrees the government has run the military efficiently so the statement referencing the government's inability to run anything is refuted. Con then moves the goal posts on me and now claims, "There is absolutely no way that a government take over of health care could ever operate as efficiently as the military." Ok, I don't use the word "absolutely" in reference to future outcomes unless I am dealing with math, and even then I am cautious. If you would tell me what you mean by a government take over then we can talk. Do you mean regulations? Hospitals becoming government owned? Do mean government ran health care competing against private carriers? Are you talking about Medicare? How can I address such a vague point? The statement is simply rhetorical and has little meaning. Con follows with a statement referencing less government in healthcare right now. Well we do not have a universal health coverage plan currently so are you referencing current regulations? Medicare? Do you see the problem here, Con? You chose hot buttons "big government" and "government take over" and then referenced the present day situation. He states: "The people are perfectly capable of providing their own health care with out the big bloated federal government getting in the way." "If only we had less government involved in health care then free market would be allowed to work as it is supposed to." This must be present day so how does it apply to current legislation in Congress which has not passed? Now if this is the case we can avoid any discussion about health care proposals, but Con goes further and asks for tort reform. He states: "If you'll notice the proposed bill does not address any common sense solutions like more competition across state lines or tort reform." I thought you wanted less government involvement. Tort reform in reference to malpractice cases would require MORE involvement from the government, not less as tort law and damages is generally left up to the states, not the federal government. http://www.settlementcentral.com... This is one of the problems with allowing interstate commerce with insurance companies. Your proposal involves more federal control, not less. Why would you remove state involvement in torts, by claiming the federal government should step in and reform torts at a federal level all the while claiming you want less federal government? At this point, your rhetoric is contradictory so how can I debate an issue you refuse to define and go against a contradictory position? All I can do is point out the flaws in your position as I still have no idea what the Con position is saying. Con states: "I am sure that pro will ask me to scour the internet looking for data from some research agency to back up my claim that government has continually made things worse for the average american (sic) but that would take a very long time and be inconclusive so I'm not going to do it. But I think most people know it to be true." This is an argument from ignorance and yes claims need support. If you are unwilling to support your arguments, don't present them. I have no need to address this further. Con states: "This health care reform is not about health care but a gigantic power grab by administration to advance its radical socialistic agenda." Did I mention Hannity already? This statement needs support. Define radical socialists, administration, and what exactly this "administration" has done concerning a furtherance of this "radical socialist agenda." This is just hot button rhetoric and needs not be addressed further. Con must do better than right wing pundit talking points. "First I would like everyone to understand that socialism is the polar opposite to the way our founders established this country with limited government." If you would have defined socialism I could have addressed this point. Socialism is so broad that I cannot, in the space provided, explain all facets, but as instigator you certainly could have done so. You chose not to give us a definition so I have nothing to clash with at this point. "Progressive steps are made toward socialism in the cover of darkness without honest debate." On a dark and stormy night … not so much. President Obama spoke directly to Republicans concerning many issues in the health care debate. How is this in the cover of darkness? I can read all the legislation presented on this subject as it is publicly available. President Obama made clear when running for President that he supported universal coverage in reference to health care and would focus on implementing legislation in this respect. We all had a vote. We elected him. How is this secretive? More and more rhetoric, nothing solid here. I'm tired. The only point Con brought forward was a poll. He did not link the poll, the methodology, the margin of error, nothing. He said it was there. Rasmussen? I would love to view the methodology used and see the full results but unlike truly scientific polls, the results are hidden … unless you pay for them. "All the data collected by Rasmussen Reports, not just the portion we make public." For 20 bucks a month, no thank you. http://www.rasmussenreports.com... Really? Talk about "in the cover of darkness". The instigator has offered very little here. I cannot address a contention unless it is defined. Rhetoric is for the mindless masses, I need facts and data, or at a minimum, definitions. |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00003-000 | Health Care | First of all I want to say that i love the US military. Pro is right it is a very functional part of government. However, I certainly would not put the military and government in the same category. They respond to executive commands from the feds but are a completely separate substructure to the government. It is made up of extremely talented and qualified personnel operating under a chain of command in a enviroment of extreme competition and accountablity. There is absolutely no way that a government take over of health care could ever operate as efficiently as the military. Besides the military is something that the citizens can not do for themselves. Health care on the other hand is. The people are perfectly capable of providing their own health care with out the big bloated federal government getting in the way. Abraham Lincoln said that "The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves". If only we had less government involved in health care then free market would be allowed to work as it is supposed to. I can't event buy health insurance across state lines if I want to. The solution is less government, not more. What if I went to my job and the more I screw up the more i was promoted. That would not make sense. So why with the feds we continue to give them more power the more they screw up? I am sure that pro will ask me to scour the internet looking for data from some research agency to back up my claim that government has continually made things worse for the average american but that would take a very long time and be inconclusive so I'm not going to do it. But I think most people know it to be true. Just look at the debt we are in that we will never be able to get out of. Health care for everyone will only ad to this debt. If you believe universal health care will save us money than i have some beach front property i would like to sell you. If you'll notice the proposed bill does not address any common sense solutions like more competition across state lines or tort reform. This is not an accident. This health care reform is not about health care but a gigantic power grab by administration to advance its radical socialistic agenda. I'm not saying that socialism is a bad thing as long as everyone knows exactly how it works and what it is. First I would like everyone to understand that socialism is the polar opposite to the way our founders established this country with limited government. If we are able to have an open and honest debate about how much government we want and Americans decide they want to move away from our founders had intended then I am ok with that. But it does not happen like that. Progressive steps are made toward socialism in the cover of darkness without honest debate. I found in Rasmussen that 52% of voters oppose the proposed health care plan while 44% favor. As far as the 1/6 economy comment, just type that sentence in google and you will see lots of stats to prove it. I agree with Pro that what i have said is mostly rhetoric based on opinion. But this is the format of debate i would like have with someone. Statistical battles rarely get you anywhere. I would like to have a general discussion about how much government we want and how much individual responsiblity we want. Pro has a tactic to win a debate which consists of delegitimizing my argument but i am still waiting for someone to come up with some solid points that stand on its own to support the need for big government. Can anyone out there do this? |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00004-000 | Health Care | I wish him good luck. I stand in refutation to my opponent's contentions and will address them. Con wrote, "I have absolutely no confidence that our dysfunctional federal government can run anything. " I disagree. Our government has run one of the most powerful armed forces in the world. As for dysfunctional government, I recommend Somalia. Next my opponent offers that health care, an ambiguous term, encompasses 1/6 of the US economy. I ask my opponent, as he is the instigator, to support this statement and I ask for a definition of economy in relation to this figure. I cannot attack a figure my opponent does not source. Define health care also please. Con offers polls, but offers…no polls! Show me and I will deal with them. He then offers some rhetoric in the form of "cramming down our throats". Cramming what? Be more specific. Tell me what the US government crammed down my throat. Con wants to hear from those who have blind faith in big government. I am not sure who these people are, but I support my government and as a former member of the greatest Air Force in the world, I swore my life to our defense. I no not support blind faith in any matters, religious or otherwise, and Con did not define big government or blind faith. At this point, the instigator has only offered one solid contention and that contention is that the US government cannot run anything, but I submit that the US military run by our government is the greatest in the world. I can do little more until the instigator presents a case with something more than rhetoric. |
a8a53658-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00005-000 | Health Care | I have absolutely no confidence that our dysfunctional federal government can run anything never the less something as large as health care that makes up about 1/6 of the US economy. The polls have shown that the people don't believe so either but yet they still try to cram it down our throats. I would like to hear from some people who still have this blind faith in big government. |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00000-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | My closing statement is that we have known for years the earth is not flat. It's like arguing that Barack Obama is Satan. |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00001-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | I am so sorry for the forfeit and the lateness of this argument. I understand how pointless it can make a debate seem, however I really like this one. Thank you for the extension. To start with my opening argument, I will use your definition of 'flat.' I agree that the surface is wide, however, it is far from smooth. Because our world is three dimensional, things clearly stick out of the ground, such as the house or apartment you live in[2]. The earth definitely does not have little thickness, either. In fact, it is more than 4,000 miles deep[1]! This would also mean mountains and earthquakes would be unable to form[7]. Your definition of flat does not fit the earth. However, it is a lot closer to being spherical. From satellite images, we see the earth as a circle{1}. We can also see different countries on the earth depending on the angle, while the circle does not change size{2}. That would bring us to the logical conclusion that it must instead be a sphere. Rebuttals: If we lived on the flat side of the earth's circle, and not the curved edge, your explanation of the sun and moon's rotation would not hold up. Instead of the sun appearing to rise one way and set the other, it would seem to appear already in the sky and slowly rotate in one direction. It would be the same way with the moon. They would ever cross the center of the earth without having no sun at all for the rest of the planet either, and would completely invalidate our system of time[3] and make day and night nonexistent. This model also causes problems with the rest of our solar system. We have proven that the planets rotate around the sun[4]. If the sun rotated around the earth instead, the other planets would not have the same days of their own[5]. "Further proof that the Earth is flat is when we observe cosmic rays and that they travel the speed of light. Now if we look at the simulator that I have provided you we can see that as things approach the speed of light they are flattend. Cosmic rays called Muans are better known to collide in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be recieving barely any, however we get a whole lot more then expected, but since they're going so fast the Earth is flatter and the distance they have to cover is a whole lot closer. If you were a proton moving 99.999999% the speed of light you can see that the Earth would only appear to be 17 meters thick." That paragraph made little sense grammatically, but I think I understood the point. If I were zooming past earth at the speed of light, I of course would see nothing as our eyes can't process things that fast[6]. If your idea for gravity were true, then the water in the oceans would be forced off the planet because it is not contained. Sources: [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://www.universetoday.com... [3] http://www.badastronomy.com... [4] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... [5] http://www.telescope.org... [6] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [7] http://www.sciencedirect.com... Images: {1} https://www.google.com... {2} https://www.google.com... Thank you, and again, I apologize. This was fun to research. |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00002-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | All points extended. |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00003-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | Okay so let's get down to some crazy things for this wounderous debate. So to clarify I will be debating that the Earth is flat by using the Neo-Classical Model with the following descripition. The earth is finite disk. The earth is being accelerate upwards at approximately 9.80665 m/s2. The earth is the only known "disk" in the universe. The laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame. The speed of light, measured in any inertial reference frame, always has the same value, c. (http://wiki.tfes.org...) Contention 1: Rotation of sun and the seasons. One of the greatest questions you have right now is probably if the Earth is flat how does day and night work. Well the answer is actually that the Sun and the moon rotate around the Earth in a circular motion. As seen in the gif that I've provided above you can painly see that ti's a spotlight type roation as it rotates around the Earth illuminating only a certain portion of the Earth at a time simulating both night and day. Here we can the if we were a photon that the Earth would shrink to ironically the same thickness that I have previously described. Here is a simulator that shows the exact same thing. (http://demonstrations.wolfram.com...) Seasons are explained above. As the Sun moves closer to the poles it becomes colder in the northern hemisphere while when the Sun is closer to the equatro it is actually summer time. (http://wiki.tfes.org...) If we use the above model we can see that the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. Though the other planets may orbit the sun we can see that the sun and the rest of the solar system orbits around the Earth. Further proof that the Earth is flat is when we observe cosmic rays and that they travel the speed of light. Now if we look at the simulator that I have provided you we can see that as things approach the speed of light they are flattend. (http://demonstrations.wolfram.com...) Cosmic rays called Muans are better known to collide in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be recieving barely any, however we get a whole lot more then expected, but since they're going so fast the Earth is flatter and the distance they have to cover is a whole lot closer. If you were a proton moving 99.999999% the speed of light you can see that the Earth would only appear to be 17 meters thick. Contention 2: Gravity Now before you jump to several statements that Gravity should collapse the Earth into a sphere there is just one problem with that. Gravity doesn't exist. How in the world is this you may ask. Well you can see that the Earth is actually accelerating up at the acceration of 9.88 meters per second. This explains Newton's gravitationial theory, but Newton was incorrect here. (http://wiki.tfes.org...) With the increased accerlation it becomes apparent that this also causes you to be shorter at the end of the day. Now to further this I would like to clarify that gravitation, not gravity exists. This explains the tides as stars and the moon/other celestial bodies all have slight gravitationial pull. Here is a list on how they are different in order to clarify the debate up a tad bit. - Gravity or the gravitational field is a vector field, while gravitational force is only a vector. - Gravity lies in the radial direction from the mass, while gravitational force is in the direction of the line connecting the two masses. - Gravitational field requires only one mass, while two masses are required for gravitational force. - Gravitational force is equal to the product of the mass of the test object and the gravitational field intensity. (http://www.differencebetween.com...) Now I want you to imagin living on this Earth, which as I showed earlier is just a flat disk. The gravitational force is actually angled to the point to where as you get further and further away from the center (the north pole) you can see that the increasing gravitationial force would cause you to want to fall back towards the center and not want to go towards the edge of the Earth. The people living away from the north pole would have their living conditions inclined in order to meet such a force. It would feel like you are trying to clime up a steeper and steeper hill. Contary to belief you wouldn't fall off the edge due to the gravitationial vector pointing back towards the north pole, the actual fear would be falling off the edge and rolling back towards the center as shown in the picture above. That is all for my opening arguments and my rebuttles shall come in the next round as requested by my opponent. |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00004-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | I accept. One more definition: Earth: the planet on which we live; the world. From Google This should be fun, thank you for the challenge! |
be5d20f6-2019-04-18T14:53:14Z-00005-000 | Resolved: The Earth is flat. | This debate is impossible to accept. If you wish to accept please say so in the comments section. Note that I don't actually believe this, I just find it fun to debate. Definitions: Spherical: shaped like a sphere (1) Flat-having a wide, smooth surface and little thickness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) If my opponent disputes this definition then he can do so in the comments section before round 2, I will then evaluate the contention. Structure Round 1: Acceptance & terms/definitions Round 2: Opening argument(s) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements No profanity. No trolling. I look forward to a great debate! (1) Google: 'Define spherical' |
9d488972-2019-04-18T14:58:32Z-00000-000 | Transgender | My opponent has forfeited this debate. |
9d488972-2019-04-18T14:58:32Z-00001-000 | Transgender | My opponent has forfeited this round. I ask the voters to consider this when voting. |
9d488972-2019-04-18T14:58:32Z-00002-000 | Transgender | http://www.nbcnews.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting. |
9d488972-2019-04-18T14:58:32Z-00003-000 | Transgender | When Jacob Lemay invites you into his bedroom, he wants to give the full tour. He'll show you his books, the planets and stars on the wall, his bunk bed and the stuffed animals he's lined up all in a row. "This one is Chase, and that one is Zizzy," he says in the voice of a confident five-year-old. "And that one is Biscuit, and that one is Zarzo, and that one is Cheety, and that one is Snowflake, and that one is Fuzz." Jacob is a happy, healthy, well-adjusted pre-schooler. He has two sisters " one older and one younger. But it wasn't always this way. In the beginning, his parents Mimi and Joe were raising three daughters. NBC's National Correspondent Kate Snow shares Jacob's story on Nightly News, Part One of a special series on transgender kids. When Jacob was born, his name was Mia. But by the time he was two, he was telling his parents, "I'm a boy." Last year, when he was four, they made a decision: to let him live as he has always identified " as a boy. COURTESY OF THE LEMAY FAMILY Jacob plays as an infant when he was still called Mia. Some may think that's too young to make such a change, but many doctors who specialize in working with transgender children believe it's right for certain kids " those who show a rock-solid and enduring belief in their gender identity. "When kids are consistent, persistent, and insistent in a cross-gender identity " and wanting to be the other gender and wanting the other gender's body parts or being very unhappy with the body parts they're given " we consider those children very likely to go on and continue a transgender identity," said Dr. Michelle Forcier, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University School of Medicine. Gallery: Jacob's Life as a Transgender Child For those children, she and other pediatricians say, it can often be better to make a change sooner. "The biggest harm is to not do anything," said Forcier, who is not Jacob's doctor but has a specialty in treating transgender children. When a kid is told, 'I don't see you,' 'I don't hear you,' 'I don't love you just the way you are,' that's a pretty powerful message about conditional love." Ask Jacob why he transitioned and his answer is simple and straight-forward: "I wanted to be a boy." COURTESY OF THE LEMAY FAMILY Jacob dresses as Prince Charming at Disneyland with his sister Ella as a princess. His parents say they decided to share Jacob's story because they can't afford not to. "The environment that my son will grow up in depends on how transgender people are perceived by society," Mimi says. "He's gonna go out there in the world. He's gonna travel and he's gonna meet other people. If we don't come out now and talk to people and" show people that transgender children are normal and wonderful and they're not to be feared, then I'm afraid that he will go into the world and meet with hostility," she said. "I can do my piece right now and I believe that my piece is speaking up." Mimi says that before the transition, her middle child would poke a body he couldn't embrace, saying things like "Why did God make me this way?" or "Why did God make me wrong?" Mimi and Joe were scared and confused by the behavior and comments. But after seeing doctors and scouring the Internet for information " and after seeing how happy he was to dress as Prince Charming on a trip to Disneyworld " they decided last summer to make the transition. They cut Jacob's hair shorter, changed his wardrobe, and asked family and friends to refer to him as Jacob and use the pronouns "him" and "he." Jacob started at a new pre-school last fall where none of the children knew him as Mia. COURTESY OF THE LEMAY FAMILY Jacob before and after having his hair cut. For young children, there is no surgery or hormonal therapy. At this stage, before puberty, transgender children are making a more cosmetic change, Forcier says. "We let them be themselves. So, they cut their hair and they wear their clothes and they wear their shoes they want. And they wear jewelry or they play with the kids they want to play with and they do the activities they want to do," she says. "We call that social transition." The Lemays understand that some will have a hard time with their decision. But they say they are convinced they did the right thing for their son, and Mimi recently wrote a letter to Jacob detailing their thoughts and feelings about this journey. "Ultimately Jacob has made that choice in his mind and his heart," Mimi says. "It's whether or not we accept it or not." |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00000-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | j |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00001-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | Naruto is strong indeed and so was the 4th hokage but just because the 4th hokage was strong enough to capture the 9tails doesnt mean that saskue isnt strong enough to kill naruto because if you think about the naruto side being able to capture 9 tails you also have ot think about the uchiha...Remember that OBito was the one who controlled the 9 tails in the first place which means that uchihas are just as strongSaskue has never lost in a fight against naruto that alone proves it Clearly naruto doesnt compare |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00002-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | well yes he has all them goodies but naruto as you know he has the 9 tailed beast wich if you go back the uchiha clan was in the hidden leaf village when the nine tailed beast attacked and tey gcouldnt stop it only the 4th hokage was the only one to seal it and naruto master its chakra and power and he can now do sage mode and then yet he can sage mod and beast imagine all that power against sasuke and the speed and yet his summoning jutsu all this chakra and power and then the speed so take that against him see what happends thank you |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00003-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | The first point is that Naruto is afraid to kill Saskue, as we can see in very first episode of naruto shipuden saskue was about to stab naruto yet naruto didnt move has about to be killed and had to be saved by said and sakura. second point is that saskue has sharingan with amaterusa and mangekyo sharingan and that means if naruto gets sucked into saskue's genjustu he is screwed because he doesnt know what to do and saskue has mangekyo sharingan thats stronger than itachis now. also saskue has the susano which is a badass armor sheild that's impeniterable. Think about how naruto could never beat danzo but saskue killed danzo |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00004-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | i accept |
b2a89559-2019-04-18T15:15:12Z-00005-000 | Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto | In this debate simply discuss which of the two characters from naruto would win in a supposed fight. No copying and poasting from other websites. You only have 10 min to create your responseFirst round is acceptancelast is rebutals no new points made |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00002-000 | Communism is possible | I will address the arguments with tags, in order of the RD 2 posting. I thank my opponent for his response, and look forward to the final round :) I ran out of characters in RD 1 for the proper thank yous and whatnot. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On instinct (clarification of my position): My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the argument I'm making in terms of instinct, especially in terms of stratification. We didn't emulate the behavior of other animals—we are an animal, and animals all have the instinct to stratify. Stratification is a part of survival, as is socialization. My opponent also disregards all of my analysis that actually validates the stratification argument. Allow me to reiterate: 1. Stratification does not have to be negative. Animals other than human beings don't tend to oppress. They simply establish an order, with survival-related duties, and are able to work cooperatively to achieve a desired end, which is the survival of the entire community. Stratification does not have to be a servant to self-love, as my opponent asserts. Greed and superiority are not the same as natural herd stratification. Don't allow him to equate the two. 2. I never wanted us to disregard the teachings of men like Marx. In fact, I specifically stated in RD 1 that there are pieces of profound truth to communist theory that we should be integrating into our political and social realities. However, I still maintain that a society without any sort of stratification is an impossibility, simply because stratification is a survival tool utilized by all members of the animal kingdom. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On stratification and its characterization (important extension here): My opponent severely overestimates my conception of stratification. I don't believe I was unclear prior, but if I was, I apologize. Capitalism, in and of itself, does not encourage any of the harms that my opponent or Marx accuse it of. In fact, as I stated in RD 1, all governments are liable to these shortcomings, as all governments are made of a mixed bag of people. Until humans are homogeneously altruistic, Communism can't work. This is a key point that I want the voters to extend, as my opponent and Marx fail to take human differentiation into account. Capitalism operates within the realm of observed human behavior while giving humanity room to grow into more altruistic tendencies (as Capitalism uses these behaviors and instincts to benefit the entire community—see Adam Smith). Communism requires that all of its followers be uniformly virtuous from the beginning, which is purely unrealistic. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On self-interest (my opponent's same tag line): Self-love, as Adam Smith calls it, keeps the butcher being a butcher. My opponent has yet to clearly articulate how goods and services would be exchanged within a Communist system while not creating the stratification that I say is necessary to keep a society functioning at equilibrium. If the butcher can do something easier and still receive the same amount of goods or services in return, then the butcher will choose the easier profession. This is not a categorically true scenario, but it is highly realistic. While societies have made some misjudgments and mistakes regarding which professions deserve more merit than others, this is yet another moment where pieces of communist theory might temper the functioning of a Capitalist system. However, if I am to receive no merit for spending 10 years in medical school, racking up debts and killing myself for the benefit of society, why should I be a brain surgeon? Again, my opponent assumes that all people can or will be homogeneous in their altruism, which is simply untrue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On "rotten apples": My opponent is making categorical assertions about Capitalism based on some of its misapplication in the world. Not every capitalist society operates in this fashion. Capitalism is a spectrum of application, and this is just more evidence as to why Communism can't work. Capitalism at least accounts for human differentiation and arms people with tools to fight back against the "rotten apples." Since my opponent enjoys making generalizations about existing governments, I'll make one in turn: all manifestations of Communism have degenerated into Socialism. Why? The reason is because the naivete of the theory makes it supremely simple to dupe an entire population into dictatorship. The fact that multiple forms of Capitalism have succeeded in the world while Communism has not, after multiple attempts, suggests that education cannot overcome all. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On proletariat revolution & oppressor vs. oppressed (key extension here): 1. Marx really does advocate the entire overthrow of the current social system. He says this directly in his manifesto. I can quote it if my opponent would like me to do so. 2. The French Revolution is precisely the sort of thing that Freire was talking about, so I'm not sure how my opponent, who is a student of Communist theory, can simply shrug off my comparison. While the French Revolution wasn't ever meant to instill Communism, it is a direct, historical example of the oppressed becoming extreme oppressors. Rather than simply eliminating the current social order via the head of state, the middle & lower class uprising felt it necessary to murder thousands of nobles, as well, most of whom merely held a title higher than the revolutionaries'. Even Freire, a passionate Communist and Marxist, admits that this is an incredibly dangerous result of Proletariat uprisings. And the French Revolution isn't the only time we've seen this result. Look to Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as much of South America. 3. While violence and the switching of superiority may contradict Communism's ultimate goal, that doesn't mean it won't happen. My opponent entirely drops all arguments I make for the necessity of retribution within humanity's schema of justice, which is huge to my advocacy. The reason the roles tend to switch is because of our need for retributive justice, which is another human trait seen unadulteratedly around the world. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In summation, my opponent has still not been able to prove that Communism, as Marx envisioned it, can actually exist for any amount of time. I remind voters that he must prove that human beings can be uniformly altruistic, and that human beings do not need natural stratification in order to survive. Also, I want to especially highlight the problems Communism has with retributive justice. Since my opponent did not address this, I encourage you to weigh this heavily in the round. |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00003-000 | Communism is possible | My opponent asserts that Marx's criticism and damning of the system is very specifically aimed at Capitalism. This, slightly, draws attention from the main point of Marx's goal, and that is the elimination of the social conditionining of a need for a tangible reward for a service. This conditioning is seen in all systems of government my opponent has listed: traders in village markets in a Feudalistic society, etc. My opponent also claims that humans will naturally form hierarchies because we are animals; and since the rest of the animal kingdom does so, we, naturally, should as well. It is true that we are animals, only more rational and cognitive. Though, this does not mean that we should be inclined to form hierarchies to satisfy our apparent 'instinct'. Though, to first address a big issue; is it an instinct? Or is it, just as greed is, a behavior learned from our environment? Humans, since the beginning of time, have used nature as a reference and resource to how to live and operate. Is it possible that somewhere along our timeline of social evolution, we observed the process of stratification in the Animal Kingdom and emulated the behavior? It wouldn't be the first time this would happen. Many 'human' behaviors and inventions have been inspired by nature: Business, Farming, Medicine, etc. In resolution, we, as humans, should use our gift of logic and reason, and be able to willfully transcend any inherent, or learned need to set others either superior or inferior. There is no excuse that someone can surmount to contradict this; except a personal testimony of their physical and mental inability to willfully overcome any tendency to need to be socially and monetarily rewarded greater than another, only because society has perceived their profession as more 'important'. Is it so hard to restrain one's self from needing a controlled currency, and to contribute to society with their ability and be given necessities? A misconception is that this will prevent people from attaining possessions that they want; this is simply untrue. Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't merely mean that you are only given your bare necessities and left at that. The quote is only a way for people to see anew, a type of life that would be truly altruistic. The only way for this type of civlilization to actually happen, is for people to learn; and this is done through the long and enduring, but rewarding, process of education. Not fascist, brainwashing education, as seen 1984, but true, non-regimented, open-minded education. ---------------- Now to address my opponent's argument for self-interest. It is true that self-interest is not entirely selfish, as it is how we survive, and does not always lead to the misery of others to sustain our prosperity. But, where exactly does self interest exclude itself from a Communistic society? Look at it from this perspective. The butcher is good at his/her job and wishes to provide to society in the only way that he/she can, effectively. But, the butcher also wants to be able to have a home and the necessities, and pleasures, in life. Through self interest (as mentioned before, not selfishness), the butcher continues to do his/her job in order to be a positive member of the community, because they understand that if they do what they are skilled at doing, they will receive the desired necessities and simple pleasures of life. Self-interest needs not to be completely abolished in a Communistic society. In regards to the issue of the few rotten apples spoiling the bunch. .. Denying that there would be a presence of people unwilling to adapt to the philosophies in a Communistic society, would be ignorant. But as I said before when speaking about the issue of the learned behavior to stratify; education trumps all problems; maybe not completely, as perfection is impossible. But the waning of the greed ridden mindset that would trouble a Communistic society, wouldn't be out of the question. Now, I'm NOT advocating that any persons not wishing to 'assimilate' to this livelihood of the new society be discriminated against, or singled out for immediate attention (similar to what America has done with 'failures' in the IQ system haha) and be 'fixed', mentally. I'm only saying, that education, throughout a person's life, would allow them the chance to understand that the old mindset of "I work, and I receive the payment accredited, even if it is more than another's" is unnecessary and leads to nothing but conflict. My opponent then asserts that in the event that a Proletarian revolution occurs, the Proletariat will want blood in exchange for the oppression that they suffered at the hands of the Bourgeoisie. Although this has been seen many times in history whenever a major anarchical event has happened, this would not be the French Revolution. Although Marx did predict that some, if not most, of the worker's revolutions would involve violence; he predicted this not for the reason of the worker's hate for the Bourgeoisie, but, possibly, as a necessary measure to break free from the chains instituted by the elite class. Now, I may have initiated a mindset of "He's an anarchist and wants to overthrow everything! etc. . "; but this is not my goal. I unequivocally believe that, like Dr. King's peaceful civil rights movement, we can achieve an extreme change in our society, without violence and turmoil (By the Proletariat, the same cannot be said for the challenged Bourgeoisie). If a violent, vindictive revolution were to occur, it would be the antithesis of the entire point of a Marxist revolution; the point of which, is the equalization of all. Wouldn't it be a complete and utter contradiction of the belief to punish others for their past 'deeds', therefore placing them below those involved with the revolution, merely switching the roles of superiority, hence contradicting the main philosophy of the revolution? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00004-000 | Communism is possible | Communism, in theory, espouses noble ideals for humanity. It encourages, essentially, blind equality and shared resources, and discourages the stratification that seems to plague the planet's human societies. However, though we may learn many tidbits of wisdom with which we may perfect human existence, a truly unadulterated Communist society we shall never see. While I normally would not write a case in this fashion, today's arguments will be primarily in essay form, as my advocacy requires it. My apologies. My primary assertion today is that it is genetically and instinctually impossible to achieve a society in which stratification and self-interest are not a part of the political or ideological equation. Everything that humanity does may be attributed, either directly or indirectly, to its instincts. We are animals. We make the supreme & egotistical mistake time and time again of forgetting our membership in this kingdom of beasts. Yes, we have an ability to rationalize that extends far beyond our animal brethren, but we, like they, are still slaves to our genetic urges. The only difference is that we have more chance of overcoming some of them than other animals do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We'll start with stratification. Marx, in his manifesto, makes some very damning claims against the bourgeois class at the time, and blames Capitalism for a number of things: "The bourgeoisie…has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade." (http://www.marxists.org...) Unfortunately for Marx, this is largely unwarranted, since feudal, monarchical, dictatorial, and even "communist" systems have exhibited the same evils as a society that is operated by a free market. Materialism, therefore, cannot be blamed for the cold calculations of the wealthy against everyone else. Stratification, light or severe, can be found in every society on the planet, without exception. Something so universal, and something that existed long before the concept of Capitalism, must be to blame. Stratification, therefore, is much more likely due to human nature, even if it is a "misfiring" upper class amongst a sea of altruism. Even in the most peaceful societies in existence, some sort of social hierarchy is present. Just as in the rest of the animal kingdom, a chain of being exists naturally amongst humans. We can be compared to packs, prides, or flocks. A social theory that seeks to break apart our natural understanding of the world will inevitably fail, because people will inevitably gravitate toward this hierarchy. Now, it does not compute that this hierarchy must be bad. This is, perhaps, where humanity could learn something from men like Marx & Freire. A readjustment of how we perceive the hierarchy would probably lead to a far more peaceful existence than the power struggles we witness today. However, that's not what Communism wants. It wants a full restructuring in that it wants an elimination of social structure, which would go against every societal instinct within the human condition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, onto self-interest. I do not want my opponent to mischaracterize self-interest negatively right off the bat as selfishness. The two are distinct in that self-interest has a clear instinctual foundation. Every animal in the animal kingdom is concerned with its own survival. Granted, instinctually, we are all also concerned on some level with helping our species thrive, as well. This would be the altruistic side of our genetics. But, self-interest is undeniable. While we, unlike other animals, have the unique ability to interpret, weigh out, and even deny some instincts, we won't categorically do this. Hence, any political theory that seeks to paint the human animal as something that it cannot physically be will fail monumentally, as it cannot account for even the smallest variations from the concept of blind equality. Adam Smith, expositor of capitalist theory and moral philosopher, characterizes a positive system of societal order as one which uses the instinct of self-interest to the benefit of the society. He says, in Wealth of Nations: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." While this may seem callous, it is not. It is merely a metacognitive examination of rhetoric which speaks to instincts, and seeks to manipulate our natural desire for self-preservation in order to benefit society as a whole. Adam Smith, of course, did not categorically apply this to all of society's transactions. This quotation, as I said before, is merely an examination of more extreme rationale. Though not every member of society provides goods and services in order to self-serve, it is the butcher, baker, or brewer that is overly concerned with self-interest that Communism has no place for, but that would exist in the world even if it weren't for Capitalist theory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The gist of this analysis leads me to two final theoretical concerns regarding Communism: the tragedy of the commons and the oppressed turning oppressor. Tragedy of the commons, attributed to Garrett Hardin, claims that it only takes a handful of overly self-interested people to exploit the resources of a shared community, which then make it impossible for that community to survive. Hardin uses the example of a shared pasture for cattle grazing. A handful of farmers may agree to share this land, but if 1 of those farmers sneaks out into the middle of the night to graze his herd more out of self-interest, it will cost the community severely. Let's pretend, for a moment, that self-interest is merely a fluke, an anomaly in the genetic world. Statistically, those who abuse others due to self-interest will find their way into these Communistic communities. After all, self-interest would compel you to reside with such altruistic people, for they are the easiest to exploit. Secondly, Paulo Freire describes the problem of the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor. Quite readily, self-interest manifested turns to vengeful and retributive behavior. When a people has suffered to such a great extent, the psychological need for justice, for what is equitable, will make equilibrium nearly impossible to achieve. This need for retribution expresses itself in every justice system in the world, though some are more severe than others. The US and other first world nations have tempered retribution with a delicate and convoluted system of proportionality. In places like Rwanda, retribution is manifested in genocide. Either way, the oppressed, the victim, will generally require some sort of psychological or philosophical satisfaction that moves beyond simply removing power from an oppressor. The need for penalty or punishment is another universal human interest that my opponent will need to deal with on a biological level in order to convince us that Communism will succeed. |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00005-000 | Communism is possible | The idea of Communism in this debate, is a society in which Bourgeoisie and Proletariat no longer exist, and only people, no longer identified through monetary or social value, are left. The idea of government (Government defined as a selective ruling body that decides how people should live; no matter how involved the citizens, it is defined as this) has been abolished. People dictate their own lives. |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00000-000 | Communism is possible | I appreciate my opponent's candor in RD 3, and hope to debate him again many times in the future. Enjoy the first 2 rounds, voters! |
f88dcd57-2019-04-18T19:22:09Z-00001-000 | Communism is possible | I misjudged how much I could handle, and spent too much time on one debate. And so, as a result, I will have to forfeit this debate, as well as another one in the process as well. Hopefully in the next few days, when I'm less busy, we can re open this debate, or even change sides for fun :D Please vote for my opponent, as I haven't been able to fully articulate my argument. , and she has put a lot of effort into this debate, and deserves the win. Thank you :D |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00000-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | When Tommy took on the Gatlin boys, it is true that he could not undo the rape, nor could he instill guilt in people of such a brutish nature. However, he did show much more than the fact that he has the ability to punch people. He showed that he would no longer allow himself to be pushed around. That one act and the statement made by it could've quite possibly turned Tommy's life around for the better. In this case and many others, the saying "Action speaks louder than words" is applicable. In my previous arguments, I have possibly been misconstrued. The fact that most wars were unnecessary does not indicate a concession on my part. I clearly stated in Round 1 "Many wars probably are rather pointless. But not all of them." My stance is not "that all war is good for something." Rather, my stance is that war is good for MORE than absolutely nothing. There is a difference between these two views. Now when it comes to my examples of people fighting for their own self-defense, their dignity, and their honor, you ask "What real good is honor? Honor cannot feed you. Honor will not help you walk. Honor will not keep you alive." But cannot the same things be said of the morals and compassion you mention? These too can be viewed as "made up human concepts." If concepts such as these render an argument invalid, then your arguments stand to lose just as much validity as mine. You also claim that "Neither honor nor revenge will help humanity, only yourself." But when that self is multiplied by a large number, as was the case in Scotland, then a large section of humanity has been helped. In the section on intelligence, you say that people can still see that life is better than death. Even this may be debatable given some of the stupidity I've witnessed. Nevertheless, this is not what needs to be understood. The issue is whether or not the majority of people have the ability to see someone else's perspective on a situation. Many people do not have this ability, and I do not believe that an unintelligent leader would either. George W. Bush is a leader that barely has the intelligence to comprehend a coloring book. Does it seem like he can understand the viewpoints of others? Mentioning the budget for the War on Terror can only speak against that war and others similar to it. It cannot serve to counter the rationale behind the wars I mentioned, which took place long before such budgets were associated with the act of war. (Note: I did check off that I'm in favor of The War on Terror in my profile, but this does not mean I agree with any of the budgets, policies, or methods used.) When it comes to the points on ignorance, you seem to think education can enlighten everyone. This is sadly not the case. I have been in countless classes where people would simply not understand a concept no matter how often it was repeated or how many times it was explained. Teaching acceptance of others also would not work. Oftentimes two opposing viewpoints are irreconcilable. If this were not the case, a site such as this could not exist. On your other point, I do realize that if both sides stop violence, then my self-defense reasoning does not apply. The problem is that even this is not as simple as it seems. You state "Starting a war mainly falls upon 1 side, but it ends up being both in the end." But the dynamics involved in the beginnings of a war are rarely so cut and dry. What Riley from the Boondocks needs to understand is that there are situations in which neither side realizes that anything is starting until it is too late. Look at the current situation in the U.S. Rights are being taken away, but both the government and the majority of the citizens feel that it is justified. If and when the situation turns ugly, which side will it be that "started" something? The chain of events that can lead to war is highly complex, dependent upon many factors, and very dynamic. It is not one side slapping and the other defending. That is just a gross simplification. I have shown examples where war can be used as self-defense. But it may have another use. Namely, keeping the human population in check. For every species, there is a population limit. In biology this is known as the carrying capacity and is symbolized by the letter "k." The current population is roughly 6.5 billion! What would it be without wars? It is possible that we would've reached the carrying capacity, and at that point mass deaths would've occurred. These totals would've been higher than the amount seen in war. Theoretically, most of the population is wiped out. So wars are good for both population control and self-defense. Having both of these uses, they can definitely been seen as good for more than absolutely nothing. To Darth_Grievous_42: I too thought this was a good debate. You presented some excellent arguments that kept me on my toes. And to satisfy your curiosity, my picture is the cover of the Pink Floyd album Meddle. |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00001-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | Ah, you found a rebuttal song. Very nice. Well, what exactly was it that Tommy achieved by beating up the Gatlin boys? Did he take the rape back magically? Did the boys feel bad about what they did? Did he prove he was a man? No, he accomplished none of these things, all he did was show he could punch people. That's about it. After reading your last round it seems you completely agree with me that war should be avoided. So then you concede this debate? Your stance is that all war is good for something. But in this last round you've taken the stance that "war should be avoided, but it just won't". I cannot deny that what was done in the past was done and served a purpose. I can't deny that wars will continue to happen due to lack of human intelligence. But that is not the case I am making. I am saying it could have and should have never happened in the first place. There is potential for us all to come to terms peacefully, and while there is that possibility there is reality. My views are optimistically realistic. I can see the better parts of man and know that we can do it. So none of my claims are preposterous, just highly unlikely. As far as they can apply to the real world I know that they will probably never come into action in the real world. But again, this is not my stance. My stance is about what should and could happen. That is what War is singing about. He is not saying war will never happen, he's jus saying they shouldn't. On this point it seems you agree with me, thus making my stance victorious. But now to discuss your point that they have no ability to ever stop. In summary, it seems your concerns are: Honor, intelligence, ignorance and one sided-ness. Honor: In concerns to the Scot and Tommy. What real good is honor? Honor cannot feed you. Honor will not help you walk. Honor will not keep you alive. Honor is a made up human concept, and can easily be restored with counseling. The only judge on honor is yourself, no one and nothing else's. So, is fighting a war based on rape a good idea? Does it make the war just? No, it does not. It would still have been better for the Scots to have engaged in a peaceful negotiation. It would have been better for Tommy to call on the cops and let them suffer in a concrete room. The only accomplishment they made was gaining revenge, another self induced concept. Neither honor nor revenge will help humanity, only yourself. So this is not a good reason to continue fighting wars. SO your lyric should not read "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man", but rather 'Sometimes you wanna fight when your a man'. Intelligence: You claim that people, both now and then, do not have the mental capacity to settle things peacefully. This is half-true, I can't deny that. Never the less, they still have some modicum of intelligence to see that life is better than death. So even in the most unintelligent leader, they still have the ability, just not the will. It is still not an excuse, only an observation. But we all do have the ability to raise the intelligence of man kind, low as it is today. The budget on the War on Terror currently is in the trillions. Do you have any idea how many new schools could be constructed with that financing. I'm not talking about a lot of little 'podunk' badly constructed schools. This kind of money could build thousands of university level institutions. It could re-furnish every American school twice over with new books, new desks, new computers, new everything with cash to spare. Yet it all goes to bullets, bombs, missiles and the things that fire them. All of these are good to only use a few times, but a school can last generations. So intelligence is not totally out of the question. Yes, right now human brain poser is less than satisfactory. True, the mental states of people in the past were less than a modern middle schooler. Yet we in the here and now have the ability to stop further destruction. We can teach those who will live beyond us the folly's of the past, and make war nothing more than a definition in a text book they will read. So low intelligence is not an excuse either, only an obstacle. Ignorance: True, there are some people who will not change their blood thirsty ideals until they've been released of their own mortal coil. But that can all be solved with education, as stated above. People only know as much as they are taught. Right now, people are being taught to distrust their fellow man. They learn that they 'other side' only wants you dead, and that you need to wan them dead more to stay alive. People just need to start teaching acceptance of 'the enemy', because once your enemy is your friend, you have no enemies to fight against. Because this can also be avoided, this is also not a reason why wars should be fought. One sided-ness: A misconception you seem to have is that only one side should turn the other cheek while the other will continue to slap. This is not what I am saying. Both sides need to stop the violence, and can. War is a double edged sword. You cannot just sheath one side for it to no longer be a threat. Both sides must go into sheath. Both sides have the capabilities to stop war, thus both are accountable. Starting a war mainly falls upon 1 side, but it ends up being both in the end. Both sides need to stop war before it happens. As Riley of the Boondocks once said: If you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing. The same is true when it comes to war. In V for Vendetta, the British Government shouldn't have take the peoples rights, and Evy wouldn't have needed to be tortured by V because V would have nothing to fight against. My stance is that wars are good for absolutely nothing. I have proved that to be true. We can avoid war. Because we can we should. Continuing to do so just idiotic. There is no dispute that can only be settled with violence, people only think it is. Every obstacle can be overcome with learning, with understanding, with compassion. It is not mere optimism that fuels what I say, its the examination of other, more profitable routes we can take. My stance isn't just a sermon, it is a presentation of possibilities and facts. Basically a science. There is as much realism to my points as there was for the idea's of flight and electricity. Right now, war is equivalent to the ideas that the only manner's of transportation will ever be horse drawn buggies and that candle light is the only way to see in the dark. The only difference, and I do mean the only, is that instead of one man making this brilliant proposition and then the world accepts it is that everyone in the world must be apart of the proposition and accept it. War is a global disease, and must be handled on a global level. Undeniably war has happened. Undeniably it has had some positive effects. But in every case it did not need to be settled by war and could have been solved with non-deadly words. Thus war has never accomplished anything that couldn't have been done some other way. Therefore they are good for absolutely nothing. To GaryBacon: Good debate. You've challenged me with your historical knowledge. I'm also impressed with your V for Vendetta analogy. Also, out of curiosity, what is your picture of? I've been trying to figure that out for some time now. To the audience: I'll remind you that your voting is not determined by what stance you prefer but which side proved theirs better, be it mine or GaryBacon's. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote you can do so in the comments area. Darth_Grievous_42 out. |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00002-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | Coward Of The County by Kenny Rogers Everyone considered him the coward of the county. He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong. His mama named him Tommy, the folks just called him yellow, But something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong. He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison. I looked after Tommy 'cause he was my brothers son. I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy: "Son, my life is over, but yours is just begun. Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done. Walk away from trouble if you can. It wont mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek. I hope youre old enough to understand: Son, you dont have to fight to be a man." Theres someone for everyone and Tommy's love was Becky. In her arms he didnt have to prove he was a man. One day while he was workin the Gatlin boys came callin. They took turns at Becky.... there was three of them! Tommy opened up the door and saw his Becky cryin. The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand. He reached above the fireplace and took down his daddy's picture. As his tears fell on his daddys face, he heard these words again: Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done. Walk away from trouble if you can. It wont mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek. I hope youre old enough to understand: Son, you dont have to fight to be a man. The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom. One of them got up and met him halfway cross the floor. When Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! old yeller's leavin." But you coulda heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and blocked the door. Twenty years of crawlin was bottled up inside him. He wasn't holdin nothin back; he let 'em have it all. When Tommy left the barroom not a Gatlin boy was standin. He said, "This one's for Becky," as he watched the last one fall. And I heard him say, I promised you, dad, not to do the things you'd done. I walk away from trouble when I can. Now please dont think Im weak, I didnt turn the other cheek, And papa, I sure hope you understand: Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man. Everyone considered him the coward of the county. Although this applies only to one individual, many of the conflicts previously mentioned could be analagous. After all, what was the conflict in Scotland during the late 13th and early 14th centuries if not a case of the Gatlin boys picking on someone? The only difference is that there were larger numbers on both sides. Even the rape of Becky took place in the form of prima nocte. I have read through your arguments, and I suppose the main problem I have with them is your over-optimistic viewpoints. Of course if there are two viable options: one being war and the other being a logical discussion to work out the differences, the discussion is to be preferred. The problem is that there are many people that do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss things or to bother to try and understand an opposing viewpoint. When you state "Hindsight shows us the mistakes of the past" I must ask what the 'us' refers to. If it refers to you and I, then you are correct. But if it refers to the human population in general, I beg to differ. Despite the many claims you may hear about humans being a superior species, I can assure you that most humans are actually quite lacking in intelligence. Not only are there many that cannot see the mistakes of the past, they will almost certainly repeat those same mistakes in the future. You say "All the examples you have stated so far are all situations [where] reason and understanding could have just as well have prevailed over the gun, spear, and guillotine." Is this really true? Do you really believe that the Scots could've said "Hey wait! Let's talk this out nicely."? Even if they could, would you want to resolve the issue with a nice discussion after somebody had just raped your wife? Of course they would claim that it was a legal right, but this it is still unacceptable. As the penultimate line of Coward of the County states: "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man." My main point is that reason and understanding cannot be implanted into the minds of others. When you state "The aristocracy of France should just have let the lower class into their political system. The British shouldn't have invaded Scotland or Zulu territory" you are absolutely correct. They shouldn't have done these things. The problem is they did. If a child decides to stick up for himself and hit a bully back after the bully starts with him, the child that fought back cannot be condemned. Of course anyone can still make the correct statement "The bully should've never started with him in the first place." This is true, but it is what bullies do. Similarly, when the British invade Zulu territory, the Zulus cannot be condemned for starting the Anglo-Zulu war. Did the war have to be fought? No. But that doesn't make it wrong. The child could've let the bully pick on him and avoid a fight as well. But letting issues get resolved through such passive action is not good. People should have the right to defend themselves. You claim "Any issue can be resolved with words, yet we still resort to death." This is not the case. There are a great many people in this world that will not be affected by words. They either won't care or they won't have the intelligence to understand them. I know this may seem like an extremely uncivilized and savage claim, but bullets, missiles and bombs are the only reasoning that many of these brutes will understand. As unsophisticated as this may sound, it is sadly the truth. I don't have the space to reiterate all of the lyrics to War and go through them all once more, but there are a few other points I'd like to make concerning some of them. "Who wants to die?" You claim that it is only an escape for a temporary situation. But an excellent point is made in the movie V for Vendetta. When the character V tortures Natalie Portman he shows her that death is actually not the worst thing. There are some principles that exist that are worth dying for. This ultimate realization came to her, as it did to V at the end of the movie. He knew that he would die on that final night, and yet that paled in comparison to his goal of changing the corrupt government and giving hope to the other citizens. You ask "Beside, wouldn't they prefer to see the effects of their sacrifice?" Perhaps if they could, but this is an impossibility. The point of many of these sacrifices is that the principle was worth more than life. "Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days" To this you state "Again, without the distrust, with a little brains rather than brawn, with compassion, we would never have had to fight the wars of the past." Now this may be true, but not realistic. Brains cannot be instilled in those that are not learned. Your view is extremely optimistic, but in reality a leopard cannot fully change its spots. Those without brains will never become intellectual. And when these unintellectual brutes start trouble, no amount of compassion or brain can persuade them. "War can't give life it can only take it away" You say to me "You've only viewed the outcomes of the wars, but those all could have been reached with diplomacy." Once again, the intelligence needed to reach a conclusion through diplomacy is not present. It would've been better, but it simply cannot happen. You also say in reference to this "The acts and treaties came after all the death. Why not skip a step?" I'll tell you why they couldn't skip a step. It is not that it was physically impossible. It is that it was impossible in terms of the mental capacity required for such acts. I have no space left, but my main point is that your optimistic views are not realistic. |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00003-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | Well thank you for that compliment. I must agree with Logical-Master, and I too would have been quite amused if you had found a rebuttal song. But back on subject. On Necessity: While I cannot refute that wars have served a purpose, I have to disagree that that makes them necessary. What happened to politics? Is it always necessary to result to fisticuffs when you don't get your way? Is there no way that talking it through could not have solved anything? You might say no but I say yes. What you will say is that nothing would have been accomplished. The French would still be poverty. Scots would never have had freedom. Zulus would have lost their land. That is, of course, assuming both sides had engaged in combat. Hindsight shows us the mistakes of the past. The aristocracy of France should just have let the lower class into their political system. The British shouldn't have invaded Scotland or Zulu territory. We can see it now, why couldn't they? Did it really take all those lives, all the wounds, all the nightmares to figure that out? The truth is they could have without war, but were blinded by the manipulations of their past. The common law was if you needed something take it, by any means necessary. Everybody viewed everybody as an enemy, as something less than themselves, as different. But really, are we different at all? Did the Zulu's not have 5 fingers on their hands like the British? Didn't the British have two legs like the Zulu's? Didn't both sides of the French have kidneys, Livers, Lower Intestine, Bladders, Femurs, Molars, Eyebrows, Rib cages, etc? Was there no possible way that neither side could see that? Why neither could treat the other as friend rather than foe? All the examples you have stated so far are all situations were reason and understanding could have just as well have prevailed over the gun, spear, and guillotine. Its wasn't self defence, it was close minded fear. People wanted results fast, not results right. Either way it could have reached the same outcome. So again, what was the use of war? "Because it means destruction of innocent lives" You claim that people have to fight to better there lives. Well, as I just pointed out, all it would take is reason and even the strife could have been avoided. The poor conditions of the people were caused by ignorance, and selfishness of those in power. With enough political involvement, these tyrants could have been userbed without deadly force. With a bit of consciousness, peoples lives could be better. Again, human stupidity stalls that. So another case were it could have been avoided, but rather than efficiency, people wanted speed and money. So these lives were still lost needlessly. "War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes when their sons go to fight and lose their lives" Can there really be any good fight? Its not just one mother, its thousands, even millions, and not just those on the "good" side but on the other as well (a good exemplification of this is the film 'All Quiet on the Western Front') To both sides, their 'good' fight is the bad one for the opposition. Many don't even know why they are fighting, they just are. Especially when a draft comes into effect, and people who would rather not fight, die for a cause they didn't support or did not want to get involved in. Do you still think 'the good fight' would matter to those mothers? "War, it ain't nothing but a heart breaker" War is still a heart breaker, even to the oppressed. No sane person smiles when they hear of a loved ones death on the battlefield, even if it was for a cause. A cause which could be solved with diplomacy. "War, friend only to the undertaker" Couldn't those corrupt coalitionists be seen as undertakers? Profiting off the dead? I believe War meant 'undertaker' as general statement. But there is no doubt that war must be a happy time for funeral businesses. "It's an enemy to all mankind" Incorrect. All mankind view war as an enemy. What people like is the 'reasons' behind the wars. War is an enemy to the human race. It's purposeful self destruction of our species, aka, murder. We are legally endorsing the job that we condemn people like Charles Mason and Timothy McVeigh for doing. A B52 pilot can easily beat the damage done in the Oklahoma City Bombing. A Marine can kill ten times more than Charles Mason. Why is it that no one else seems to see that war=murder. That is War is saying. We are killing ourselves. Reasons be damned. Any issue can be resolved with words, yet we still resort to death. Without the reasoning its still murder. And because the reasoning can be resolved some other way. So we are killing ourselves needlessly! War is an enemy to everyone, no matter what story you tell yourself to sleep at night. "The point of war blows my mind" Give me a good reason to start a war. This means that reason could not, in any way, be resolved peacefully. There would have to be a good, legitimate reason that would progress mankind. There cannot be any ill will, or vengeful motivation behind it. All of these are in direct conflict with what war really is. But if you can find me 1 'good' war I will concede this point. I would suggest trying to find a few, as I'm sure I will be able to knock them down easily. "War has caused unrest within the younger generation" War messes everybody up. The father of a son dies. The sun wells up hatred. That son becomes a world leader, and declares war. That war kills another dad, with another son, and the cycle continues. War only fuels distrust, hatred, and revenge. It hinders progress because it scars people, physically, mentally and emotionally. The only reason its still alive is because we keep it alive, and say it's right. Patriotism is just a nice sound way of saying "I will kill anyone for this dirt". Allegiance and loyalty are just the politically correct term of saying "I don't trust my fellow man". War is bad, and always will be. "Induction then destruction" Destruction is always bad. It means death. Many people view death as being a bad thing. Again, diplomacy can spare us all the trouble. "Who wants to die?" An escape for a temporary situation. Nothing that can't be solved with reason. In fact, many survivors of suicide come to that same realization. Life is precious, why stop it prematurely? I'm sure if we could talk to those dead in wars they would say the exact same thing. Beside, wouldn't they prefer to see the effects of their sacrifice? "Ooooh, war, has shattered many a young mans dreams, made him disabled, bitter and mean" So you concede to this point for the most part. Every surviving soldier I have met from a war is haunted with bad dreams and memories. Those with disabilities are loathsome of the cause. They lost their hand because two leaders could not shake theirs. Truly a waste. "Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days" Again, without the distrust, with a little brains rather than brawn, with compassion, we would never have had to fight the wars of the past. If we do fight any in the future (undoubtedly we will) it will only be because we still haven't realized this fact. "War can't give life it can only take it away" The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation. Wars destroy, people create. You've only viewed the outcomes of the wars, but those all could have been reached with diplomacy. The acts and treaties came after all the death. Why not skip a step? "Peace, love and understanding tell me, is there no place for them today?" But war is still evil, yes? What would be so wrong about getting people to understand each other? It would take time, perhaps some harsh words here and there, but any positive result that doesn't require a gun is worth looking into. "They say we must fight to keep our freedom but Lord knows there's got to be a better way" Diplomacy. Education. Reason. Understanding. LOVE. Just a thought. 22 Characters left. |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00004-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | This is a very original and highly amusing means of presenting an argument. I commend you on your creativity. I will first begin by showing that war may sometimes be necessary. From there I will use examples to show that it is good for more than absolutely nothing. After the basis of my argument has been laid out, I can address all of the points in the song lyrics. Although war is often construed as a means of destruction, it can in many cases be a means of liberation. A brief look at history can show examples where war served as the only means of obtaining freedom. Take Scotland in the late 13th and early 14th centuries for example. The Scots were constantly being tyrannized by the British and were subjected to many injustices. Although the movie Braveheart dramatized and perhaps exaggerated some of the details, atrocities such as prima nocte really did occur. Another example can be seen in the Anglo-Zulu war. The British invaded the territory of the Zulus, and the Zulus decided to go to war and die rather than allow others to take over their land. This may seem pointless to you, but many would consider it brave and noble. The Zulus with primitive weapons actually defeated the British in the Battle of Isandlwana, and although many died, they died nobly. I know that in the end the Zulus lost the war, but this does not mean that people should allow invaders to take over without consequence. One more example to mention is the French Revolution. Things were so bad with unemployment, malnutrition, and even famine that people literally had to fight for their lives. Death was going to come anyway. Should it come by means of slow and torturous starvation, or should it come through a revolution that could possibly pave the road for change? In cases such as these, war can be seen as a means of self-defense. Now to address the points highlighted in the song. "Because it means destruction Of innocent lives" In the cases I mentioned, many innocent lives were already being destroyed. Even in cases where death is not the means of destruction, the constant tyrannical oppressions that make life unbearable can be viewed as a way of sucking the life out of innocent people. When such is the case, rising up to fight for self-preservation becomes more noble than allowing the injustices to continue. "War means tears To thousands of mothers eyes When their sons go to fight And lose their lives" I have no doubt that this is true. But when tears are welling up in the eyes of not only mothers, but entire populations yearning for justice, then the tears shed for those who died fighting the good fight pale in comparison. "War, it ain't nothing But a heartbreaker" For oppressed populations, war can actually be heartlifting rather than heartbreaking. "War, friend only to the undertaker" It is also a friend to those who have been freed by it. In fact, even corrupt coalitions that start wars to take over land may still view war as their friend if they come out victorious. They may not be good people, but it still serves to show that war is not friend ONLY to the undertaker. "It's an enemy to all mankind" See the previous rebuttal. Not all mankind views war as an enemy. "The point of war blows my mind" Many wars probably are rather pointless. But not all of them. There can be a very good point to starting a war. Allowing others to steamroll over you cannot be considered a valid alternative to war. "War has caused unrest Within the younger generation" War has done more than this. It has very likely caused unrest with people of every generation. But this cannot be used to condemn the wars previously mentioned. These people were already in a state of unrest. "Induction then destruction" The destruction point was previously addressed. Being inducted into a war and then destroyed is probably better than sitting and waiting for destruction to come. "Who wants to die?" Those with extreme suffering often choose death as a means of escape. When it comes to the oppressed, a voluntary death may be better than a life of suffering. "Ooooh, war, has shattered Many a young mans dreams Made him disabled, bitter and mean" I cannot contend that war has left many people disabled. This is a sad tragedy. But the bitterness is probably much more present when the disabled view the war as pointless. Many (perhaps most) wars are pointless...but not all. "Life is much to short and precious To spend fighting wars these days" The words 'these days' seem to refer to the present. I must say that in the present day I have often felt that we may actually have to fight another revolutionary war within our own country. Atrocities such as the Patriot Act are taking away the very freedoms that made this country so great. And as the grip gets tighter and tighter, it may only be a matter of time before both you and I must choose whether to live under a dictatorship or rise up and fight. "War can't give life It can only take it away" Is this really true? Cannot it not be said that the Treaty of Edinburgh (the end result of the conflict between Scotland and Britain) gave life to the subsequent generations of Scotland? In the French Revolution, war gave life to some who would've died of famine. "Peace, love and understanding Tell me, is there no place for them today?" There certainly should be a place for them. But it is impossible to have all people of all nations on the same wavelength. Consequently, many people that only wish for peace can sometimes find themselves in a situation where war becomes the lesser evil. "They say we must fight to keep our freedom But Lord knows there's got to be a better way" I've been arguing a similar point. If there is a Lord that does know a better way, he certainly hasn't informed anyone of what this is. In fact, there are many biblical accounts in which the Lord supposedly helped one side defeat another in battle. So even for those that choose to believe in some omnipotent force, a better way has yet to be revealed. My main point is that war is good for more than absolutely nothing. It is good for obtaining freedom from all types of oppression and invasion. It may even have further uses that I will explore in later rounds. |
742e5df7-2019-04-18T19:48:45Z-00005-000 | War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing. | As Pro, I am going to be defending that war (the fighting killing kind) is good for absolutly nothing. I'm going to try something different, and take all my points from War's (the band) song "War". It will be up to my opponent to rebutte all of these points using logic and examples, not just subjective opinions, and if they are good they will also give reasons why war might actually be good for something. This isn't an attack on the current war, World War 2, the 7 years war (etc), directly; just one on war in general. I'll highlight (with ***) the main points that should be specifically adressed: War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again, y'all War, huh, good God What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me Ohhh, war, I despise ***Because it means destruction Of innocent lives*** ***War means tears To thousands of mothers eyes When their sons go to fight And lose their lives*** I said, war, huh Good God, y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me ***War, it ain't nothing But a heartbreaker*** ***War, friend only to the undertaker*** Ooooh, war ***It's an enemy to all mankind*** ***The point of war blows my mind*** ***War has caused unrest Within the younger generation*** ***Induction then destruction*** ***Who wants to die?*** Aaaaah, war-huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it, say it, say it War, huh What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again y'all War, huh, good God What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker War, it's got one friend That's the undertaker ***Ooooh, war, has shattered Many a young mans dreams Made him disabled, bitter and mean*** ***Life is much to short and precious To spend fighting wars these days*** ***War can't give life It can only take it away*** Ooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker War, friend only to the undertaker ***Peace, love and understanding Tell me, is there no place for them today?*** ***They say we must fight to keep our freedom But Lord knows there's got to be a better way*** Ooooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for You tell me Say it, say it, say it, say it War, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Stand up and shout it Nothing |
e2774a31-2019-04-18T19:11:46Z-00000-000 | My profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty | Some of the aueince say that this is a attempt by Pro to get an easy win. I also believe this, and so the reason I accepted this. I would also like to thank the audience for reading. I will break this down into three different parts. I can not get heavily into it because the charrater limit is 4000. DEFINITIONS ===================== Resemble: To be like Statue of Liberty: A monument commemorating the centennial of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence, given to the United States by the people of France to represent the friendship between the two countries established during the American Revolution ARGUMENT: ===================== One. My opponent claims that his profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty resembles freedom, peace, and friendship. The french gave it to the USA as a gift. If my opponents profile picture is like the Statue of Liberty, it would also have to stand for freedom, peace, and freindship. It is simply a flame. The flame was not given to the United States by the French. Two. One could say that this looks like the Statue of Liberty. . http://s197.photobucket.com... It looks like it because, 1. The overall shape of the flame resembles the Statue of Liberty, being tall and thin. 2. There is the shape of an arm extended above the main part of the body. 3. The very top of the flame in my picture resembles the actual torch that the Statue of Liberty is holding. 4. The arm holding the torch is on the correct side. 5. What resembles the head on my picture actually has a few spikes on it to resemble the crown of the Statue of Liberty. 6. There is a small bump protruding from the right side of the body of the flame, resembling the book that the Statue of liberty is holding. But in fact, it could look like the devil, or a bug. Same thing with your picture. It only looks like what you want it to look like. I could look at the sky and say it looks like the ocean because it is blue. Three. My opponent claims that his profile picture resembles The Statue of Liberty. In the future he may change his profile picture to something that does not even look like the Statue of Liberty. He does not know the future, so he does not know if he will change it or not. So one can not say that their profile picture looks like something. He could have said, On 1/31/10 my profile picture looks like the Statue of Liberty. |
e2774a31-2019-04-18T19:11:46Z-00001-000 | My profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty | I have been wondering if anybody noticed that my profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty. I took the picture myself. It's from a bonfire at my 18th birthday. No one has commented yet so I am using this to bring to everyone's attention how sweet my picture is. For comparison, here is a nice picture of the Statue of Liberty http://www.aviewoncities.com... Arguments: 1. The overall shape of the flame resembles the Statue of Liberty, being tall and thin. 2. There is the shape of an arm extended above the main part of the body. 3. The very top of the flame in my picture resembles the actual torch that the Statue of Liberty is holding. 4. The arm holding the torch is on the correct side. 5. What resembles the head on my picture actually has a few spikes on it to resemble the crown of the Statue of Liberty. 6. There is a small bump protruding from the right side of the body of the flame, resembling the book that the Statue of liberty is holding. For these reasons, it is clear that my picture resembles the Statue of Liberty (as much as a bonfire can). |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00005-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | " Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. "I disagree, law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough. Not through intimidation and violence.... This then dismisses the next argument about contradiction and arbitrary exemption since law enforcement doesnt come from violence and intimidation. " if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals."You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave."But if you dont like your country youre allowed to leave it. You cannot legally leave slaveryPeople dont voluntarily pay taxes but people do understand that the government has the right to collect taxes and use those taxes to pay for services to help the people. So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil because people know that without taxes the government wouldnt function. "The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law."If government corporations mess up they are liable to laws though, they most certainly are not immune. There are laws to regulate government agencies to keep their power in check at a certain amount or laws to maintain how ethical their actions are. Governments uphold laws in ways such that the unalienable rights of people are not violated and government corporations that do break laws are liable to penalties because the government is not all powerful and immune. That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass, they do not use intimidation and violence as law enforcement, and because things such as taxes are involuntary but are accepted as necessary evils by people. Now then here are a list of governments that are not criminal organizations. The Monarchy in NarniaThe government of Panem (Hunger Games)The Ministry of Magic (Harry Potter)The Volturi (Twilight)The government of Danistann (Nationstates.org)Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00006-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | I will be using the term "corporation" to refer to organizations and institutions which may or may not meet the criteria of "government", as the term "corporation" literally means a "body of people". This can include any type of corporation - municipalities, nation-states, for-profit, non-profit, state-chartered, etc... (ie, all governments are corporations, but not all corporations are governments). This is to more easily compare institutions which do not meet the definitions above, and to clearly demonstrate the myth of legitimacy, and the problem with arbitrary exemptions. Also, If you have an example of a corporation which meets the criteria provided, please provide these examples in the early rounds, so that I may address them. At the very least, I would request that no examples be provided in the last round, as that would not leave me the opportunity to address anything I find to be incorrect.Please do not confuse "society" with "government". Before I begin, I would like to state that I accept the necessity of society, community, and of many of the services that these corporations labeled as "government" provide. If a corporation issues a "law", it is making a rule and promoting the obedience of that rule with "law enforcement" (both attributes are listed in the definition of government that we have accepted for this debate). Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:The use of violence an intimidation, without arbitrary exemptions, is the core principle behind criminal law. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression.If a corporation claims a "monopoly right over a geographic area", it is claiming that, on some level, it "owns" the land, and, if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals. We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave.The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:Claiming a monopoly right is inherently an exemption. It is the statement that the corporation can engage in X, but any other corporation who engages in X on their "turf" is subject to the same violence and intimidation described earlier. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression, racketeering, or uphold the property rights of individuals.If a corporation collects "taxes", we must assume that it is not voluntary. Any "voluntary" payment of services would simply be called a payment, and any "voluntary" contribution to society would simply be called "charity". Taxation is based exclusively on where you reside or do business, ie, if you reside or do business within the geographic area that the institution claim, this amounts to "tacit consent" (ie, not consensual) to pay for products and services. We can not accept this as "voluntary" because people choose to stay in that geographic region any more than we can accept the Mafia's collection of "protection money" as voluntary simply because a shopkeeper chooses not to move out of the neighborhood. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:To take, under threat of force, the product of somebody else's labor, against their consent is "theft". To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting theft.The myth of legitimacy and the paradox of exemption:The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law. The myth of "legitimacy" is itself an example of "arbitrary exemptions". In essence, it is a matter of faith. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to use violence against you or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to take the product of your labor against your will or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has a legitimate claim to a geographical area or you do not, but the claim itself does not make it true, and the fact that this belief is held by so many also does not make it true (democracy itself is an appeal to the ad populum fallacy).In fact, faith is REQUIRED to accept such corporations as legitimate, because, as I have demonstrated, the attributes of these corporations are inherently inconsistent (ie, self-contradictory), and a concept must, at the very least, be internally consistent for it to qualify as 'legitimate'. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00007-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | I will be doing this by justifying what it is governments are actually meant to do and give examples of governments that are 100% NOT criminal organizations as defined by the Pro. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00008-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | This argument contains definitions which clarify my position. If you provide an example of a corporation, agency, institution or other body which does not meet the below criteria (ei, at least one of the three attributes listed are not present), or define "crime" as excplicitly including "arbitrary exemptions" (ie, a "law" that allows the state to violate other laws), then you are arguing against a straw man, EVEN IF such institution is accepted as a "government" using OTHER CRITERIA. When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime). I contend that it is axiomatic - that the very same attributes which I here use to define a government are crimes, even within the scope of the very same laws that same government provides and enforces, and that arbitrary excemptions are necessary to cover up this obvious inconsistency. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00000-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | Pros comparisons of governments and the Mafia - Ability to make laws - " mob boss's rules are the rules and if you break it then that is your own damn fault not the mafia's. " But people dont recognize the Mafia Boss as the legitimate law maker of their land, people on the other hand do recognize governments as legit law makers, meaning that governments are not criminal organizations since they are legally recognized by the people as the lawmakers. - Rights given to people - "Neither do governments. When a government "gives" you a right, it is simply establishing that it can not legally violate that particular "right""Ok then allow me to rephrase. Governments establish that it cannot violate the rights of people. The Mafia does not do that. Therefore a government is not a criminal organization since it establishes that a persons rights cannot be violated. - Consequences for violating laws - " If you give it to me and I don't shoot you, is it then OK? "Youve made the correct choice in that scenario, however as stated above, the Government can only give you choices for punishment that do not violate a persons established right, the Mafia doesnt do that. Therefore a government is not a criminal organization since it can only give punishments that do not infringe on a persons rights. - Crossing state lines - "the mob can kick you out of the ciy is if you're a trouble-maker"But as established before, the mafia isnt the recognized authority of the land and are not the official lawmakers of the land. So once again Governments are not criminal organizations becasue they are recognized as the rightful lawmakers of the land. - Law enforcement does not infringe on peoples rights - " You treat them right, and they'll treat you right. "Pro has completely ignored my argument on this one which was about the limits of authority a government can use against common criminals. A government cannot use extreme measures of force because peoples rights defend from that, however to criminal organizations rights dont mean anything and there is an unlimited range of force they can use. Therefore Governments are not criminal organizations since the range of force a government can use against its people through law enforcement is limited, whereas for criminal organizations, it is not. - Legitimacy to collect taxes - "For a extortion racket to work, we need to collect the protection money"Once again, people dont recognize the mafia as the legal entity that can collect taxes, the government though is. Therefore governments arent criminal organizations since people recognize governments to have the power to collect taxes legally, but criminal organizations do not. ========================================================================================================================================================Governments vs Anarchies - Governments give people rights - "Rights are "unalienable". They do not come from government. Government, if anything. codifies and (alegedly) protects some rights. .. . "Ok then, Governments legally recognize and codify a persons rights, anarchies do not. - Governments acknowledge property rights - "Government cant protect your property by taking it by force. "Governments are not allowed to take ones property without violating the persons rights, anarchies dont do that - Governments provide services to its people - "Not nearly as many services as the free market does. "Pro concedes that anarchies dont give people services. - Governments puts criminals, murderers, and rapists in jail - "US government also murders people in brutal wars, and uses the fear of rape to gain your obedience. "Pro ignores and concedes that governments can imprison criminals, anarhcies dont do that - Governments fund jails to keep criminals in - "It also defines what a "criminal" is, and can put you in jail for not obeying it. "Yeah, because it is legally allowed to do that because people legitimize the government's right to determine what a criminal is whether they agree with their choices are not. Thus this point is conceded too. - Governments respect the right to bear arms - "That is the exact opposite of the truth, much like many other things you've said. "Anarchies are any areas of land under no government rule, therefore anarchies dont recognize any rights of people. This means that anarchies dont recognize the right to bear arms. "Here's the thing, If you were born in a hospital, been to a hospital, seen a dentist, or gone to a school, then the government has spent money on you. .. . So the government does spend money on EVERYONE"I dont know why the Pro is repeating my arguments I used against him to prove him wrong. .. . The point of this is that governments use their income to benefit the people whereas criminal organizations do not do that. Conceded by the Pro. ========================================================================================================================================================If one, then all? "fictional governments have fictional laws which are enforced with fictional law enforcement and claim a monopoly over fictional geographic regions and collect fictional taxes, then they are fictional criminal organizations, "But they have the legal right to do that, much like the ones in real life, since people acknowledge that they have the authority and legal right to do this. "The criteria for criminality explicitly includes the qualities specifically defined in government. "Criminal activity is any activity that violates the laws that prohibit such activity. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Governments are the rightful lawmakers of a region, criminal activity is activity that violates the laws of the state, not the laws an individual sets. Governments cant be criminal organizations since their own actions are limited and cannot violate people rights to an unlimited extent without having to compensate those whose rights have been unintentionally infringed ========================================================================================================================================================So to summarize this debate,Governments legally codify and recognize people's rights. Criminal organizations do notGovernments are the legally recognized law makers of the land, recognized by the people. Criminal organizations are notGovernments use funds to benefit their own people. Criminal organizations do notGovernments are limited by how much force they can use against a person. Criminal organizations are notGovernments are the legally recognized lawmakers of a land. Criminal organizations are not. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00001-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | For this round, will simply test con's arguments out by using the same arguments for a known criminal institution as a baseline - the question is "does the same line of argument justify the actions of the mafia?". Since we know the actions of the mafia are not justifible or legitimate, we can assume any argument which justfies or legitimizes the criminal actions of the mafia are not valid. For this thought experiment, I will assume that the mob boss makes sizable donations to the orphanage he was raised in. Think of the orphans"First off a law is a law and if you break it then that is your own damn fault not the governments." First off a mob boss's rules are the rules and if you break it then that is your own damn fault not the mafia's. You must first assume that the rules are legitimate before you can assume that the violence used to enforce those rules is justified. This is circular reasoning."criminal organizations dont give people rights"Neither do governments. When a government "gives" you a right, it is simply establishing that it can not legally violate that particular "right", buy any right that isn't codified is on the table, hence the state violating your property rights and rights of movement.'Yeah if asking nicely and giving you an option to choose youre own fate is counted as violence'If the mafia asks you nicely and gives you an option to choose whether you pay protection, aren't you choosing you're own fate? If I point a gun to your head and demand your wallet, and you give it to me, I'm giving you a choice, right? If you give it to me and I don't shoot you, is it then OK? It's not a "violent" or "coercive" act if I don't shoot you?"The reason they can deny you access is if youre a smuggler or a criminal or someone wanted for committing a crime. If youre not a criminal or a smuggler then youre allowed to go around anywhere."Stating a motivation is not justification for the act they are motivated to do, even if that motivation is "good". The reason the mob can kick you out of the ciy is if you're a trouble-maker. If you don't make any trouble, and keep your nose clean, you don't got nothing to worry about."You cannot assume that [all governments are criminal organizations] just because 1 might qualify that all others do qualify."Like I said before, based on the definition of 'crime', exluding any exeptions, all governments, as defined in this argument, are, de-facto, criminal organizations. It is axiomatic, like saying "all apples are fruits", and defining an apple as a "fruit which grows on an apple tree". The criteria for criminality explicitly includes the qualities specifically defined in government."You have yet to give proof that they are indeed criminal organizations."If these fictional governments have fictional laws which are enforced with fictional law enforcement and claim a monopoly over fictional geographic regions and collect fictional taxes, then they are fictional criminal organizations, unless you define "crime" as "not crime" or "not crime when fictional governments do it"."Law enforcement still acknowledges that people have rights, that law enforcement is limited in how they treat people, and that law enforcement lives by codes and laws that they have to obey."The mob knows that people deserve respect, and there are certain things that they just won't do. You treat them right, and they'll treat you right. There's even "honor among theves"."for a government to work it needs taxes"For a extortion racket to work, we need to collect the protection money. Think of the orphans."you have still not offered evidence showing that each and every one of these are criminal organizations. "You are shifting the onus. In essence, you are stating that I must deliver an infinite number of counter-arguments to these examples. You are doing this because, I suspect, you don't understand the axiomatic nature of my argument. My argument works with all possible governments in all possible universes, as long as they meet the criteria.You have asserted several times that I have offered "no proof" that governments are criminal organizations. To say this is to miss the point etirely. If I say that all apples are fruits and define apple as a fruit, then, yes, ALL apples are fruits, definately and definitively. You are saying that there are fictional apples, and put the onus on me to prove that all fictional apples are fruits, when you ignore the definition of "apple" stated to avoid exactly that kind of confusion.The rest of your argument is a repetition of the same points - "yeah, but...". Yeah, but governments pay for good things. Yeah, but governments punish bad people. Yeah, but governments give us free goodies. Yeah, but governments protect us from evil warlords. This may all be entirely true, but it is also irrelevant, as I am not saying that providing these services is a criminal act any more than the mob boss giving money to an orphanage is a criminal act. It's not what they do with their money and power (most of the time), it's how they get the money, and how they keep their power. You also choose to argue against some of my rhetorical statements I made during the round you forfieted. I could engage in those extraneous argument, but it would take too long and detract from the point.Your final diatribe against anarchism is an ad hominum attack. Yes, I'm an "anarchist" because I don't believe in morally justifiable INITIATIONS of force. Just calling me an "anarchist" is a de-facto straw man since you obviously have a misunderstanding of my position, so can not possibly address my arguments which defend them. I could be a satanist, child-molesting drug-dealing murderous psychopath, but that wouldn't change the substance of my argument."Governments give people rights"Rights are "unalienable". They do not come from government. Government, if anything. codifies and (alegedly) protects some rights at the expense of violation other rights"."Governments acknowledge people's property rights"Government can not protect your property by taking it by force."Governments provide services to its people"Not nearly as many services as the free market does."Governments puts criminals, murderers, and rapists in jail"Success rate is about 10% in the US. US government also murders people in brutal wars, and uses the fear of rape to gain your obedience."Governments fund jails to keep criminals in"It also defines what a "criminal" is, and can put you in jail for not obeying it."Governments acknowledge the right to bear arms, Anarchies dont"That is the exact opposite of the truth, much like many other things you've said. Here's the thing, If you were born in a hospital, been to a hospital, seen a dentist, or gone to a school, then the government has spent money on you.... So the government does spend money on EVERYONE |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00002-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | First off I apologize for FF the last roundIll refute the Pro's points from round 3 then challenge his views in round 4"at least in the US, is that men with guns come to your house, tie you up in metal shackles, throw you in a vehicle, many times a windowless van, and toss you in a cage that isfamousfor being a place where you will be beaten and raped"You like to put a dark spin on things huh? First off a law is a law and if you break it then that is your own damn fault not the governments. That being said people who are arrested still have rights, they can still have attorneys, they have the right to remain silent, they are not slabs of meat like you think they are for some reason. Governments acknowledge that people are people, criminal organizations dont because criminal organizations dont give people rights. "Law enforcement IS violence and intimidation"Yeah if asking nicely and giving you an option to choose youre own fate is counted as violence"The idea that I would be "allowed" to move beyond those borders with permission implicitly asserts that the corporation has the right to deny me access, which is the exact opposite of me being "allowed" to cross those borders."The reason they can deny you access is if youre a smuggler or a criminal or someone wanted for committing a crime. If youre not a criminal or a smuggler then youre allowed to go around anywhere. "Also, you forget that it is not "the people" government spends money on, as there is no such thing as 'the people"."You really are a close minded anarchist huh...Here's the thing, If you were born in a hospital, been to a hospital, seen a dentist, or gone to a school, then the government has spent money on you.... So the government does spend money on EVERYONE"...except the ones that have exemptions that allow them to violate the law, which, I still maintain, is all of them."You still havent given any proof that this is close to being true. For ALL governments to be criminal organizations you must prove that all governments are criminal organizations. You cannot assume that just because 1 might qualify that all others do qualify. "There are many fictional crime families out there. To the extent that they are fictional, their crimes are fictional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal. "Im not talking about fictional crime families, im talking about fictional governments. You said all governments are criminal organizations, I named several that are not criminal organizations, you have yet to give proof that they are indeed criminal organizations. "Claimed that law enforcement (law enFORCEment) has nothing to do with force, violence, or intimidation, even though the exact opposite is demonstrably true."Law enforcement still acknowledges that people have rights, that law enforcement is limited in how they treat people, and that law enforcement lives by codes and laws that they have to obey. Things like the Miranda rights are codes that law enforcement have to work by. Criminal organizations do not have these codes and thus are not criminal organizations. "Claim that taxation is a "special case" because "the people" (ie, you, and people who agree with you) consider it a 'necessary evil'." Yeah, I agree with this, for a government to work it needs taxes which can come from tariffs, excise taxes, or the most common form, income taxes. "Used fictional (FICTIONAL!) governments as examples of governments which are not criminal"Im allowed to use fictional governments to prove you wrong, and you have still not offered evidence showing that each and every one of these are criminal organizations. "Is it really hard to accept that the next to be called into question is the dominant institution of our day?"Well to accept something that challenges the norm, you need proof that shows you are correct, you havent offered any tangible evidence or examples of how all governments are criminal organizations. " Is it really that far of a stretch to think that institutions (governments) which killed nearly 300 million people in the 20th century may not be rational?"Nobody is here to say that governments are rational 100% of the time, but you are certainly the only one here who thinks that American intervention in WWII makes America a criminal organization. "Is it really hard to accept that using an institution which steals nearly half the nation's income is not a good strategy for protecting property rights?"Half of the people in the US doesnt even pay taxes and the half that does is taxed by less than 40% 99% of the time so re-evaluate your math and then when you realize that the government uses a good majority of that to help us live better lives, you might start singing a different tune"Is it hard to figure out that the more soldiers "fight for our freedom", the less freedom we actually have,"Yes because had we not fought the Revolutionary War we would all be somehow MORE free"as measured by the massive amount of legislation coming out of Washington, from SOPA and PIPA to the NDAA and the Patriot Act?"You mean those things that were vetoed, amended numerous times, vetoed again, struck down, limited, and applied only to potential terrorists? I thought so"We can either choose to be on the right side of history, or we can choose to indulge in the delusion that the status quo is always correct - a delusion that, history has shown, will almost always be wrong."Ill call Bullsh*t on that out of all the other ridiculous arguments youve made. According to the Pro all forms of anarchy are better than any form of government. So lets compare governments to AnarchiesGovernments give people rights, Anarchies dontGovernments acknowledge people's property rights, Anarchies dontGovernments provide services to its people, Anarchies dontGovernments puts criminals, murderers, and rapists in jail, Anarchies dontGovernments fund jails to keep criminals in, Anarchies dontGovernments acknowledge the right to bear arms, Anarchies dontLet me summarize this whole moshpit of a debate. Pro is a die hard anarchist who probably believes that making your kid go to school counts as child abuse and absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything good the government has ever done. I am arguing that since governments provide services to people, give rights to people, protect and acknowledge people's rights, repeal laws that are found to be unjust, give rights to people even when they are criminals, and passes laws that benefit people when they do not benefit the government. Governments are not criminal organizations, and by extension just because one government crosses the line one time that certainly does not mean that all governments are somehow all criminal organizations because the Pro has still yet to offer evidence of just how each and every last government is a criminal organization. Fictional or not |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00003-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | When the world was confronted with the observations of Copernicus, and the theories of a heliocentric solar system, it was a dramatic shock to the existing world view that the entire world would be fundamentally different than what people had accepted for centuries.When the world was confronted with the protestant movement, it was a dramatic charge that the "one true faith" could be called into question, that alternatives to such a ubiquitous and powerful institution could be created simply by asking those questions, and formulating alternative answers.When the world was confronted with abolitionists, it was a dramatic realization that slavery was wrong, yet some stuck to their existing perceptions, and ignored the obvious immorality of the institution.When the world was confronted with the woman's suffrage movement, it was a dramatic and scary thought to some that women be given the same rights as men.When the world was confronted with such scientific breakthroughs as the theory of evolution, or Einstein's theory of relativity, it was a dramatic paradigm shift, which left many people dazed and confused.Yet, we all accept that these things were correct, and the dominant paradigms of the time were wrong. We all accept that truth marches on, and that the future MUST, as well, be filled with surprising revelations about the ideas and institutions we take for granted.Is it really hard to accept that the next to be called into question is the dominant institution of our day? Is it really that far of a stretch to think that institutions (governments) which killed nearly 300 million people in the 20th century may not be rational? Is it really hard to accept that using an institution which steals nearly half the nation's income is not a good strategy for protecting property rights? Is it hard to figure out that the more soldiers "fight for our freedom", the less freedom we actually have, as measured by the massive amount of legislation coming out of Washington, from SOPA and PIPA to the NDAA and the Patriot Act?We can either choose to be on the right side of history, or we can choose to indulge in the delusion that the status quo is always correct - a delusion that, history has shown, will almost always be wrong. |
d3279517-2019-04-18T18:22:31Z-00004-000 | All Governments are Criminal Organizations | "law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough."There are many different forms of "punishment" for non-obedience, up to and including being shot. The violence, however, tends to show itself clearly only when the other intimidation techniques don't achieve the objective of your obedience. In the US, for instance, you may get a fine, but that fine is essentially an extortion notice, and is itself an act of intimidation. You must pay, or else. If you do not pay that fine, they can increase the intimidation. For instance, they can send you a court date, which is to say, they can demand that you appear before them. If you do not show up, they can issue a warrant for your arrest, which is to say, they create a document which "authorizes" somebody to abduct you against your will. Even that is nice language meant to play down what actually happens, as the truth, at least in the US, is that men with guns come to your house, tie you up in metal shackles, throw you in a vehicle, many times a windowless van, and toss you in a cage that is famous for being a place where you will be beaten and raped*.If you defend yourself from this horrific threat of abduction and prison rape, you will be shot - murdered, slaughtered, executed, put down like a pig, and the only "crimes" you committed were disobedience and self-defense."law enforcement doesn't come from violence and intimidation"Law enforcement IS violence and intimidation, and it is explicitly so. There are plenty of justifications for this violence and intimidation, (ie, claiming that it is a "necessary evil"), but saying they have nothing to do with each other is like saying war has nothing to do with killing people. Not only is it not true, it is the exact opposite of truth. "You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "You are contradicting yourself. If I am required to ask permission to do something (passport), then, ipso-facto, I am not "allowed" to do it. The idea that I would be "allowed" to move beyond those borders with permission implicitly asserts that the corporation has the right to deny me access, which is the exact opposite of me being "allowed" to cross those borders. Let's say you didn't even need a passport, and you could just freely move across borders - that is irrelevant to the question of how the corporation behaves within those borders. Building walls and having checkpoints on the borders is just one more example of criminal behavior on the part of these corporations. Much like "taxation", it is something that, if you or I attempted to do to a third party, it would immediately be recognized as criminal behavior."So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil"Whether you believe it is "necessary" is irrelevant. It has been argued that the black market is "necessary", as well, but that is irrelevant to whether it is criminal. Slavery was once thought of as a "necessary evil", but that doesn't change the nature of slavery.Also, you forget that it is not "the people" government spends money on, as there is no such thing as 'the people". The government takes money from SOME people and uses it to benefit OTHER people. The size of the groups involved are irrelevant. For instance, not all people agree with you that taxes are "accepted as necessary evils".Even if that money was spent to improve society, and that 99.99% of the population approves of the spending, it is still a violation of the law unless we allow for an exemption - you even admit this yourself by calling taxation a necessary "evil". What is "evil" about being consistent with our values and rules? For us to consider it "evil", it must be a violation of our value system." That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass"...except the ones that have exemptions that allow them to violate the law, which, I still maintain, is all of them. I freely acknowledge that government agencies and individuals working for government are subject to some of the laws that the rest of us are. However, a criminal is still a criminal if he breaks even one criminal law, regardless of how many laws he obeys. If that criminal could decide what the laws are, there is no reason for him to give himself an exemption for laws he doesn't want to violate - just the ones preventing stealing, intimidation, racketeering, etc... just like governments do."Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments."There are many fictional crime families out there. To the extent that they are fictional, their crimes are fictional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal. What you are essentially saying:In order to argue your case, you have done the following: Claimed that law enforcement (law enFORCEment) has nothing to do with force, violence, or intimidation, even though the exact opposite is demonstrably true. Claimed that taxation is a "special case" because "the people" (ie, you, and people who agree with you) consider it a 'necessary evil'. In other words, it is exempt from our standards and is "legal" even though it violates other laws - exactly my point. Used fictional (FICTIONAL!) governments as examples of governments which are not criminal (even though they still are criminal as fictional governments). In short, you have produced no compelling reasons to dismiss my arguments. * http://reason.com... |
73d719aa-2019-04-18T17:28:05Z-00000-000 | JCats should be treated like regular cats. | There are a few things I need to bring up this round. 1) My opponent makes the claim that the music is terrible, however, he does not provide any evidence for this claim, not even a sample of the music for us to make the determination. As such, this is an unsubstantiated claim. 2) My opponent then claims that this makes those listeners a different species. This is, of course, a logical fallacy. While it may potentially indicate that they lack reasoning and so lack personhood and the rigs associated. They are still genetically people and members of our species. Let my finish by pointing out that my opponent has not presented even a sample of this terrible music nor any sources to back up any of his claims. Thank you. |
73d719aa-2019-04-18T17:28:05Z-00001-000 | JCats should be treated like regular cats. | Have you ever heard of a scientist that was a JCat? No, precisely, because they're not capable of rational thought. So what species is a JCat, and what species should we treat a JCat like? Well, seeing as they're definitely not human, it seems fair and reasonable to assume and treat them like cats, seeing as that's their name. That would make sense. The resolution hath been affirmed, hurrah! I thank you. |
73d719aa-2019-04-18T17:28:05Z-00002-000 | JCats should be treated like regular cats. | A quick set of definitions before beginning. JCats - Fans of the musical group, Union J (as defined by my opponent in his R1) Union J - A British boy band [1] fan - A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art or entertainment form, or famous person [2]. feline - A cat or other member of the cat family [3]. I will now begin with my arguments 1) Human rights We can extrapolate basic human rights from our own self ownership, which can be shown by Hoppe [4]. From this, all things capable of rational thought and self awareness are persons and have those rights. Since cats are not capable of rational thought and self awareness, they are not allowed rights, while the fans of Union J are. Because of this, "JCats" should not be treated like regular cats. Thank you, [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . http://mises.org... |
73d719aa-2019-04-18T17:28:05Z-00003-000 | JCats should be treated like regular cats. | JCats, fans of Union J, are often treated as if they are superior to other species of cats - with the way they're treated you'd think they're human. There's no reason why they deserve such good treatment, they're just like any other dumb feline.They get to eat human food, be accepted into human schools and even not being subjected to uncomfortable collars and patronizing nicknames, such as 'Tiddles' and 'Mr. Pickle Wickle'.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether JCats should be treated like regular cats. I hope for a good debate.I thank you. |
36035c76-2019-04-18T16:11:38Z-00000-000 | catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell | reiterate |
36035c76-2019-04-18T16:11:38Z-00001-000 | catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell | my argument involves whether or not the catholic church teaches the things i've mentioned. con merely argues what God would probably do or not do concerning the teachings involved, and doesn't even address the actual issues presented. he missed the point entirely. |
36035c76-2019-04-18T16:11:38Z-00002-000 | catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell | I read Pro's argument and came to conclusion that she never read Holy Bible. Unbaptized infants and Noncatholics.Firstly, unbaptized infants will not go to hell, for several reasons. The rational reason, if we assume God is just and merciful, then Him sending little children who have done nothing, would be unjust and unmerciful. Children not being baptized is not their fault, but it is their parents' fault. Therefore they cannot be judged for their parents actions, which they have no aware, no knowledge of, and no participation with. Second evidence is scriptural. "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." - Mat18:3. The child here is not a catholic, and not a Christian, and he (or may be she) was not baptized. And "whoever takes the lowly position of this child" means position of child is without any deeds (good or bad), because children has no awareness of good or bad, until they grew in certain knowledge.The claim, Noncatholics will not go to heaven is another nonsense, because Jesus never talked about Catholics, and never said it is a ticket for paradise. He told a parables, explaining how to get to paradise, and non of them say anything about catholic dogma. If Pro claims otherwise, she have to show it from the Bible.And thirdly, even before claiming such dogma, one have to prove the main claims of catholic dogma are true, rationally and logically. If they cannot be proved then whatever the secondary claim is just waste of time. If what you say about God is just nonsense, then there is no point to talk about secondary issues, like who will go to hell, and who will not. And it is God's business, whom He is letting to paradise and whom He is sending to hell. You cannot put an obligation on God. |
36035c76-2019-04-18T16:11:38Z-00003-000 | catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell | the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count. limbo, just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." No salvation for noncatholics: you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org... the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political statement loaded with far out possibilities while making it look like they actually have a shot. it's a political statement. |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00006-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | Hello, Fred. This is one of my favorite subjects, and I am glad to have this debate with you. The photons emitting from my computer screen have triggered a complicated cause and effect, resulting in me accepting the challenge. I would like to start off by establishing what free will is. We are discussing the theoretical ability of the mind to make decisions of its own, and to control its own fate. I would now like to speculate on the nature of a mind. Its home is the brain. The brain is a physical object, which acts like any other physical object. Chemical reactions occur within it, which makes our "decisions" and "thoughts". You will refute by saying that we control our decisions. If you see a plate of food in front of you would eat it, right? If there was no plate of food there, would you have still made the decision to eat it? No. Of course not, several things, including the smell of the food, and your vision that reveals the food, CAUSED you to eat it. The brain is such an endlessly complex thing, but it still follows rules and cause and effect just like anything else. The nature of this speculation is incredible, as it is that of a brain pondering on the workings of it. We can, of course, never fully understand and predict the complex chemical reactions of a brain. Because we may not predict it, we assume it controls its own fate. The same may be applied to the rolling of a die. No man can predict what number it will land on when tossed across a game- board. We perceive it to be random. Though it is obvious that it is not random, and the die still follows the laws of physics, and every little crumb on the table that the die comes across, causes the die to make a slightly different course. Let's look back to history, shall we? In the very early ages, before science, people would perceive that things such as rain were the will of gods, and would dance and what not for rain. Of course none of them could perceive of water being held in clouds, evaporation or what not, so they assume that the rain has a will of its own. In our advanced era, we know that rain is caused by a predictable system of cause and effect. How is our brain any different? I have no wish to turn this into a theological debate, for I am an atheist. I will note however, that there is in fact, theological determinism. You should look it up. It is the belief that god controls the actions of Humans. wrote more ethic and sci can post round 1 or in comments. prefference? |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00007-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | This topic has been discussed since the earliest of times and involves religious, ethical, and scientific implications. In the realm of theology, the Creator does not assert His omnipotent power over individual will thereby allowing humans to make choices. On an ethical plane, without free will, how can we hold anyone morally accountable for their actions. While great strides have been made in scientifically mapping the thought process, the actions of the body are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question is: Does the machine (brain) control the soul or does the soul control the machine? In contemplating on whether or not to issue this challenge, I weighed all of the options and possibilities (consequences) of my contemplated action and decided to go ahead and issue the challenge. My intention is not to win or loose the debate, but supply a forum where ideas can be freely exchanged in a refreshing, open atmosphere without rancor. |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00000-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | Hello, In actuality, what is later discovered to be invalid was in fact invalid from the start, but this is irrelevant. Instinct and what you perceive to be "rational thought" (but what is really just extremely complex cause and effect which appear to be rational) are deeply intermingled. No, you either did do as I proposed, or you didn't, and to the fortune of your co-workers you did the latter. It is not as if you "could" have done something else. At the time, I could not predict the future (My mind did not know all the variables), and thus was not positive which crossroad events would inevitably take, and it may have been perceived by some, that it was random, or that events chose the crossroad. But now, that we can look back to the past (based on memory) and observe the outcome, we can reasonably conclude that the equation could only add up to your un-compliance with my friendly suggestion. Let me explain this mathematically: We will use a simple equation for this experiment, quite unlike the complex equations of the mind. The equation is: 2+3. We, in this context, know all variables involved: 2 and 3. Using our knowledge of all the variables in question, and our mind's amazing computing ability, we can predict the future and say it will equal 5. This is a much simplified version, however. In reality, being the humans with oh so limited minds; we would NOT know all the variables. Let's say that we only knew the existence of 2. We would not know what all variables might be included, so estimates of the results could be any figure. We cannot predict the outcome with the limited info. After the thing itself happened, and we observed that it was 5 that ended up happening, we know that it could not have been anything else that was the answer, for 2+3, despite your philosophies WILL ALWAYS equal 5. According to your ideas, 2+3, could "choose" to equal 7, or 10, or 23,476,353,658,346. This is obviously untrue. Series of events, in actuality follow one path, there are no crossroads; the crossroads are just illusions. And this is the easiest answer to the question of free will, and we may conclude that free-will does not exist. The mind does not control math. Math is undisputable. You cannot deny the logic I have provided above. To answer your question, 2 and 3 force you to choose something. The matter of free-will is not about forcing to do something against your will; it is about forcing your will to do whatever. It makes you "choose" what you choose. I have proved that the mind is not infinite, but 2+3 cannot equal an infinite amount of things, it can only equal one thing. If it was infinite, my mind could control the universe (and trust me, if I controlled the universe, things would be a lot more amusing). The computer is indeed a good analogy for the brain, because the computer, like the brain, has no free will. Your analogy seems to agree with my side. Anyways, I suppose it would be "possible", as in we don't know for sure any variables that deny it, but I strongly doubt that the equation of events will equal humans building such a computer. There are many variables including even such things as the human race being wiped out before we reached the level of technology. AS for your differentiation between Humans and other animals, I say: a brain is a brain, brains don't have freewill. Look at this article: http://www.apa.org... It shows how similar human and chimpanzee brains are. You earlier proposed a sort of "micro evolution", evolution takes millions of years, Fred. So we can reasonably look back…6 thousand years and conclude that human's brains are not dissimilar from humans. Infants born and raised today constantly are raised in the environment of the information age. The minds of 6 thousand years ago, which we can conclude are basically the same as now, lived as animals, so I do not see your connection. Fred, I am dearly sorry, but I can not explain to you all the variables involved in the decisions and psychological processes of gamblers, and drunkards. You keep asking for a simple explanation of why the gambler does something, and someone else does another thing, but I can't give a simple explanation of these processes. Those statements do not necessarily disagree with my arguments. Brain tissue can change shape. You CANT defy nature, Fred. Nature is to broad a sense. Nature is simply the nature of how things are, how they work and why they exist in such a form. You're brain cells do not choose in what direction they go, or how they multiply. You drastically misunderstood my last paragraph (not your fault, just the confusion of limited man-made language). I was not complaining that you were asking "why" to much, I was complaining that you WERE NOT asking "why" enough, I think that you are not asking "Why" enough. I want you to ask "why" more. Does it make sense to you now? -Harlan |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00001-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | Harlan, the definition of science is:" ability to produce solutions in some problem domain." It is a fact that solutions that were valid yesterday, may become invalid today based upon further research. Sometimes, the scientist comes to a conclusion based upon flawed data making his conclusion invalid – or a mistake. I don't think I said people decide on whether or not they want free will. I do say that man has the ability to use free will, or he can choose not to thereby utilizing only that portion of his brain that responds to instinct, the reptilian brain. A thought certainly can form another thought. "I think I will write a book," may produce another thought: "What kind of book will I write?" I am glad that you assumed that I am sane. In doing so you might have even placed a wager on my response because, being sane, why would I want to do things that are considered by most to be insane? The fact remains that I could have done some of those things you proposed (I once danced onstage acting like a stripper akin to wearing a pink tutu to work) but I considered the consequences and decided they were not things that I should do, especially at work! What would force me to do something that I choose not to do? I truly believe that the power of the mind is infinite. The more we use it, the better we get at doing things. Doesn't it seem that each generation seems "smarter" than the previous ones? Perhaps we are observing a micro-second of evolution? When computers first were developed, they were the size of a room. Today, I am working on a minuscule laptop going at corvette speeds compared to the model T speed of the older ones. Computers will continually evolve into smarter, faster machines because someone decided to study and research computer technology and take it to the next level by experimentation. If it is theoretically possible, then it can be done…we just haven't figured out how yet! Again, we will leave the origin of free will to the theological debate and remain in the scientific realm. Miriam-Webster defines human as "of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature." An example would be all Native Americans are Native Americans, but not all are Wampanoag Native Americans. Something sets them apart. While man may be described as a "bi-pedal mammal" something sets us apart from all other mammals: our ability to make decisions, to make choices, to exercise free will. We can ask the questions: "Who? What? Why? What are the consequences? Then we can decide to act, or not act. I am an addict (alcohol being a drug)science tells me that I inherited a genetic makeup that made me so. Science can demonstrate that prolonged use of the drug causes further alterations within my brain chemistry. That makes sense. I took something that caused a change that effected my brain. However, a pathological gambler never ingests anything yet science shows the same brain chemistry changes as the alcoholic. But, the pathological gambler never ingested anything to cause the effect on the brain. His repetitive behavior (or, thinking)did. Sort of like mind over matter, wouldn't you say? By doing certain things over and over again I have developed a newer habit (sobriety) that defies my genetic nature and the changes caused to my brain chemistry by continued use of the drug. Certainly not an easy feat but I haven't had a drink in almost seven years. Defies nature, don't you think? The fact is I first tried recovery back in 1998 but I only have seven years of "clean time." Recovery didn't work until I chose to do the things necessary to make it work despite my genetic makeup! I chose! Things (planets, trees, etc.) certainly do not make things work. I make things work by using my intellect and my freedom to choose what to make work. Perhaps, Harlan, my "why" questions are meant for you to think about my statements in a different way than you have in the past. Everything does have a reason but man has not been able to discover every reason just yet. Logical is defined as being "capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; a logical mind." Truth is, life can be illogical at times. |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00002-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | Hello Science itself, by definition can not be mistaken, while scientific theories can be disproved (thus eliminating the "Science" element of it). The idea that people use free will to decide whether they want free will is ludicrous (it is like saying, "vote no if you don't want democracy"). A thought can certainly cause another thought to form. All a "thought" is, is the complex-calculator-that-is-the-mind's process that you are aware of. Assuming that you were "sane" (a relevant term, mind you), my mind concluded that you would not be able to carry out my thoughtful suggestion. I was right. You could not do it. Your mind kept you from doing it. "While I could very well choose to do any of those things that you suggest, I would more than likely choose not to do them" You "could" have done them? If our world fo0llows cause and vent, I was aware that if something in the past did or did not happen, there was no other possible course of events, as there is no such thing as randomness. You "more than likely" would have done what you did? Things are not random, Fred. Things only happen if things cause them to happen. Are you saying that the mind has infinite possibilities? This is obviously not true…the mind is limited at some point. Do not get me wrong, the Human mind has a very complex system for deciding courses of action, but not infinite. Well, it depends what you mean by "infinite", for inside the number 1, there is an infinite amount of variations (1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.0001, 1.00001, 1.000001, 1.132432543246322542523) The mind is not capable of everything, though. Theoretically, the human mind could be predicted, but because of the chaos theory, it would be INCREDIBLY difficult, but once more, the Human mind is not capable of everything, and it would take well over a lifetime (WELL, well over) to factor in and understand all the variables in the universe, for one moment in time. I doubt that we will create a computer if such computing power, because where would we get all the information? You can not fit a universe in a computer. Way, way too much information. It is probably not something we could do. Though strictly theoretically, it is "possible". How could I make the assertion that you would not do the actions I asked of you to take? Of course I did not know all the variables of the Universe, and thus I was not sure, but I knew that few minds were allowed to work in this manner, though some might be forced to. I do not believe in such a thing as a god "investing" free will in someone (side-note: who put the freewill in the god?). While we are in a scientific debate, you must agree that a Human is an animal. You stated yourself: "animals do not have free will". Do you concede, then? Or do you take that back? Or would you make the argument that scientifically Humans are not animals (which is unfactual)? Or do you revise that statement to say: "animals, exempt Humans, do not have freewill". I would be OK with this. Though our brains work the exact same way as other animals. The purpose of quoting Einstein was that not only does he have great understanding of things, and would be a great person for input, he summed it up very nicely. God does not play dice indeed, and accordingly nothing is random or happening for no reason, thus there being no freewill. Since we are debating with the context of science, the scientific world is a logical one. In this world (our world) things happen because things made them happen, not because they decide to happen. No offense, but I don't think you're going deep enough, Fred. You must keep asking "why" on every aspect. WHY do we do this? WHY does our mind decide that? WHAT made it decide that? WHY did it make it decide that? Things happen for reasons. You are just floating on the surface when you say that the mind has memories, but somehow those brain cells decide their own fate. You need to delve, and try to find the reason for each and every aspect. And therein lies the answer, everything has a reason, and thus the brain cells cannot decide their own fate. -Harlan |