_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00003-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | You present some apparently very good points, my friend. While you don't think that science can be mistaken, haven't earlier theories been disproven as time goes on? Therefore, what is being promoted as absolute scientific truth today may very well be proven wrong tomorrow. Both the planets and the trees do not have the ability, as far as we know, to think and therefore cannot determine their own fate. While things may come about because something caused them to begin the process of cognitive thought , the ability to exercise free will is a matter of choice. Something may stimulate a thought in my mind but I may decide to ponder that thought, if ever, at a later time. While we may not be able to control the universe yet, the mind is a powerful force. It is said that the conscious mind is like the picture of an iceberg. Only 10% of the iceberg is showing above water level with 90% below water. That part below water is equal to our subconscious mind which, for the most part, is going about its business without us knowing exactly what it is doing. While experiments by Benjamin Libet show that unconscious brain activity precedes the conscious decision, he does not interpret his findings as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will. Libet points out that: "although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains the right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds." Memory can serve man very well. It is but a tool and, as such, is only effective if I use it but if I do it will make things easier. The older we get, the more items are stored in the memory bank, and have been reinforced to the point that we accept them without further thought. Without thinking about it I know in a millisecond of memory that touching the flame is not going to be a very smart thing to do. The only control memory has over rational thought is what I have decided to give it. Past experience tells me that skipping around the facility I work at might be dangerous, wearing a pink tutu is just not my style (I have decided, although I once consciously wore a brown shoe and a black shoe to a class I was teaching in order to prove a point.) and at my age I have difficulty remembering the lyrics to most songs. I have a distinct aversion to needles and experience tells me that a bowie knife would cause much more pain and damage and my studies show that drinking gasoline, although some desperate alcoholics have tried it, could definitely be fatal. 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. No matter how large the number, possible outcomes are limited. Free will, however, is the monkey wrench in the machine. Could it be, Harlan, that a "human mind cannot possibly be predicted by a human mind" because a human mind cannot predict another's free will? You are probably right in that man will never build a super computer capable of predicting the future exactly because any computer is built upon human input and you just can't input free will into a computer. You hit upon something that we have agreed to debate in the future, the theological question of when, in the evolutionary time line, free will was infused and by Whom! You are correct in stating that animals do not have free will. While man's body may have evolved from animals, it is free will that makes us different from them. Einstein specifically states that he is talking from a philosophical point and offers no scientific proof as a basis for his assumption. Einstein also wrote: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." His famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice." |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00004-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | Hello, I agree the primary nature of this debate should be that of science. I do not think that science is "mistaken" but will consider what you have to say…However you look at it; outside influences cause it to happen. Things don't decide to happen. A planet doesn't decide to orbit the sun. A tree does not decide to fall down. Our brain, like the planet and the tree, is a physical object, made of physical, tangible components. Therefore it should act in the same manner. Things only happen because other things cause them to happen. With your logic, we should be able to control the universe with our mind. We obviously can't. Does this make sense? Otherwise, things could happen for no reason, because they Caused themselves to come into existence, which is wholly impossible. The memory, the trial and error that has been learned, and many other things don't allow you to touch the flame. Do you have freewill, Fred? Tomorrow, go about your regular business skipping, wearing a pink tutu, singing Britney spears, while repeatedly stabbing yourself in the leg, and drinking gasoline. Can you? Get back to me on this one. Memory is not the only thing that controls what a person does. Innumerable factors are involved in this equation. You seem to only focus on memory. With your theory of using memory for helping rational thought, doesn't memory have some control over "rational thought", you admitted yourself that many of your decisions are based on memories. Can memories not CAUSE a "decision" to happen, then? "How, then, could man ever progress to the point where science is today if there isn't something more than the limited amount of thought processes that can be achieved with that beaker-full of chemicals?" Good question. Does any one person fully understand every single advance in technology known to man, or have the potential to invent all of them? Humans are social animals. How can ants, with EXTREMELY limited brains, build those mounds, and have an affective system of attaining food? Joint force. Humanity is big. Anyways, just because the brain is limited at some point, does not mean there are several possibilities. The chaos theory explains to us that the slightest change in an equation, the tiniest itty bitty change can make very different outcomes in the equation. Let us take all the numbers, let's say, 1-10,000,000. That is limited. But imagine all the near-endless solutions to using those numbers in equations. "Once "y" outcomes is determined, then we could predict the outcome of anything, even the future" AHA!...You are surfacing on a whole new area of such things as determinism. The chaos theory explains this too, though. This idea is on the very edge of chaos. Do you know what one of the main ways the chaos theory was discovered? Predicting weather patterns. They tried, but then found that the computer was rounding the tiniest little fraction to the nearest something or other (for there are infinitely many fractions within one unit). The weather equation was seen to turn out one way, but when the computer did the equation again later, the outcome was completely different. To conclude, a Human mind cannot possibly be predicted by a human mind, but IF there was some sort of entity, possibly a super computer that could factor in every variable in the universe, and knew every thing, every variable in play and in what existence they were, it is perceivable that the future could be predicted. Realustically, this is probably not going to happen. When we are discussing science, we must acknowledge evolution, don't you agree? Well…We know that at one point our ancestors were bacteria of some sort. Do bacteria have free-will? Or do you perceive that that was adopted somewhere along the way. The relevance if this is…We will not possibly fully apprehend our brains in their unimaginably complex state to which they are today, so the one way to go about it is to look at a simpler form of our brain. Scientifically, a Human is an animal. Animals obviously do not have fre-will, so we shouldn't either. If you truly to make this into a scientific debate, I can warn you that science is on my side. If you don't believe me, ask a scientist. In fact, let's ask the greatest scientist of the 20th century: "In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that ‘a man can do as he will, but not will as he will,' has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place" --Albert Einstein out of spac |
573e3531-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00005-000 | Man has the ability to exercise free will | In contemplating to asking you, I did weigh in certain parameters that might apply. I respect your beliefs as an Atheist as, I am sure, you respect mine as a Christian. A classic tool of anger management and conflict resolution is to agree to disagree. Therefore, as I indicated in my opening statement that while discussing free will does involve theological, ethical and scientific levels of discussion, I will agree to focus most of my attention to the scientific arena leaving the rest for future debates. Without a doubt, science has been making great strides in explaining the inner workings of the human brain. Some studies have even shown that an electrical impulse caused by a chemical reaction can be observed a split second before the thought becomes conscious. This would seem to back up your theory. However, could not science be mistaken as to what that observed process actually is? Science assumes that the process involves the formation of thinking. Could it not, however, be recording a memory process that is being played back by the machine (brain) which would allow us to make a more rational thought based upon past experiences? Much like a computer, anything that ever happens to us is recorded in our brain. And, as you indicate, an external stimulus may occur to cause the brain to recall that memory and replay it in our brain which we can, therefore, use to make rational decisions? As infants, we are attracted to that bright orange and blue, dancing, flame. We want to play with that flame despite warnings that we should not. At this point the brain does not have any memory to fall back on to tell us not to play with it. Once we feel the intense heat and finding it not to be pleasurable the brain records a strong memory to not play with fire. In the future when the brain is stimulated by the site of flame, the brain recalls the memory lesson and quickly replays it in order that we can conclude to not touch the flame. Some of these recorded memories become so strong that we come to trust them as irrefutable fact. It was a fact, based upon the collective experience influenced by the then available means of transport, that the world was flat. As man developed the means of transportation that could go further, men like Columbus and Prince Henry the navigator began to challenge that "collective memory" and developed a thought that the world was, indeed, round. They decided to prove that cognitive thought and defy the "collective memory" and subsequently proved the world to be round. I thought to instigate this debate and proceeded to weigh all of the possible outcomes and I (with respectful emphasis) decided to proceed with the challenge perceiving that the outcome had more potential for good than it did for bad. In your analogy of the die, you state that the apparent randomness of the process of throwing the die is just that, apparent. Even factoring in other things as the lint, quality of the felt, the degree of the force of the throw, etc. there is a limited, although large, amount of possibilities on the outcome of the action. Could we not take this a little further? The brain contains a beaker-full of chemicals. While the number is again huge, this limited amount of chemicals can be combined in a limited number of ways in order to produce a limited number of results. This would seem to say, then, that man's thought processes are limited. How, then, could man ever progress to the point where science is today if there isn't something more than the limited amount of thought processes that can be achieved with that beaker-full of chemicals? You state that "Because we cannot predict it (the complex chemical reactions) we assume it "the brain) controls its own fate. " I respectfully submit that this statement is inherently flawed since "x "amount of chemical processes can only result in "y" outcomes. Once "y" outcomes is determined, then we could predict the outcome of anything, even the future. While I may be able to influence what will happen in the future by what I do today, I cannot be certain that I will do tomorrow what I did today. I may decide to do something different. Aside from Spiritual aspects, could not the Shaman be a more focused person that was more attuned to the workings of nature in those ancient times? Being more attuned to the changes of nature he may have noticed certain signs (that the People didn't) to which he concluded that the chance of rain occurring were sufficient enough to call the People to a rain dance? His success rate was probably just as good as today's meteorologists. Much as we malign today's weather man, we still tune into the weather forecast in order to attempt to plan our day. In conclusion, there is a distinct possibility that modern science is just beginning to map out and record the memory processes of man rather than the result: cognitive thought. |
d408223a-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00000-000 | Legalization of all recreational drugs | Extend |
d408223a-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00001-000 | Legalization of all recreational drugs | Extend. |
d408223a-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00002-000 | Legalization of all recreational drugs | Extend |
d408223a-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00003-000 | Legalization of all recreational drugs | I have clearly stated that by accepting you agree that the BoP is shared. First of all i would like to make a little speech why I think drugs should be legalized . The war on drugs has been going on for decades , now it has cost world economies billions and thousands of innocent people were put into jail for a victim less crime but humanity has been using drugs for thousands of years of human history it is a part of human culture that we are not gone rid of by criminalizing it from Alexander the Great's opium to modern age cannabis use criminalizing people for drug use will not stop people doing it . Now i will explain why legalizing drugs is a good idea 1. Violence&Black Market Why do we associate drug use with violence? It is because people who want to use drugs have to go to a black market to buy them this market is unregulated and uncontrolled , different factions involved in drug trade are fighting against each other and by legalizing drugs we would give people the chance to buy drugs from a more reliable source such as the government or a regulated private sector . This market is regulated which makes everything better , don't you think most people would rather buy from it than from a drug dealer in a dark alley that has no knowledge of business management , The black market would collapse 2. Freedom. In a truly free society people shouldn't restrict the freedom of others this is very relevant to the issue of banning drugs as drug usage is a victim-less crime and I consider banning it to be immoral. 2. Safety. Why do so many people overdose on drugs? for example heroin apart from its addictiveness is not as harmful to your body as let's say cocaine as heroin addicts can survive decades and the only reason why they die in the end is because of overdosing. The reason why people overdose on such drugs is because like I explained before they are forced to buy them from an unregulated market where drug dealers can put stuff into the drug to increase the value therefore customers are not sure how pure it is and might inject too much causing an overdose. 3. Price. Drug addicts often have to engage in criminal activity to get money for their next fix but if drugs were legalized the price would go down and it wouldn't be such a hard job to get your next fix so your life can be a lot better. 4. Prison Overgrowth . For this example let's look at the USA , 5% of the worlds population lives in USA yet 25% of all prisoners in the world are in USA , around 80% of all drug arrests are simply for having drugs on you ,this is putting innocent people in prison and over crowding prisons that have to be paid for. 5. Money. Taxing those who produce drugs will give the government a lot of money , this is a simple argument not much to add to this argument 6. Statistics. in 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offenses and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work. Sources . http://www.drugwarfacts.org............ . http://www.poppies.ws............ 'Alexander the Great introduced poppies to the Near East, starting the flowers long history in Asia. Opium was largely used as a social drug in India and China. Ancient Asian texts described the medical properties of opium. ' . http://www.spiegel.de............ ' If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs. ' . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... |
d408223a-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00004-000 | Legalization of all recreational drugs | not really enough said |
93d9c5c7-2019-04-18T12:00:34Z-00000-000 | is it ethical to implement an algorithm that gives self-driving cars the right to kill in case of em | In some cases this might seem like a good idea but what if it could save one or the other how would it chose who dies and lives should companies really have to play god and give everyone life scores and choose how important you are this would start up a lot of controversy. Do you really want to be judged to see if your life is valuable enough to live or so useless that you would die. What would the cars do if a white man and a Blackman with the same life scores who would it chose the black man or the white man, if it chose the white it would be called racist if it chose the black man they would say that it was trying to avoid trouble. Also this would give them ways to kill others that they don"t like by giving them a very low score. |
93d9c5c7-2019-04-18T12:00:34Z-00001-000 | is it ethical to implement an algorithm that gives self-driving cars the right to kill in case of em | Self-driving cars hold out the promise of being safer than manually driven cars. Yet they cannot be a 100 % safe. Collisions are sometimes unavoidable. So self-driving cars need to be programmed for how they should respond to scenarios where collisions are highly likely or unavoidable. The accident-scenarios self-driving cars might face have recently been likened to the key examples and dilemmas associated with the trolley problem. In this article, we critically examine this tempting analogy. We identify three important ways in which the ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars and the philosophy of the trolley problem differ from each other. These concern: (i) the basic decision-making situation faced by those who decide how self-driving cars should be programmed to deal with accidents; (ii) moral and legal responsibility; and (iii) decision-making in the face of risks and uncertainty. In discussing these three areas of disanalogy, we isolate and identify a number of basic issues and complexities that arise within the ethics of the programming of self-driving cars. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00000-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | I am very sorry for the technical issues I suffered, which prevented me from uploading my latest round. I attempted to contact Patriot Person by private message and by comments, even uploading the speech there, but alas, I will just have to re-submit my explanations here and hope that my opponent has the grace to forgive me. The Pokedex itself makes no sense. How can it identify a pokemon that has never been seen before, pokemon that hide in caves deep underground, like Mewtwo? If I scan a human, it doesn't give me a weight, cry, height etc. for every single human, just that one human in particular. The pokedex's flaws can be seen wherever a professor makes up the entries themselves. Grimer, the Sludge Pok"mon. It was born when sludge in a dirty stream was exposed to X-rays from the moon. The moon. The moon is, in fact, the weakest source of radiation in the known universe (http://www.mpe.mpg.de...), making it highly illogical why it didn't just get the x rays from the earth, or how the Pokedex came to know about this. It would make sense if the pokedex was some form of artifact made by arceus, but no, it was formed by a time paradox caused by Ash. I could go on about unrealistic tempatures given by slugma, or how Alakazam only learns 4 moves, but I have other points. The reason I cannot accept creepypastas as sources is because they are not canon. I stated at the beginning of the debate that the pokemon games came under the many worlds theory, where even games like Gale of Darkness would be counted, but these are Game Freak approved. If I put up a creepypasta about how all Giratina wanted was a cuddle from a loving trainer, I couldn't use that as evidence. But I checked with Cyndy and Latias, they enjoy hugs too. Dialga enjoys poking people. Darkrai and Cresselia have a dual relationship, but it is not a rivalry. Even if you claim he once inflicted nightmares willingly, he redeemed his character. Yes, it was to display how Tentacool isn't the threat you make it out to be, as even low level pokemon can fend them off with ease. I pose that the mind control is no threat, since we're going by animes are ok, Manaphy can just let everyone fly over the water instead, like in the movie, or people can just jump across the water without boats. See video for explanation. http://www.youtube.com... It makes no difference with the pg 13. You know Smaug can't possibly kill any of them, nor can they die from falls. You can't make Lord of the Rings out of the Hobbit, and you can't make creepiness out of such ridiculous arguments. Duncan. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00001-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | Extend my arguments. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00002-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | You disregard the knowledge of professors without providing any proof. You don't even give a source. They don't just use legends. From: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... "Pok"dex entries typically describe a Pok"mon in only two or three sentences. They may give background information on the habitat or activities of a Pok"mon in the wild or other information on the Pok"mon's history or anatomy. Pok"dex entries also include height, weight, cry, footprint, location, other forms, and a picture of the Pok"mon." That seems pretty accurate to me. And your judging of the lullaby not being fair is somewhat acceptable, but it is still about pokemon. This debate, is about a pokemon, so is the video. Giratina does not love you. Giratina is just showing fake affection so it can gain your trust. Then, Giratina, the Devil himself, will possess you, burn down the Johto region, than Sinnoh, than Kalos... Darkrai still wanted to inflict nightmares at one point. He represents nightmares, while his rival, Cresselia, represents good dreams. And what was that thing about Magikarp vs. Tentacruel about? Was that just supposed to be some fun joke? And why does it matter if a "level 100" Pikachu loses every second fight? The picture is still direct material from the anime, therefore that picture of Tentacool possessing Meowth is valid. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is rated PG-13, not PG. Boom. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00003-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | Legends are not viable sources of information, especially for a Professor. Since each professor uses these legends as source for the Pokedex, they discredit themselves. (By the way, each Professor answers to Oak anyway) In no way does Oak or any other Professor explain the science behind their techniques. Oak's method is to give 10 year-olds pokedexes and send them off. Elm does the same thing. Birch observes them in the field, and since he's obviously never left Littleroot, since he can't handle a lvl 3 zigzagoon, I doubt his credentials. Rowan ups his game by sending 3 children off not even giving one of them a pokedex. Finally, I do not have X or Y, but I imagine that Sycamore also sends children out in threes. I would listen to the lullaby, but I can see the text reading "based on the creepypasta" already, so I'll give that a skip, as it's not even from the games. Next, in defense of Giratina, I would like to remind you in Pokemon Soulsilver, it's possible to have him cuddle you because he loves you so much. Not demonic material, it seems. Net up, Cyrus explains the distorted world as the opposite stand of the DNA like world they dwell in, so he's more of an anti-matter pokemon. Next up, Darkrai fled to Full Moon Island in Diamond because he didn't want to inflict nightmares. Due to its proximity to Half-Moon Island, Cresselia would easily be able to cure any rare cases. I did a short test by making a female character and then fighting Tentacruel with a Magikarp until it fainted. After my 4th one, I found out you just go back to the Pokemon center. No questionable Japanese pornography occurs. By the way, The picture you have is of the cartoon, you know the one where a lvl 100 pikachu loses every second fight. These enemies are as threatening as Smaug from the Hobbit. Claiming to be threatening, you know the pg rating prevents you from taking a scratch. See you next round, Duncan |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00004-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | The Pokedex takes entries from not only legend, but witness accounts of the pokemon. That includes adults, not just ten year olds with pokeballs. The entries are also found by scientific studies, and Oak is not the only one who writes them. Oak writes them for the Kanto region only. Elm writes for Johto, Birch writes for Hoenn, Rowan writes for Sinnoh, Juniper writes for Unova, and Sycamore writes for Kalos.Therefore, most of t\your arguments about the truth flaws of the pokedex are wrong. Onto more reasons why pokemon is creepy. Have you heard Hypno's lullaby? I'll have it in this argument, just in case you haven't. Hypno is the evolved form of Drowzee, whom I mentioned in my last argument. Hypno holds a pendulum, and loves to hypnotize people into sleep. According to one game's Pokedex, Hypno stole a child it hypnotized. Thus, Hypno's Lullaby was born. Don't listen to or watch it if it is close to night or you are tired. http://www.youtube.com...EVIL POKEMON GIRATINA IS THE DEVIL. I mean, it was banished by Arceus, Palkia and Dialga for its violent ways. Satan, much? Also, look. How many wings does it have? 6. How many things on its neck does it have? 6. How many spikes does it have along its sides? 6. Therefore, 666. Giratina is the Devil, Arceus is God. Darkrai is evil. Darkrai is the legendary version of a word I can't say without this argument being against DDO rules. He spreads nightmares to a whole country, just for giggles. He makes everyone wet their beds and cry themselves back to sleep for GIGGLES. Plus, he even looks evil. Bet you weren't expecting Tentacool! Tentacool uses its poisonous tentacle-stinger thingies to possess people and pokemon. Here is an example picture of one possessing a Meowth. So what will Tentacool do to you? Kill you with its poisonous stingers, than possess you so it can do whatever it pleases with your body. So what does its evolved form, Tentacruel do? O.O |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00005-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | The issue of Pokedex entries is one I will duly explain with a counter-question. Let's imagine it here; you have fought your way through the darkest cave of the Sinnoh region, in a cave of misdirection. Upon the end of the cave, you behold a massive Ghost Dragon, Almost fifteen feet tall. You battle this beast, using a self made Ultra Ball Machine Gun, and finally, capture the legendary. You are then informed not only are you not the first to see this Pokemon, but it has name and several entries. As in, Oak already had every entry and merely used the whole adventure thing as an excuse to get rid of you and the other kids in your town. "It was banished for its violence. It silently gazed upon the old world from the Distortion World." is the entry for Giratina. But how did the Pokedex know this? Who banished it, if Arceus is not in your pokedex? This points to the idea that Oak is making up the entries himself, with no research done save for a couple of ten year-olds with poke balls. Kadabra especially points out the flaws here; A boy turned into a Kadabra. Was he the first Kadabra? Does this make Human a pokemon? Can we evolve? If there was only one male kadabra, did he just f*** a load of dittos? If the first kadabra was a human, then where did the first Abra come from? These are old stories made by adults to frighten bold children, akin to the Kappa legend in our world. They are not serious biological studies, and for this reason, I refuse to believe Oak is even a qualified professor, as he has done little to earn a P.H.D. in Pokemon. The entries are written by an old man who has caught few pokemon, and while he claims to have been an experienced trainer, we see veterans a lot older than him still using pokemon, so we can chalk it down to him lying to children again. The Pokedex is a flawed device about as reliable as an unsourced Wikipedia page. Most likely, I believe upon receiving an email from the Trainer regarding a new ghost type, Oak goes to creepypasta.com and finds something there. This is the end of the Pokedex as a source of creepiness, You still have three more rounds however, giving you plenty of time to search elsewhere. Duncan. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00006-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | I will do this round through the use of Pokedex entries.1. DrowzeePokemon Silver Version Pokedex entry: "it remembers every dream it eats. It rarely eats the dreams of adults because children's are much tastier". So not only does Drowzee sit by beds and eat people's dreams, he sits by CHILDREN's beds and eats their dreams just because they're TASTIER. On to the next one.2. GastlyPokemon Red and Blue Versions Pokedex entry: "Almost invisible, this gaseous pokemon cloaks the target and puts it to sleep without notice."Kids, don't go in that old house, or else the Gastly will STRANGLE you until your UNCONSCIOUS. Be home by 6! 3. KadabraPokemon FireRed Version Pokedex entry: "It happened one morning - a boy with extrasensory powers awoke in bed transformed into Kadabra."So, is this saying that children can just transform into pokemon? That leaves us with the scary question: were all pokemon once children? If so, that means everyone who has ever played pokemon has kidnapped children, kept them in cages (pokeballs) and forced them to fight other children. 4. Duskull (there are two creepy entries) Pokemon Platinum Version entry: "It loves the crying of children. It startles bad kids by passing through walls and making them cry." Okay, so you've got a pokemon that loves the sound of children crying, so it scares them with its demonic methods. It says it targets bad children, so is Duskull supposed to be some demonic, harsher form of Santa Claus?Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver Version entry: "If it finds bad children who won't listen to their parents, it will spirit them away - or so it is said." So now not only does demonic Santa scare children, but he takes them to HELL.One more for this round...5. DrifloonPokemon Pearl Version entry: "It tugs on the hands of children to steal them away. However, it gets pulled around instead." So, Drifloon is a pokemon that disguises itself as a balloon in order to kidnap children and "spirit them away". Spirit them where, exactly? Is it Hell again? Good job, Nintendo. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00007-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | Very well! As a seasoned Pok"mon fan, I Mega-Absol-utely accept your debate. I only ask you grant me some leniency regarding X and Y, for I will be relying on an friend who has it for information. I also have an understanding of creepiness, having played Majora's Mask, so we can discuss these creepy moments with authority. First up, as a "starter" fact, "causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease" is the definition we're going for here. Largely subjective, so feel free to object to it. Secondly, under the many-worlds theory, all games are canon, and you can choose any game as an example. Finally, I'll forgive you for your previous errors, but ctrl-shift ", or you forfeit automatically from now on for failing to address the title Pok"mon properly. (Joking here) Good luck PatriotPerson, this will no doubt be a highly enjoyable debate! (I will be using various Pok"puns throughout the debate, apologies in advance) Duncan. |
f2f66016-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00008-000 | Pokemon is freakin creepy. | This is another PatriotPerson debate, brought to you by, well...PatriotPerson. Anyways, I will argue that pokemon is creepy. Freakin creepy to be specific. You, opponent, will argue that it isn't! Please, if you accept, you must be completely willing to do the entire debate (that means no forfeiting). I hate forfeiting. ROUND ! IS FOR ACCEPTANCE! Oops I put an exclamation mark instead of a 1, but you know what I mean. Good luck! |
b1878142-2019-04-18T11:40:59Z-00000-000 | Abortion | Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the "what about rape?" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when "two human lives are connected" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute. |
b1878142-2019-04-18T11:40:59Z-00001-000 | Abortion | What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife? |
b1878142-2019-04-18T11:40:59Z-00002-000 | Abortion | #1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother. |
a99dd3c1-2019-04-18T16:11:43Z-00000-000 | Was brink a good game | That's because you were bad at the game after the game release and new update the game was smoother and also alot easier to understand and play. The game was very good after they fixed what alot of people had problems with. Also once weapons had balance changes it was better |
a99dd3c1-2019-04-18T16:11:43Z-00001-000 | Was brink a good game | no it was terrible and i never beat the game because it was hard |
a99dd3c1-2019-04-18T16:11:43Z-00002-000 | Was brink a good game | I say brink didn't start out to good but became better after a couple updates and balancing changes. Also had a very good character and weapon customization |
cb5263e3-2019-04-18T11:11:31Z-00000-000 | Men and women have equal rights | This is what my opponent is doing forfeiting because he is just dodging the attacks thrown at him. |
cb5263e3-2019-04-18T11:11:31Z-00001-000 | Men and women have equal rights | Men and women don't have equal rights through history on what we have already seen. Its become too much of a problem and it is unjust to say that they don't have equal rights. In addition, Some people are sometimes sexist on gender. |
cb5263e3-2019-04-18T11:11:31Z-00002-000 | Men and women have equal rights | Men and women don't have equal rights. In history, Women have been treated badly and they are slowly coming up. However, That still doesn't mean that they all have the same rights. Boys don't think that women are good at sports and people are being very sexist lately in our world. We have neglected people from other races such as racism and there have been many cases and the difference between men and women is a part of it. Who cares about the differences. It's only about how many rights they have. Women that are muscular are being teased and treated badly and this should be solved. |
cb5263e3-2019-04-18T11:11:31Z-00003-000 | Men and women have equal rights | I believe that men and women have equal rights. Note rights in this argument will be rights guaranteed by the government |
9e701c2f-2019-04-18T19:44:11Z-00000-000 | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'. | look they are both great movies and i like them both, but this debate is not at the least bit interesting so whatever i give up... |
9e701c2f-2019-04-18T19:44:11Z-00001-000 | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'. | To recap my main points, I have argued that 'The Prestige' is a superior film due to its more engaging character dynamics, unusual jig-saw structure and a more gripping focus on magic itself. |
9e701c2f-2019-04-18T19:44:11Z-00002-000 | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'. | --- but in The Illusionist the rivalry is between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince. --- I will concede there is a rivalry in both films. I would argue the rivalry in 'The Prestige' is more engaging. The rivalry between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince in 'The Illusionist' is centred around their love for Sophie, and can be reduced to a simple love triangle. In 'The Prestige' the rivalry has to do with conjuring skill, Angier's desire to revenge his wife's death, and who holds sway over Olivia's loyalties (the assistant who is employed by both magicians at various points). I would therefore suggest this is a more complex, original rivalry which is more gripping than the one you describe. --- The movie is based on their sole infatuation with that trick. --- Not true. The 'one trick' you are discussing appears over half-way into the film. It is unfair to reduce a description of 'The Prestige' to this, when its narrative also has many other aspects (Borden on death row / Cutter (Angier's trick engineer) confused about his loyalties / the troubles Borden's wife experiences living with a man who has so many secrets). --- In The Illusionist, however, it actually tells you about Eisenhiem and Sophie's past and how they would stop at nothing to be together once again. --- I don't understand how this point follows from anything. Anyhow, the characters in 'The Prestige' also have pasts that are well-detailed through the use of flashback. --- Also, there is way more suspense when it comes to the "murder" and the "resurrection" which is why I love it. --- Please justify this. --- Plus at the end you realize how everything fits together. --- As in 'The Prestige'. --- romance + jealousy + magic + murder = classic... and that's why people love it. --- All the words mentioned before 'classic' can also apply to 'The Prestige', so this does not strengthen your argument. Please provide more evidence for your case. |
9e701c2f-2019-04-18T19:44:11Z-00003-000 | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'. | Really interesting topic, lets have fun shall we?? You argue that The Prestige is a better movie because it focuses on the tricks themselves and the constant rivalry between Angier and Borden (both magicians), but in The Illusionist the rivalry is between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince. In The Prestige, Angier and Borden spend their lives trying to outdo each other and then one little trick consumes all of their being. The movie is based on their sole infatuation with that trick. In The Illusionist, however, it actually tells you about Eisenhiem and Sophie's past and how they would stop at nothing to be together once again. Also, there is way more suspense when it comes to the "murder" and the "resurrection" which is why I love it. Plus at the end you realize how everything fits together. They are both outstanding movies, but I'm sorry The Illusionist is just better. romance + jealousy + magic + murder = classic... and that's why people love it. |
9e701c2f-2019-04-18T19:44:11Z-00004-000 | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'. | 'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist' for the following reasons: Firstly, it's a more structually ambitious film, unravelling the mystery of the narrative piece by piece in multi-layered flashback. Secondly, the two lead roles played by Bale and Jackman are more engaging characters than those in 'The Illusionist', because their growing rivalry (and one character's desire for revenge) give their roles better character 'hooks'. Thirdly, there is more sense of mystery surrounding the nature of the magic tricks themselves; not only are more tricks shown in 'The Prestige' than in 'The Illusionist', but there is an interesting balance between those we are 'in on' and those which have secrets we don't know about. Please respond if you would like to argue 'The Illusionist' (the Edward Norton movie) is a superior. |
cb76cede-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00000-000 | Abortion is Murder | So, let's begin. Here are some of the reasons, statements, and facts that I believe prove that abortion truly is murder. To prove that abortion is murder, I will need to first prove that the organism is in fact alive. Thus, I am going to prove that the organism inside of the mother is a living human baby from the moment fertilization occurs. First off, the organism inside of the womb is undeniably and unarguably a human. From a scientific viewpoint, as I assume you take if you are an advocate for abortion, from the moment when the sperm from the male reaches the egg, a new living entity is formed, referred to as a human zygote. Now let's go through the characteristics that define if something is alive or not and see if a human zygote fulfills these requirements: 1. Composed of a cell or cells(obviously, yes) 2. Able to grow, metabolize, and respond to the environment(yes, it grows, metabolizes, and responds to the womb) 3. Able to move(yes) 4. Able to respire(yes) 5. Able to reproduce(this is listed as a characteristic. In different stages in the womb, it does not have the needed reproductive organs. However, the ability to reproduce does not have to qualify as a requirement. Many humans have been born without reproductive organs or have had mutilations and, obviously, still have survived. Thus, reproduction is obviously not a solid requirement to determine that something is alive). So, the human zygote is alive. Now let's go through a few other common arguments used for abortion. Many argue that the human zygote is not a sentient being and use that as a driving cause for their arguments. This can easily be determined invalid, unless you would also like to argue that we can kill people in comas(who have the same exact level of sentience, if not less than, a human zygote. Many others will go off on a completely different path, claiming that the zygote isn't even a human zygote! Once again, this can easily be disproved. The zygote is composed of human DNA and other molecules specifically known to humans, so the nature of the zygote is undeniably human. I'm interested in hearing your views, and in the following two rounds we will begin countering each other's statements. |
cb76cede-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00001-000 | Abortion is Murder | I am against this statement that abortion is murder |
cb76cede-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00002-000 | Abortion is Murder | In this debate, I am taking the stance of the Pro. I think that abortion should be classified as murder and should be illegal. For the first round, simply post your stance on this issue. For the second round, we'll state the facts for our arguments. For the third and fourth rounds, we'll counter each other. For the final round, each of us will finish countering and will provide closing statements. I look forward to debating you. |
39956990-2019-04-18T12:20:48Z-00001-000 | The feminist movement does not champion gender equality | It's important to note that to win, I have to demonstrate one way in which feminism causes gender inequality, and the opponent needs to refute every example I provide as his/her burden. Opponent may not use true scottsman fallacy to claim that such and such activities by feminists are not true feminism. Finally, the definition of feminism is "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" (. https://www.merriam-webster.com...). I think this is better than the lay definition of feminism because 1) I will expose that feminism is not working towards gender equality and 2) the lay definition of promoting gender equality would be unfair to Pro since the Con would just claim that actions taken by feminists to enhance gender inequality do not count as feminism. |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00003-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | Australia day may be a day for celebration but for some it is a day for mourning, why should we come together as a nation on a day where we mourn? In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to the Indigenous people who were forcibly removed as children from their homes and parents' care and placed in Church missions or adoptive white family. At the time, the government saw it as a protective measure for future mixed race Aboriginal children, whereby their Aboriginal hertitage would be bred-out in a couple of generations time. For decades, the Indigenous community asked for the Australian government to apologise. Now that's it has finally happened, it's worthy of celebrating every year. Australia Day is the day filled with little more than flag waving and mass consumption of alcohol, to distract us from the fact that we aren"t as great a country as some would otherwise like to think. Keeping Australia Day the same means that we have more respect for the awful past and not enough care to fix this situation up. Would you want our ansectors to mourn a day that should be a happy day for our country? |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00004-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | Australia Day is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet from Great Britain. Australia Day isn't a day to celebrate the the suffering of Aboriginal people but the beginning of our nation"s story. Why should we change the day were we became a nation? changing the day won't fix anything. White people still hurt many aboriginals and nothing will change. No amount of apologies will ever change that. Changing Australia Day won't change the past. This day is very important to many Australians especially to the new citizens, which officially are now Australian. This day has been in Australian history for over 200 years. Do we really want to change it? |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00005-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | I strongly believe that the date of Australia Day should changed from the 26th of January to a different day as this is a day that the Aboriginals mourn for the loss of their rights to their land, loss of family and the loss of the right to practice their culture. While many people celebrate Australia Day with a Barbeque or a nice day out at the beach to celebrate our wonderful country, the Aborigines are mourning the loss of their loved ones who passed away in their fight for freedom and human rights. The 26th pf January is the day which marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillips. Changing the date would show that we have aspirations for this country to become greater than it is. There are better dates to change Australia day that is important for Australia as a country, especially the 13th of February which is the day the Kevin Rudd apologised to the aboriginals for the past. |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00000-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | Australia Day is a day to celebrate because if it wasn't for white people we wouldn't have the things we have now such as shops, cars, buildings, all of us would not be here today. We introduced animals such as cows and horses. Australia wouldn't of been developed the way it is today if it wasn't for white people. We should celebrate Australia day on the 26th of January because we are celebrating the good. Even though Australia did wrong, positives came out of this as well. January 26th is the the day to celebrate Australia day. |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00001-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | Australia Day has lost it respect towards the date, by choosing a new date, we will not only refresh our country but also show that we have aspirations for it to become greater than it already is. 46.3% of Australian's believe that Australia Day is not worth celebrating as it is "a day that represents loss and injustice and just an excuse to drink" 1 in 10 Australians don"t even know the real reason behind commemorating Australia Day on the 26th of January. How would you like it if the day that your ancestors were harmed was celebrated? That is bad enough, why not change it to a day where Australia is proud of their actions and not ashamed of them? All Aboriginal people have drastically changed the way Australia is, the least we can do is commemorate a date to them. Would you celebrate the date on which your ancestors were impoverished, executed and had their love ones stolen? Australia Day should be changed from the 26th of January to another date just simply because even though it is a date that we should remember when the first fleet came to Australia, it is a sad day and a day to mourn and not a day to celebrate |
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00002-000 | We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians | Australia Day should be a celebration of the bringing together of Indigenous, white people and those who come from other countries around the world who now live in Australia. If it wasn't for all our different cultures, Australia wouldn't be the way it is now. We should also have a indigenous day so that we can celebrate the indigenous community and what they have done for this country. They were the first land owners who deserve to have there own day, without changing Australia day. We both can have individual days but celebrate as 1, as Australians. |
454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00000-000 | First Amendment | Con has neither addressed my arguments nor provided an argument against my position. At this point in the debate, I have to conclude that Con has lost. |
454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00001-000 | First Amendment | I wasn't talking about pornography, that's disgusting... |
454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00002-000 | First Amendment | Ask yourself the following question, "What is the First Amendment for?" If you came up with any answer to that question, any answer at all, then you are necessarily implicated in a regime of censorship. The reason is that when you say the First Amendment is for something, it becomes inevitable that at some point you will ask of some instance of speech whether it in fact serves this purpose or whether it in fact does the opposite. That is, if you have what legal scholars call a "consequentialist view" of the First Amendment—a view that values free speech because of its "good effects"—then you are necessarily on the lookout for forms of action, including speech action, that subvert those effects. It does not matter what you choose as the "good effects," at some point it will be a logical inevitability that some speech action subverts those effects. The conclusion is easy: as soon as you locate and move against speech that compromises these "effects," you are engaged in an act of censorship already implicit in the First Amendment from the beginning. The other option in identifying the essence of First Amendment freedoms is defining free speech not in relation to some desired consequences but in relation to a moral imperative that is indifferent to consequences, even when those consequences undermine free speech itself. The problem here, however, is that this "moral imperative" is necessarily not "free," it is substantive, moral, political, an imperative that is necessarily at the expense of some other possible imperative. Thus, by identifying a free speech principle in relation to a moral imperative, you again undermine the free speech principle. Point is, whether one is a consequentialist or a nonconsequentialist, you will have to determine how a free speech principle is defined and the policy that follows from it. The problem, I argue (along the same lines as legal scholars and theorists Peter Weston, Judith Butler, Larry Alexander, Paul Horton, and Stanley Fish), is that as soon as you define, accept and justify a "free speech principle," the principle itself has necessarily been compromised. That is, any attempt to justify rather than merely identify a free speech principle will require acceptance of principles that will compromise the said free speech principle. This is not the only argument made against free speech and the First Amendment. Revisionist thinkers have challenged the traditionalist understanding of First Amendment doctrine in other ways, by 1) undoing the distinction between speech and action, thus depriving First Amendment theorists of an object to clarify, and admitting that no action can be regulated or any action can possibly be regulated; 2) pointing out that any "neutral" or "impartial" vision of free speech is always and already hostage to politics, to some underlying "substantive vision," and thus making viewpoint discrimination implicit within free speech doctrine; 3) by arguing that words do not simply describe the world, they effect and change the world, which is just the same thing as arguing that speech is an action. One way of replying to these arguments, made often by First Amendment watchdogs, is to say that the "purpose" of the First Amendment is to insulate the discussion of ideas—the so-called "marketplace of ideas"—from political interference. So, they say, draw no lines, declare all speech protected, and then step back and see what happens. The problem, of course, is what happens when certain kinds of speech is produced that does more harm than good, for example, speech giving information to the country's enemies, obscene speech, threatening words, etc. In fact, it seems that this is what Con is doing, arguing that when I used the word "but" at the end of a paragraph, I was offensive, yet nonetheless my speech was protected. To this I would say, first, that while people always say they want to protect all speech, in practice this never actually happens. Yes, using the word "but" may be offensive to a few people, but this is not the kind of speech that is in question here. We are talking about speech that itself undermines the free speech principle itself, or speech that causes serious harm to others. Point is, we have no way to determine at all what benefits would follow from protecting all speech, but we can determine that there would be negative consequences from doing so. Think about it: What is the risk of governmental regulation of speech? It is the risk of partiality, that is, the risk of proceeding on the basis of something less than the whole truth. Problem is, the condition of partial vision is the condition of humanity, we will never have the whole truth. In other words, the only risk of not protecting all speech is to accept the condition of humanity, i.e., partial vision. Not too bad. On the other hand, what is the risk of NOT regulating speech? Well, racial bigotry, anti-semitism, threats, even violence. In fact, in the landmark pornography case American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut, the court clearly articulates the power of ideas expressed in speech: "A belief may be pernicious—the beliefs of Nazis led to the deaths of millions, those of the Klan to the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail. Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others." They continue, "pornography affects thoughts," "is an aspect of dominance," "works by socializing," and therefore not only "an idea" but "the injury" [1]. The court accepts these premises, yet proceeds to protect pornography because, in their words, "If pornography is what pornography does, so is other speech." The argument provided by the court is that the general capacity of language to have consequences is precisely the reason to protect it. In other words, the court recoils from the result that, because speech inevitably produces power relations, political effects, harmful speech provides the argument for the possibility of regulating all speech. The court concludes, "If the fact that speech plays a role in a process of conditioning were enough to permit governmental regulation, that would be the end of freedom of speech." Yes, exactly. The court could not follow their argument to its logical conclusion, the realization that freedom of speech never had a beginning because speech is in every sense an action, and actions are subject to regulation, but that does not mean the court does not recognize this conclusion as valid. This is simply one of those moments in legal practice where the court stops short of its conclusion, not because the conclusion is wrong, but simply because the conclusion was undesirable. The court's decision in no way changes the logical conclusion of its premises. I'll continue my arguments in the next round. |
454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00003-000 | First Amendment | You finished your paragraph with 'but', which is offensive to some people. Although you do have the right to say 'but' because of the First Amendment, it can be a sensitive word for some people. |
454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00004-000 | First Amendment | Before I begin, I have to tell you: because this will be my first debate on the site (debate.org), I ask that my theoretical antagonist refrain from using any of the site's formalities, its procedural norms and practices, as a site of argument or debate. Put simply, I do not know the norms, and even if I did know them and still chose to establish my own procedural system, it would not change the substantive claims of the arguments I made. My Position: That First Amendment mechanisms do not, as is often claimed, neutralize power by giving everyone an equal chance to speak. On the contrary, First Amendment law is always politically inflected, and often used to maintain the status quo and to disempower those already marginalized and silenced. Finally, I argue that current First Amendment doctrine is logically incoherent, a doctrine that regulates in the name of nonregulation, and recognizes so many exceptions to the rule that it finally is, as a set of universal principles, anything but. |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00000-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | To have an equal number of rounds, I'm not posting anything here. |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00001-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | This is data from only a small portion of a continent on a big Earth. It is not possible to conclude from this that wildfires is happening everywhere.This is what the source and argument was saying. That it's a threat in the western side of the states. I think it's well known that heat causes fire. This data is correlated to higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, but is not certain that is the cause. The source gave good evidence that it is a cause.Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatization to heat is still incomplete. (From your source)Con basically repeats me. As there is more heat deaths than cold.My own conclusion from this is that the density of American cities and people, and the lack of air-conditioning, leading to "stuffyness," is the cause of "heat deaths." Not heatwaves per say.This is still agreeing with my argument. Many American people and cities have A.C., regardless people still have to go outside. As if everyone had air-conditioning to prevent "stuffyness" everyone cannot just stay inside their houses.Mosquite? Is that such a threat? I deal with the possibility of getting those viruses every day. (I live near the equator, and seriously, there is no need to panic.)I don't think I need to explain the threat of death. Researchers from Oxford University and University of Florida found that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.[1][2]The cited source is a clear support for my previous assertion of greater plant productivity. If indeed your assertion about plant damage is true, then what need we worry about? So which is wrong? Which should I believe?As I said before"These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit"I didn't dispute that CO2 doesn't cause plants to grow. Over time however these will be truncated.I find myself unable to link this with the shrinking arctic. Can you explain?I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean you cannot see a link between damage to ecosystem and a drying pond? As the source says"These surface waters are often hotspots of biodiversity and production for microorganisms, plants, and animals in this otherwise extreme terrestrial environment." as a shrinking pond would be damaging to these. From abstract, "Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume." How is this a threat?It may not be an extremely long term effect on the rainforest, however as the point was that when it becomes dryer more CO2 is released. I thought there was going to be more liquid water due to melting? Yes there will be more water, but this doesn't mean potable water. We can purify and boil some water, yet this doesn't get out certain types of harmful chemicals.How is rising sea levels a threat? At most, the relocation of low-lying populations to inner ground is all that is required, and humans are known to be highly adaptable.Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise I mean that no data is recorded of the radiation coming to Earth.What I was trying to show was that heat is not escaping from Earth. It's irrelevant to how much is coming in. Besides this we do have data of what radiation is coming to Earth [3]As no threat is large enough or present to cause worry, the resolution is negated.I have shown that these are still threats. As only half were addressed by con. I state again no model fits the human fingerprint of global warming and I have shown it is a threat.The resolution is affirmedVote Pro[1]Peter W. Gething, David L. Smith, Anand P. Patil, Andrew J. Tatem, Robert W. Snow & Simon I. Hay (20 May 2010). "Climate change and the global malaria recession". Nature 465 (7296): 342–345. Bibcode 2010Natur.465..342G. doi:10.1038/nature09098. PMC 2885436. PMID 20485434.[2] "Don’t sweat it: Development and public-health initiatives will matter much more to malaria than the climate will". The Economist. 2010-05-19. Retrieved 2010-05-25. [3] http://lasp.colorado.edu... |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00002-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | I will now do something weird. I will, for argument"s sake, concede GW and concentrate on whether or not it is a threat. "Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt." This is data from only a small portion of a continent on a big Earth. It is not possible to conclude from this that wildfires is happening everywhere. This data is correlated to higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, but is not certain that is the cause. "Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps " Results: Mortality increases associated with both extreme cold (2-day cumulative increase 1.59% (95% CI 0.56 to 2.63)) and extreme heat (5.74% (95% CI 3.38 to 8.15)) were found, the former being especially marked for myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest deaths. The increase in mortality was less marked at less extreme temperatures. The effect of extreme cold (defined as a percentile) was homogeneous across cities with different climates, suggesting that only the unusualness of the cold temperature (and not its absolute value) had a substantial impact on mortality (that is, acclimatization to cold). Conversely, heat effects were quite heterogeneous, with the largest effects observed in cities with milder summers, less air conditioning and higher population density. Adjustment for ozone led to similar results, but some residual confounding could be present due to other uncontrolled pollutants. Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatization to heat is still incomplete. (From your source) My own conclusion from this is that the density of American cities and people, and the lack of air-conditioning, leading to "stuffyness," is the cause of "heat deaths." Not heatwaves per say. "Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever." Mosquite? Is that such a threat? I deal with the possibility of getting those viruses every day. (I live near the equator, and seriously, there is no need to panic.) "Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen." The cited source is a clear support for my previous assertion of greater plant productivity. If indeed your assertion about plant damage is true, then what need we worry about? So which is wrong? Which should I believe? "Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem." I find myself unable to link this with the shrinking arctic. Can you explain? "Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier." From abstract, "Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume." How is this a threat? "Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply." I thought there was going to be more liquid water due to melting? "Contribution to rising sea levels" How is rising sea levels a threat? At most, the relocation of low-lying populations to inner ground is all that is required, and humans are known to be highly adaptable. "What do you mean?" I mean that no data is recorded of the radiation coming to Earth. In conclusion, I would like to state that Pro"s "threats" list is actually a list of claims without substance because they only link to sources. (Does anyone see something familiar) "I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming The resolution is affirmed" As no threat is large enough or present to cause worry, the resolution is negated. Grammar: Tie Conduct: Con See Pro"s list of threats Argument: Con Pro has not given enough support for his "Threats" Sources: Pro More sources than con. |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00003-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | & nbsp ;Greenhouse gases reflect heat radiation back towards the Earths surface. The sun produces short wave radiation[1]. It's not affected by the molecules of GG so it continues uninterrupted to our surface. When it hits the surface, some of the energy is absorbed and the rest is reflected back as infrared radiation. This frequency causes the molecules of some gasses & ; nbsp ; to vibrate which in turn redirects heat in all directions including towards other vibrating molecules. Therefore more heat is retained in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses. "Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground."I think you know what I mean by "natural " ;. Does a natural burning produce as much carbon as we do? If burning fossil fuels was naturally that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should burn them. Forest fire happen naturally yet it & ; rsquo ;s not good if we constantly start them.& ldquo ;Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced.& rdquo ;I didn & ; rsquo ;t just repeat you, I said that today our global climate is more than the medieval warm period & ; rsquo ;s was. Some parts are warmer, but the global temperature is warmer. Miocene levels were due to the shape of the ocean basins at that time. Allowing warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide[2]1.& rdquo ;. Pro " ;s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research?& rdquo ;There are some benefits, but do you have any paper proving this one wrong?& ldquo ;is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene " ;Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants & ; rdquo ;Yes, this is evidence from the past of major damage. As the link was suppose to show.& nbsp ;Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects. Plant defenses go down as CO2 levels go up [3]& nbsp ;2.& nbsp ; It & ; rsquo ;s a simple to say just increase water, nitrogen, fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. As I said as CO2 increases run up against limited availability of other nutrients. We synthesize nitrogen using non-renewable fossil fuels, which increase CO2 causing us to synthesize more and more nitrogen for the plants. That & ; rsquo ;s not efficient at all. You mentioned the Haber process. Yes it's possible to convert renewable biomass so we can synthesize nitrogen. However the amount of land and even more resources (often including fertilizer) required to do this gets prohibitive.Even if CO2 increases plant growth, this doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should want or need more of it. We need to examine the other effects of increased CO2 . Just like if a doctor tells you to take 1 pill, that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean 4 pills will be better for you.& ldquo ;Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat " ; to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this.& rdquo ; & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt [4] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps [5] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [6] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen [7] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem[8] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier & ; nbsp ; [9] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [10][11] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle [12] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased moralities of sea urchins [13] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Threat to fish populations [14] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply [15][16] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Contribution to rising sea levels [17][18][19] & nbsp ;& ldquo ;Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides.& rdquo ;What do you mean?& ldquo ;Pro " ;s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed.& rdquo ;I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warmingThe resolution is affirmed Sources1 http :// www . nc-climate . ncsu . edu / edu / k12 /. LWSW 2 Jonathan P. LaRiviere , A. Christina Ravelo , Allison Crimmins , Petra S. Dekens , Heather L. Ford, Mitch Lyle, Michael W. Wara . Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing. Nature, 2012; 486 (7401): 97 DOI : 10.1038/ nature11200 3 http :// www . sciencedaily .com/releases/2008/03/080324173612. htm 4 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /reprint/313/5789/940. pdf 5 http :// oem . bmj .com/content/64/12/827.short6 http :// www . decvar .org/documents/ epstein . pdf 7 http :// www . ncbi . nlm . nih .gov/ pmc /articles/ PMC1480488 /8 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . pnas .org/content/104/30/12395.abstract9 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/114666310 http :// www . ipsl . jussieu .fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/ Orr_OnlineNature04095 . pdf 11 http :// icesjms . oxfordjournals .org/ cgi /content/full/65/3/41412 http :// webarchive . nationalarchives .gov. uk /+/ http :// www .hm-treasury.gov. uk /media/ FC3 /81/ ExeterpaperProofsTurelyetal . pdf 13 http :// www . eur-oceans . eu / WP9 / Factsheets / FS7 /papers/ Miles%20et%20al% 202007. pdf 14 http :// www . pnas .org/content/107/29/1293015 http :// meteora . ucsd . edu /cap/ pdffiles / barnett_warmsnow . pdf 16 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/short/328/5984/138217 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/sci;321/5894/134018 http :// www . pnas .org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full. pdf + html 19 http :// www . skepticalscience .com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate. htm |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00004-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | "Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms." When there are more greenhouse gases, sunlight will be prevented from heating the Earth due to the Greenhouse effect. Thus in the long term, the Earth will experience an ice age due to the ultimate reduction in heat energy. When the fuel has been used up, the heat levels will gradually decrease. This is the cause for cyclic nature of global climate change. "It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change." Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground. A more likely explanation for the warmth of the Cretaceous period is the methane generated by the huge amounts of vegetation rotting in the huge dinosaurs digestive systems. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The dinosaurs were then wiped out by meteor impacts, sparing the other animals the cost of living with those methane factories. Or was it because dinosaurs were considered a threat for producing so much greenhouse gas and so were wiped out? I absolutely do not get the link between CO2 buildup and continental drift. Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced. I have nothing to dispute in Pro"s explanation of CO2 usage. 1. Pro"s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research? The rise in CO2 is hardly sudden and the link to [5] is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene"Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants. I agree that the nutritional quality of SOME plants may decrease. 2. Simple explanation to remove the "threat." Fertilization. Nitrogen is relatively easy to synthesize [1]. Nitrogen is widely used as a fertilizer in the form of ammonium nitrate. There is also the Haber process, which I assume you are familiar with. These negate the "threat" from human activity. More vegetation means that more vegetation would be destroyed means that nitrogen would be recycled at a faster rate. I will not respond to the video. 1-5: I have debunked all of the claims that elevated CO2 levels is harmful to plants. I have shown a way around the nitrogen plateau problem. Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat" to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this. Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides. Pro"s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed. 1. http://www.organic-chemistry.org... |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00005-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. We must ask why climate has changed in the past. There are many ways the Earth's climate can be affected. Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms. It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change. It's like saying humans can't start brushfires because they happen naturally. In this day we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an increasingly rapid rate. During the Cretaceous period submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup also resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents[1]There has been evidence that suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today in some parts of the globe like the North Atlantic. However, evidence also suggest that in some places were much cooler than today, such as the tropical pacific. When the warm places were averaged out with the cool places, it is clear that the overall warmth was probably similar to the early mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions[2]. Further evidence suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.[3] Here is the temperature pattern of the MWP vs today. The carbon plants collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently. Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line.C02 does help plants, yet an abundance of it is harmful. Here is only 2 examples out of many.1.Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis[4] in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage[5] to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat[6]. 2. As is confirmed by long-term experiments[7], plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit Please see the video on the right for more information http://www.youtube.com...There is evidence that shows humans are the cause of global warming Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[8] 1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[9]. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. 2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [10]. 3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [11]. 4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [12]. 5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". [13][14][15]This shows that temperature is cyclic.A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The Resolution is affirmed. Sources[1] Caldeira, K., and Rampino, M.R., 1991, The mid-Cretaceous superplume, carbon dioxide, and global warming: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 18, no. 6, p. 987-990.[2]http://books.nap.edu...[3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[4]http://resources.metapress.com...[5]http://www.pnas.org...[6]http://www.sciencemag.org...[7]http://www.nature.com...[8]http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...[10]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[11]Ibid[12]http://www.sciencemag.org...[13]http://www.nature.com...[14]http://spiedl.aip.org...[15]http://www.eumetsat.eu... |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00006-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | I accept. Pro asks me to begin arguments in the first round. I will assume a uniformitarian scale. I will argue against the resolution, not against GW per say. Historical Context: Global climate change (GCC) has been occurring for a long time [1]. Temperature measurements show that the Earth was much hotter in the past. This is evidently shown in the graph [1]. The Earth was also much colder in the past [2]. It occurred around 200,000-100,000 years ago. At these periods in time, humans were unable to emit greenhouse gases. Thus, GCC was not caused by humans. If GCC was not caused by humans then, it is logical to conclude that something else can cause it now. There is also the case of the medieval warm and cold period [3]. The planet was warmer in many places, and cooler in others. Vikings were able to settle Greenland and plantation of grapes in YorkShire occurred. There was also the case of the European coldsnap earlier this year [4], which made me think, "global cooling!" Current Global warming trend: Global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.2 degrees celsius each decade for the past 30 years. [5] Effects: Rising sea levels: There have been a gradual rise in sea levels over the years [6], at about 3.5 mm/year. Glacier melting: There is evidence that glaciers have been melting ever since the last "little Ice age" of 1850. Greenhouse effect: What is a greenhouse gas? Methane, water vapor, Carbon dioxide, and ozone. The water vapor is easy to understand. As the Earth heats up, the oceans evaporate and vapors scatter into the air. Methane is harmful to the environment, but is not in such great quantities as Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is my favorite, I produce it every second. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually helps vegetation growth [7] by an almost 30% increase in productivity. Human activity supposedly linked to GW: Burning of fossil fuels: The usage of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with the rise of temperature. Conclusion: I do not dispute that the Earth is growing warmer. It was so much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs than now. This could not have been due to man. There were Ice ages. These were certainly not the result of man"s activities. The globe has been warming ever since 1850, the last mini ice age. It was warm several centuries before that. This shows that temperature is cyclic. I will now argue that there is a correlation between human activity and the current rise in global temperatures. If we plotted a graph showing how much greenhouse gas humans emit through their activity, alongside a graph of the rise in sea levels, and a graph of temperature rise for whatever data we have from 1850, the correlation is obvious. Now I will contend that human activity is not the cause of rise in temperature. No experiments has been made to prove this. If there was, I would like to know which other planets were used as experimenting ground. 1. http://www.grida.no... 2. http://geography.about.com... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.pnas.org... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.sciencedirect.com... |
17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00007-000 | Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat | Definitions Anthropogenic an"thro"po"gen"ic/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/ Adjective: (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) Originating in human activity. Global warming an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 3 days to post 4 rounds 8000 Characters No insulting Start argument against GW in the first round |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00002-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | I will now refute my opponent's arguments. (Good arguments by the way) Of course citizens have rights to private property such as houses. If a citizen doesn't want to allow people with guns into his house, that's his own business, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, I am mainly referring to business property and other places where a great majority of people will be allowed into. In such situations, it is no longer the property owner's life at risk; it's everyone's. The property owner should not be allowed to make decisions that potentially put others' lives in danger just because he owns the property. Because people other than himself are in the situation, he no longer has a right to make whatever rules he wants. Also, your right to simply choose not to go in is irrelevant. Your decision to go elsewhere doesn't change the fact that people are going to get killed in gun free zones. The fact that you personally did not enter might save your life, but not anyone else's. The hiring of a security guard would still prevent the loss of lives in the event of a crime. I should also note that the government has already infringed on our "right to private property." Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope, muder us murder, whether on your property or not. Just because you own property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it. You still must abide by the local laws. In my opponent's second point, he claims that the government can't afford to hire security guards for places like schools. Aside from the fact that he gives no real evidence that they can't, this entire point is irrelevant. I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it. Although I personally think this would be a good idea, this isn't what we are arguing about. It's a separate issue. Your logic isn't consistent; one point doesn't bring you to the next. Regardless, your first and second points fail because the government can make rules for what you can do on property. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00003-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | I'd like to start my argument by saying that I do not agree with the fact that the government has placed "required" gun free zones such as schools, airports, etc. However, there are several reasons that I believe that making armed guards "required" in these zones is not logical, and in some cases unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to their private property, such as houses, restaurants, etc. And if these citizens do not want guns on their property, that is their right. Even though for the most part I don't agree with gun free zones, I will NEVER agree with the government infringing upon our right to private property. When push comes to shove, the owner of a restaurant, bar, or anything of the sort has the sole decision as to whether or not people can bring a gun onto his/her property. Also, if citizens truly are in fear for their lives upon entering a restaurant that is a gun free zone, they can simply not enter. Just as it is the owners right to prohibit weapons, it is the citizens' right to not enter that area. This brings me to my next point, in some cases citizens must enter a "governmental gun free zone" (area that the government requires by law to be a gun free zone) in order to continue their daily lives. Forcing armed guards to be posted outside of these gun free zones, such as schools, is what my opponent is proposing. Having armed guards at our schools is something that sounds quite logical, in a perfect world. The simple fact is that the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." [1] The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budget unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education" [2] . Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill this plan. I cannot argue that it would substantially increase our children"s security, but it is simply too expensive. The logic for my argument is as follows: -in situations where citizens choose to prohibit weapons on their property, that is entirely their right -the government cannot constitutionally force private property owners to hire security. - no one is forced to enter gun free restaurants or bars, so don't go in if you don't feel safe. -in government forced gun free zones (schools, airports, etc.) hiring security is logical until the money situation is brought into play. - hiring armed guards at all gun free zones would be immensely expensive [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [2] http://www.newsnet5.com... |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00004-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | Thank you handywandy for accepting. I will be proving my points mainly through logic (as a result of this, you may not see me using very many sources). I would like to note that I am actually against gun free zones, but as long as they exist, this would be a good compromise. Gun free zones result in innocent people being defenseless in the event that an armed criminal decides to bring a gun into the gun free zone (for the purpose of either robbery or just to start shooting people). Studies have shown that most shootings occur in gun free zones [1]. This shouldn't be a surprise since the criminal can expect no one to be armed as he commits the crime. The chances of the gunman being immediately shot are almost zero, since this would require a law-abiding citizen to have illegally carried a gun into the area (my [1] source notes a situation where this happened, as the conceal carrier was unaware of the gun free zone). My point so far is that any person with a gun can easily kill people in a gun free zone, as these people are completely defenseless. Gun free zones are also likely attract criminals due to the unlikeliness of being stopped in a reasonable amount of time. But imagine a situation where an armed security guard was in the area. The criminal might then think twice about committing a crime in that zone in the first place, and if they did attempt a gun-related crime there, the criminal would quickly be stopped by the security guard. Therefpre, to increase the safety of gun free zones, I believe an armed security guard should be required in such zones. Thus, my logic goes something like this: -Law abiding citizens will not knowingly bring guns into gun-free zones. -Criminals are not law abiding citizens, and do not obey the law. -Therefore, a criminal can have a gun in a gun free zone (while law abiding citizens can not). -If the above is true, a criminal can expect to not be stopped in a gun free zone. -Therefore, gun free zones are an easy target for criminals. -If an armed security guard was placed in a gun free zone, a criminal would not be the only one with a gun. -Due to the known presence of another person with a gun, gun free zones would no longer be a favorable target for criminals due to fear of being shot. -If an insane serial killer decides to shoot people in a gun free zone despite the presence of a guard, he would quickly be stopped by that guard. -Therefore, the presence of an armed guard in a gun free zone greatly increases the safety of that zone. I would also like to note that if a law was made requiring gun free zones to have security guards, it would give millions of people jobs as security guards, decreasing the unemployment. That's my argument so far. I would like to see what my opponent has to say. Good luck. [1] http://www.cabinet.com... |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00005-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | I acccept |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00006-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | Complete resolution: If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. The purpose of the hiring of security guards would be for the safety of the innocent unarmed people in the area against potential criminals, who might carry weapons into the area illegally. Con will be arguing that armed security guards should not be required. |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00000-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | My opponent still hasn't refuted my original arguments. For the final round, I will simply refute his previous arguments again. First, I would like to make it clear that the government wouldn't be "forcing" people to hire security guards. If the property owner cannot afford to make his gun free zone safe for everyone, he can simply allow guns instead. Thus, requiring gun free zones to have security guards is justified. And once again, the fact that they can simply choose not to enter is irrelevant. The chances of getting killed are so low that almost no one will be afraid. But gun crimes do happen, and the hiring of a security guard would still reduce the number of people killed each year in gun free zones. And as I said above, the property owner can simply allow guns, choosing to reduce crime by conceal carriers instead of security guards. Airliners are not a good example, as they do put armed guards (called Federal Air Marshals [1][2]) on planes, disguised as normal civilians. This argument is self-refuting, because in this situation they do exactly what I am proposing. In your next argument, I will once again state that the government isn't forcing anyone to pay for something, because if you don't want to hire a security guard, you can just allow guns. Thus, none of these "property infringements" require money to be paid. Does it cost someone money NOT to make his property a gun free zone? No. My opponent still hasn't provided any proof that the government cannot hire security guards, and although I am still not arguing for this, I will give my opponent the benefit of doubt for the moment: Assuming I was actually arguing this, what proof have you given that security guards couldn't be hired? None. You have given no sources confirming this; only a source saying some jobs have been lost, and a source of someone claiming it would cost 9 billion. These claims by themselves do not prove that the government cannot hire security guards. And even if the government really couldn't, they could potentially cut other government programs to afford it. All of this aside, it is clear that teachers still exist. There are also crossing guards, and many other school employees, all of which get paid a very good salary. If the government can afford all of this, I see no reason why they can't fit in a security guard. Furthermore, there are other solutions - most notably, the government could simply stop making schools gun free zones. But none of that is relevant, because I am not debating this; that subject could fill an entire debate of its own. My opponent claims that I am debating this, and makes up his own resolution, which is NOT the resolution I put at the beginning of this debate. Please read the resolution one more time: QUOTE (round 1): If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. "Property owner" clearly does not refer to the government; it refers to an individual, an owner of private property where he (most likely) plans to set up a business, as implied by my examples of "the owner of a restaurant or office building." My opponent emphasizes on the word "all." I would like to note that nowhere in the resolution (be it the complete one, or the summarized one I put as the title) did I say the word "all." Nowhere in the resolution does it say that the government would be included in such a rule, and this simply isn't what we are debating about. In summary: -My opponent is mainly against the resolution because he believes people will be forced to hire security guards. This isn't true, as the property owner can simply allow guns instead. -Con reasons that you can simply choose not to enter a gun free zone. This is irrelevant to the fact that the hiring of security guards would save innocent lives. People that enter gun free zones regardless of potential danger are still innocent. -Con's argument concerning the citizen's risk when boarding an airplane is self-refuting, because airlines do have Federal Air Marshals (which are akin to security guards) -Con believes I am arguing for security guards in schools. Based on this assumption, he claims that the government cannot afford to hire security guards. I am not arguing that security guards in schools should be required. Even if I was, Con has provided no proof, and I provided several points proving the argument irrelevant. All of my opponent's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Please vote Pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.federalnewsradio.com... |
39fb78e-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00001-000 | An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones. | In this round I will refute my opponent's previous argument: First of all, just because the owner of one of these "gun free zones" isn't the one whose life is at risk, this doesn't justify governmental mandating of security guards on their property. Anyone who eats at a restaurant, shops at a store, or watches a movie in a theater that is a gun free zone is doing so at their own risk. It might sound harsh, but in this day in age people are expected to be mindful of their own situation, and if something makes them feel unsafe or nervous, they don't have to do it. A perfect example of my point is airline companies. Every single time a citizen steps foot on an airplane, they are aware (or they should be) of the risk that they are taking to get from point A to point B. The owner of Southwest Airlines (for example) isn't personally in danger of losing his life when someone steps onto a plane owned by his company, it was their choice. At the same time, one could argue that the owner of Denny's (another example) is making his property more dangerous by deeming it a gun free zone, while the owner of Southwest Airlines has done everything (hopefully) in his power to make his company safe. To this argument my only response is: There is a sign on the door that says "Gun Free Zone", if you feel unsafe, don't enter. No one is forcing anyone to spend time in a gun free zone, and people who do so are making a choice that they are responsible for. My opponent makes a strong argument by saying "the government has already infringed on our "right to private property."". His examples of how the Government has violated our rights are "Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can [we] own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope". All of these are valid examples, however, they differ from my point that the government cannot force property owners to hire armed guards because none of these "infringements" ,as my opponent classifies them, cost a property owner money. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed a second story without a permit? No. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed to own a tiger? No. The simple point I am making is that the Government of the United States cannot force a property owner to hire someone to guard their property, it's unconstitutional. And as to my opponent's next argument that I provide no proof that the government can't afford to hire armed guards for gun free zones, this could quite possibly be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Our government (and education budget) is in a financial crisis. Teachers are getting laid off left and right, yet my opponent thinks we can afford full time security guards at all government regulated gun free zones? My opponent then moves to say "I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it" which could not be more false. His/her entire argument is that the government should "require" security guards in all gun free zones. My opponent must not be aware that schools, airports, public libraries etc. are ALL gun free zones, and they are also ALL government property. So if my opponent believes that armed guards should be mandated in all gun free zones, then he/she also 100% believes that "government property would have to have security guards on it". |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00004-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | I accept the challenge. I will be posting videos of my nunchuck skills though Youtube. http://www.youtube.com... |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00005-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | PREFACEThanks once more to Josh! I believe this is the first "relaxed" debate I have done...my Star Wars debates are always super intense, and so this should be a fun outlet. I appreciate the opportunity to do this debate. I will begin all of my rounds with a brief description of my poem, so that my thought process is somewhat clear. I will do three types of poems for you, to try and show some artistic versatility as well.I will firstly present a poem composed of unrhymed couplets. It follows, roughly, a 10-8 syllabic pattern, and is a bit whimsical. I don't want to spoil it by explaining it, but it should be fairly clear. It's titled: "A New One for the Closet". I hope you like it!POEMWould you like to know--know what I keep inmy closet? He's used in spells.I have a skeleton in my closet.no wait—it’s perfectly true.Bones are great for speeding up potions you—Oh no, don’t go! Stay and chat.Anyway, what was I saying. Hold on…?Oh yes, I remember now.I found him in the bog outside my home,propped up against a big birch tree.I had been out collecting newts and ‘shrooms(For my line of work you know…)Seemed as if he had been struck by lightning;I love a good, solid bolt!I thought he’d enjoy my downstairs closet,between my cauldrons and books.I see him when I go to fetch my broom.Each time the closet opens,My black cat stands on end hissing as if Skeley’d move sans my okay.Though, sometimes I pull out my eye of newt:cauldr’n bubble, and all that jazz…He used to be such a nice man. Until:he angered a certain Witch.Well, if you would kindly excuse me, sir,I have a full moon to catch.Unless you’d prefer to stay for supper…Now that I’m thinking of it…After all, it is my house specialty. And, I could use some new bones.It’ll freshen up my spells, dear. Now sit,I’ll warm the oven for you. |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00006-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | I accept the challenge. I will be posting videos of my nunchuck skills though Youtube. |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00007-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | Aloha, and welcome to these 2014 DDO Olympic Games!This is the talent event, pitting myself against Josh to see who advances to the Gold/Silver round, and who advances to the Bronze. I will be writing poetry as my talent. This first round is just for acceptance, and for Josh to specify what talent he will be putting on display in this round. Thanks to Josh in advance, and I look forward to a fun Olympic bout! |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00000-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | So, this is my last video for this compitition. It was fun making these and it was better getting to know a side of my opponent that I haven't seen before. Truth be told BSH, I'd like to see your writing style against Larz regardless of what happens here.For the next debate, I'm going to turn off the lights, turn up the music, pull out my glowchucks and see it takes me.http://www.youtube.com... |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00001-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | PREFACEWow. .. that's so cool, Josh! This has been a great debate, or rather, an amazing display of talent. In this round I have a rhyming poem organized into couplets. The rhyme scheme is AB CB DE FE etc. The first line of every couplet has 9 syllables and the second line has 6, as a reflection of the 9-to-6 workday put in by the speaker. Only the middle stanza (freedom. .. wilds/the. .. yonder) breaks from this syllabic pattern because it represents a break in the rigidity of the speaker's life. It is a moment that is not occupied by monotony. The poem is entitled "Nine to Six" and I hope you enjoy it! POEMI look out from behind my prison:my regimented life. I am trapped by all my schedules; my clocks define my life. At nine o"clock I travel to work. At 6 I arrive home. At 11 I finally sleep, and in my dreams I roam. Freedom to explore the wilds: the heavenly blue and purple yonder. But at 8am sharp I wake up, and to breakfast wander. So, I look out from behind my mask,my iron bars of pain. My is life defined by schedulestrapped by my clocks, again. CONCLUSIONI have offered a variety of poems to tried to demonstrate versatility within my talent (syllabically structured couplets, true free verse, rhyming syllabically structure couplets). I have tried to produce quality products all throughout, and I hope you enjoyed them! Thank you for reading this. Thanks to Josh for a great debate. |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00002-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | Hey, your poems are really good. I bet it feels nice to do some free writing every now and then. Thanks, BSH1 for that last poem. I really liked it. So, for this round. I pull out a second set of nunchaku and try to make a go of it. http://www.youtube.com...; |
32f806f7-2019-04-18T16:37:37Z-00003-000 | DDOlympics -- R1: Talent | Thanks again to Josh. That was an awesome performance! PREFACE This is a true free verse poem, meaning that is has no proscribed structure (such as couplets), no syllabic scheme, and no rhyme scheme. I got my inspiration from an Orson Wells quote, "There are only two emotions on a plane: boredom and terror," and I tried to weave that into the poem to bring it full circle. This one has a bit more gravitas too it that the last one--definitely a tonal shift--and I hope you enjoy it. The piece is entitle: "On a Plane." POEM "There are only two emotions on a Plane" he said. And in my mind there I am--scything the dreamy clouds. My life is no Odyssey; Not a long, weary journey. I mean, in 18 years how hard can any life be? At least for me: only an hour into a 6 hour flight. The children of war, The urchins of poverty, now they've had an Odyssey: already too near their destination. It seems almost pretentious for me to label my brief, secluded experience an Odyssey. (So, I try not to.) Yet, I have had my moments: The thrill of success, the bumps and jolts in the sky. When the plane reaches its destination, I guess I'll look back (years from now) and smile, having had more turbulence under my wing; more fear, angst, passion, excitement in my contrails. So far, the flight's had all the elements of an Odyssey, but it"'s not there yet. I hope my flight will be one, (an Odyssey that is) because to truly appreciate the flight, one must have experienced it. ": boredom and terror." he said. The end and the beginning. And in my heart, my Odyssey began-- My fanciful thoughts ended. I walked on board the Plane. |
760e6626-2019-04-18T15:21:36Z-00000-000 | Why 10 Year Olds Should Be Able To Stay Home Alone | The resolution states that 10 year olds should be allowed to stay at home alone by default. Let's assume pro's sister enjoys the following:- She is responsible enough and willing to stay at home alone.- Her neighborhood is devoid of considerable danger, e.g., drug transactions or pedophilia.- Her house is childproof. However, not every 10 year old enjoys or exhibits the aforentioned. Many are irresponsible or are in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Ergo, not every 10 year old should be alone at home. |
760e6626-2019-04-18T15:21:36Z-00001-000 | Why 10 Year Olds Should Be Able To Stay Home Alone | I am awesome and cool, so my sis should be able to stay home alone because I don't want to babysit her EVERY time my parents aren't here . Sometimes when my parents are working I have to babysit her before AND after school, but I want to go to my friends. My parents don't understand that. My sis it 10 and VERY responsible, but NO, my parents don't trust her. I don't even get paid. It's STUPID!!!!!!! It's so UNFAIR!!!!!!! POTATO23456789 |
62405ea1-2019-04-18T12:39:44Z-00000-000 | There Are More Than Two Genders | Well this is my first debate EVER! I love debating (roasting) with people and discussing important issues with each other. Definition of Male: Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Definition of Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. You cant be both, half, or neither genders. You either have a penis or a vagina. There cant be an in between gender, or according to face book 51 genders. This is completely different from what you are attracted to. This whether you have male or female genitalia. A "transgender" is not its own gender because that person/thing still has male or female genitalia. By the way you saying that you identify as a "base gender" doesn't prove that your argument is a fact. By the way again, when I click "Check Your Spelling" it says transgender isn't even a word (hint hint). |
62405ea1-2019-04-18T12:39:44Z-00001-000 | There Are More Than Two Genders | So, this is my opening argument, huh? Well, the thing is, sex/biology and gender are two different things. Very, very different things. So incredibly different. According to the Webster dictionary, gender is: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). "Biological ones". You see, that line means "sex", or, for the people who don't get what gender is, what parts you have. Gender is not that. Gender is related to "social and cultural differences". This means that there could be infinite genders, all being basically mixes or subtractions of being male or female (for example, being a demigirl means the mix of female and another gender). By the way, I identify as one of the "base genders", so you cannot bring up the fact that my argument is fueled by emotions instead of facts. |
4ab95bde-2019-04-18T12:23:09Z-00000-000 | Should students be able to pick their own Lunch Tables | they should not cause then people won't feel lonely during the only time to chat and to eat lunch 53 percent of students eat alone for lunch. sources https://www.washingtonpost.com... |
4ab95bde-2019-04-18T12:23:09Z-00001-000 | Should students be able to pick their own Lunch Tables | I think Students should. I think that because they need time to socialize with their friends. |
a24f67d2-2019-04-18T19:45:00Z-00003-000 | Socrates did not deserve the death penalty | Socrates deserved the death penalty. Not for "impiety" and "corrupting the youth", but the truth is (as any historian would know), these were not actually the crimes for which he was executed. To understand why Socrates was executed, and why he deserved to be executed, we need a more comprehensive view of the decade before his execution. You see, the truth is, Socrates was a danger to Athenian Society, and his teachings almost already once destroyed Athens. Athens was not about to let itself be destroyed bo Socrates twice, thus explaining his trial and execution. Socrates was a great enemy of Democracy. He strenuously and repeatedly objected to Democracy as a system of government. Which is of course his right. But what Socrates did was not only object to Democracy, but teach his objection to his students, such as Plato and Critias. At around 404 BC, Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, all of whom were heavily influenced by Socrates' teachings about the flaws and imperfection of Democracy and overthrew the Democracy in Athens with military force. They limited the civil rights of Athens and purged opposition leaders, forcing hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile. It took another military coup one year later to rid Athens of this totalitarian military junta of Socrates' students. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course ... this was Not enough for Socrates. Even after giving Athens a taste of what a dictatorship was like, Socrates still advocated against Democracy. He still went through Athens, recruiting students, teaching them the horrors of Democracy, and fomenting rebellion and treason. Did he corrupt the youth of Athens? Yes he did indeed. In light of the danger he posed to Athens and Athenian society, the death penalty was more than justified. He could have chosen to stop his teachings. In fact, during his sentencing, he was expected to offer an alternative to the death penalty. But in his arrogance, he instead suggested that Athens offer him a stipend to continue teaching. Many Athenians had lost their family members, suffered tremendous hardship, or were thrown into exile because of the teaching of Socrates. And this arrogant man had the nerve to suggest that Athens Pay him to continue his teachings. So now you tell me, was Athens justified in executing him? 1. His teachings was dangerous to Athens, Democracy, and it's people. 2. He refused to stop his teachings. 3. He was offered a choice to either stop his teachings or face execution. |
a24f67d2-2019-04-18T19:45:00Z-00004-000 | Socrates did not deserve the death penalty | My argument is simple: -->Socrates was unjustly accused of his crimes which put him to death. These crimes are: 1:Impiety 2:Corrupting the youth I will provide a brief opening statement, and whoever shall accept this challenge can create their opening statement based on that. -->The first charge of Impiety was a ridiculous statement because as he stated in the Apology, the very reason he began his travels, cross examining many artisans and politicians was because of the Delphi oracle, who stated that he was the wisest man alive. Since he did not believe this, he began his travels, attempting to discover if he was truly the wisest man alive. This seems to be a very religious act, considering he acknowledged the existence of the gods that the oracle communed with. -->The second charge of corrupting the youth is an equally ridiculous statement, because when Socrates cross examined a member of the audience, the response was that Socrates alone corrupted the youth, and every other man only benefited the youth. Socrates shut this statement down as well, revealing that none of the men in the jury had any care for the youth, that it was a mere excuse that they could use to kill Socrates. -->This is as far as i will go for now, i would hope whoever accepts this challenge does their best to contradict me. Good luck to whoever you may be, and may you all vote on the debate itself, but not on your personal views. |
a24f67d2-2019-04-18T19:45:00Z-00000-000 | Socrates did not deserve the death penalty | Again, you're stating that Socrates told these men to overthrow Athens, which he did not do. They merely followed him and interpreted his teachings based on his perspectives, and then reacted on their own volition. Also, you said that Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, but you still haven't provided the names of these tyrants or their connection to Socrates, so I will disregard their actions entirely. As for your reference to Karl Marx, you stated that if he knew about Stalin, then he would have never supported any form of socialism? I disagree with this completely. It was the form of government that he believed in, period. Perspectives never should account for extremists, because those people are just that: extremists. Irrational, usually violent stubborn believers that their belief is the absolute truth. Karl Marx would not have stopped believing what he did, and he would not apologize for socialism altogether. Finally, you asked "Would You pay Osama Bin Laden if you lost a relative in 9/11 or would you execute him ... And do you think his execution is justified?" This is just ridiculous. If Osama Bin Laden killed one of my relatives, I would think he deserved some form of justice, but I am not one to decide who should die, no man has that choice. Also, this is irrelevant to the discussion. A real question that relates to this debate would be this: If you lost a relative in 9/11, would you try your believe that killing Osama Bin Laden's high school teacher is justified? I think most people would say no to this question. good luck to you sir. |
a24f67d2-2019-04-18T19:45:00Z-00001-000 | Socrates did not deserve the death penalty | 1. The Danger of the Socratic Teachings. A. "Yet I don't recall any tyrants that claim to be enlightened by Socrates. Would you happen to have the names of these tyrants, and also what these leaders did to be considered tyrannical, other than not believing in democracy as a functional form of government?" ----- My opponent's Question. My opponent clearly prefers WRITING to READING. I mean ... I understand if this was an oral debate ... but for crying out loud, It's RIGHT THERE!!!! LOOK!!! 4th Paragraph!!!! RIGHT THERE!!!!!!!!!!! ("At around 404 BC, Critias ... They limited the civil rights of Athens and purged opposition leaders, forcing hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile.") I. The Leader, Critias, was a student of Socrates. II. The Tyrants forced hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile. B. "Also, at the time, Athens was switching between several forms of government" OF COURSE THEY WERE. HAVENT U READ ANYTHING I WROTE???? "At around 404 BC, Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, all of whom were heavily influenced by Socrates' teachings about the flaws and imperfection of Democracy and OVERTHREW the Democracy in Athens with military force. ... It took another military coup one year later to rid Athens of this totalitarian military junta of Socrates' students." AGAIN IT'S RIGHT THERE!!! Athenian democracy was overthrown by military force because of Socrates' teachings against Democracy and then restored a year later by another military revolution of outraged citizens. 2. "He refused to stop his teachings." "Many people see this as a sheer act of stubbornness on Socrates' part, but if looked at properly, one realizes that in the same situation, we would all make the same decision." Let's think about this for a second .... Let's Imagine if YOUR TEACHINGS were Responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. Let's Imagine if YOUR TEACHINGS were responsible for the birth of a military Junta that oppressed YOUR neighbors and fellow citizens. If YOUR TEACHINGS were responsible for this ... would you continue? I believe that if Karl Marx knew his teachings would give birth to a monster such as Stalin, he would have had the decency to stop. Or at least apologize. Socrates did neither. He demanded to be paid. In fact .... that was the choice he offered Athens. Either they executed him or they paid him. Would You pay Osama Bin Laden if you lost a relative in 9/11 or would you execute him ... And do you think his execution is justified? |
a24f67d2-2019-04-18T19:45:00Z-00002-000 | Socrates did not deserve the death penalty | Thanks for responding to this argument moondragon613, and now I'll address each point you've made 1: "His teachings was dangerous to Athens, Democracy, and it's people." >>>1A: You mentioned earlier in your argument on this point that Socrates encouraged tyrants and tyrannical views, yet I don't recall any tyrants that claim to be enlightened by Socrates. Would you happen to have the names of these tyrants, and also what these leaders did to be considered tyrannical, other than not believing in democracy as a functional form of government? It is true that Socrates was a danger to democracy, and that he pointed out many flaws of this system of government, but I don't believe this is the same as encouraging tyrannical behavior, even if he did encourage monarchical views. >>>1B: Also, at the time, Athens was switching between several forms of government, and did not remain a democracy for anywhere over ten years at a time. This scenario influenced the situation in two ways. The first way being that it enforced Socrates' view on the stability of democracy, and the second way being that most of the jurors at the trial of Socrates obviously favored democracy, in that they were part of this trial, and knowing that Socrates was dead set against the form of government that they supported, this I am almost sure swayed the vote against him, which can definitely be considered as unjustly putting him to death. 2: "He refused to stop his teachings." >>>2A: Many people see this as a sheer act of stubbornness on Socrates' part, but if looked at properly, one realizes that in the same situation, we would all make the same decision. Socrates was a stone mason as a career, which made him the little money that he ever had, but at heart, he was a philosopher. That was all he wanted to be and all he would be, a lover of wisdom. So while Socrates was on trial, he was presented with two options. One being that he could live and never do the one thing he wants, the second one being to die. Some of us might fear death to the point of living out a hollow existence until we die anyway, but given the choice, Socrates believed it was not worth it. In fact, he went to state that he was the "gadfly" that kept the democracy awake, by not letting them blindly believe anything, but instead questioning everything to arrive at the truth. Since I noticed that i also responded to your third point with this, I will leave it to you sir. Good luck. |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00004-000 | Stem Cell Research | I look forward to the arguments and am excited to be debating him again (go vote on our other debate about using plastic surgery to enhance physical appearance if you want) I now will shut up and post my argument In case you don't already know what stem cell research is I will explain it as best I can. Stem cell research is taking ES cells or cells from aborted fetuses or embryos grown in a lab and injecting them into the area of the spinal cord where the neurons can no longer send messages to a specific part of the body. the reason why this works is because you are extracting the cells from aborted fetuses/lab grown embryos, that have not had time to develop yet and are essentially a clean slate. once these cells are injected into the spinal cord they become neurons and take on the job of the original one. You might be asking if it can cure paralysis why am I opposed to it. Well here's why. Before testing was done on humans, scientists tested the embryonic stem cell research (there are two other kinds adult stem cell extraction and umbilical cord extraction. @not_an_idiot and I are debating over embryonic stem cell research) on mice. according to www. allaboutpopularissues. org, "Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.1 Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells" If this form of stem cell research has caused brain tumors and cancer in mice, why would it not cause the same affect among human patients? |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00005-000 | Stem Cell Research | Stem Cell Research is an extremely important advancement in the scientific community. Should we let fetuses from abortions be wasted, or should we try to let all of the 200,000 Americans paralyzed have full control of their movements? Good Luck @lizzzie_beee |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00000-000 | Stem Cell Research | I do see your point about my hypocritical statement @lizzzie_beee, and I am deeply sorry for the confusion. I was wrong to tell that story. Now, to address your statement about how Adult and Embryonic Cell are almost the same. There are many differences between the two. The main one is how easily ES cells can be acquired, while getting adult cells requires much work and possibly surgery. Another difference is cost to get them. Why pay more to undergo extensive surgeries that take away your ability to repair certain organs for a period of time, while you can simply grow ES cells for much cheaper? ES cells also can become almost any cell in your body, while Adult stem cells are very limited. |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00001-000 | Stem Cell Research | First of all I'd just like to say that the reason I forfeited the last round was not because I did not have a rebuttal to my opponents argument but because I was extremely busy over the weekend with book reports projects reading etc not that any one cares but I thought I would include that. Alright Argument from this point on. In my opponents second argument he stated that "Although you statements about mice might get cancer from Stem Cell being put inside them is true, but I believe you are missing the point of the argument. The topic is stem cell research not stem cell testing."; however in his third argument he makes a hypocritic proposal that his uncle was helped by stem cells being injected into his body. Although I mean no personal offense by this and am truly sorry about what happened to your uncle I honestly truly am but if you said that the topic is stem cell research wouldn't the argument about your uncles progress was do to what you referred to as "testing" is it not. But in my opinion testing on mice and on say a actual human does qualify as research in my standards. Research is "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." So in theory testing it would be essential to so called research. Aside from the dangers that are in ES stem cell research there are other alternatives that work just as well if not better. Although it is stated that umbilical stem cell injection or whatever you would like to call it is less efficiwnt , there is also the option of adult stem cell research. Why should the government and others fund research that is controversial or contradicts ones beliefs or moral while there is a perfectly humane and let's just say widely satisfactory alternative. By this I mean research on adult stem cells and the process of healing a paralysized person is over all less likely to cause a rucuss over itself as extracting the cells from dead fetuses would. |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00002-000 | Stem Cell Research | Seeing that my opponent has forfeited this round, I will move on in the argument. Stem cells have helped people very close to me, such as my uncle. He was shot while trying to stop a fight and was unable to move his right leg with full control until a few months ago. He had stem cells injected into him, and within weeks he was finally able to walk without a cane or wheelchair. Although ES cell research is not fully complete, I have high expectations for the outcome of all this research. Additionally, my opponent says "If this form of stem cell research has caused brain tumors and cancer in mice, why would it not cause the same affect among human patients?" Mice's brains and humans brains are completely different in size, complexity, and the way they work. If they were the same types of brains, then mice would be able to speak just like we can. These results must be deemed unreliable. |
e17d643a-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00003-000 | Stem Cell Research | Although your statements about how mice might get cancer from Stem Cells being put inside them is true, I believe you are missing the point of the argument. The topic is Stem Cell Research, not Stem Cell Testing. I am encouraging the research of ES Cells, not the actually action of putting them in humans. You should never give up hope for people to be able to walk, talk, and have their lives back. |
5449dfc4-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00000-000 | This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck | Obviously my opponent has nothing to say on this matter so therefore I should win this debate. THanks, |
5449dfc4-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00001-000 | This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck | First to refute; "Firstly, Donald Duck does not wear a shirt that goes over his gluteus maximus. It is therefore inappropriate, as it is no different from porn. This is duck porn shown on children's television, is this justifiable? To filter such vulgar and mature thoughts into their premature minds? That is taking away the children's rights to a naive and innocent childhood, to not be bombarded by temptation and pressure from society and brainwashed by the media." His shirt does cover his private parts and have you asked one kid that watches that show what he/she thinks about his clothing choices? "As for how Spongebob would have no pants when it is lent: Spongebob Square pants is significant for owning his pants. The telivision show is BASED on his pants, so without it, the show is basically not going to run. Ergo, without his pants, Spongebob is not going to be on TV, be broadcasting his sensual parts on children's TV. This is acceptable. Besides, Spongebob, according to episode 12, has more than one pair of pants in his wardrobe. " Spongebob would still be showing even if he had jeans or pants instead of shorts so that is irrelevant. How do you know Donald Duck doesn't have longer t-shirts as spongebob has more shorts? "go suck on that youngling. time for my afternoon brunch. Godspeed!" How do you know how old I am. for all you know I could be 99 so your the youngling...... and how much do you eat? |
5449dfc4-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00002-000 | This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck | Firstly, Donald Duck does not wear a shirt that goes over his gluteus maximus. It is therefore inappropriate, as it is no different from porn. This is duck porn shown on children's television, is this justifiable? To filter such vulgar and mature thoughts into their premature minds? That is taking away the children's rights to a naive and innocent childhood, to not be bombarded by temptation and pressure from society and brainwashed by the media. As for how Spongebob would have no pants when it is lent: Spongebob Square pants is significant for owning his pants. The telivision show is BASED on his pants, so without it, the show is basically not going to run. Ergo, without his pants, Spongebob is not going to be on TV, be broadcasting his sensual parts on children's TV. This is acceptable. Besides, Spongebob, according to episode 12, has more than one pair of pants in his wardrobe. go suck on that youngling. time for my afternoon brunch. Godspeed! |
5449dfc4-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00003-000 | This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck | Thanks for hosting this debate, First I will rebutt your points and then move to mine. "A good example is the fact that Donald Duck does not wear trousers, it is inhumane to show such pornography to those young minds. Children nowadays should just hang in the 'hood' or whatever. " Donald Duck wear's a t-shirt which almost comes down to cover his bottoms but anyway, he's a duck so he doesn't need any shorts. What the children see is white duck hair which is like the rest of his body and children that age that watch those shows are content with that image. "HOwever, since television is such an attraction ir is my idea that Spongebob Squarepants should give his pants to Donald Duck, it is more appropriate and much more preferable." Suppose that SS gave his pants to Donald Duck, then wouldn't Spongebob be showing his sensual parts? Now to move to mine, If Spongebob gives up his pants he will be showing some sensual parts that children should not see. Donald Duck doesn't need pants because he has a long t-shirt and the TV doesn't even show anything there. |
5449dfc4-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00004-000 | This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck | Back in the good ol' days, we used to get aroused seeing just shoulders of another human being,and these whatchamacallits were only found, ya know, on thingymagigs. But it's absurd for lit'le lads, even of your modern age to see such sensual parts of the body on television.A good example is the fact that Donald Duck does not wear trousers, it is inhumane to show such pornography to those young minds. Children nowadays should just hang in the 'hood' or whatever. HOwever, since television is such an attraction ir is my idea that Spongebob Squarepants should give his pants to Donald Duck, it is more appropriate and much more preferable. I challenge you younglings to contradict me. It will be very hard, ya know, especially as I've been around longer. ... Time for my nap time. Cheerios! zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00000-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | This is an easy Con ballot. Here is why:Remember two things (one of which I have explicitly maintained throughout the debate):1) I do not have to defend the constitutionality of every single government action to help the poor and needy. If I have shown that even one is constitutional, the resolution is negated. 2) Pro has the BOP in this round to show, beyond doubt, that the Constitution does not give Congress this power. With this in mind, Pro has actually conceded this debate. I. Enumerated Powers help the poor and needy. Due to my opponent's lack of connection between social welfare programs and helping the poor and needy, I only needed to show that one enumerated power helps the poor and needy. Since these powers help almost everyone, the poor and needy are necessarily helped. Pro concedes as much, saying, "It is true that coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army...do help the poor and needy."I win the round here. Note: I found the information about post roads quite interesting. II. The Context of the Constitution necessitates a flexible approach. Pro never rebuts this portion, meaning this flows through to Con. I win the debate here as well, since I have shown that the purpose of the Constitution was to create a more powerful and flexible federal government, in contrast to the ineffectual one created by the Articles of Confederation. I will, for ease of reading, throw in the argument regarding the viewpoints held by the drafters here. Pro concedes that at least two framers, namely Hamilton, held the view I am advocating. That is all I needed to prove, that legitimate debate existed, meaning that the actual message of the Constitution and the passages in question, are up for debate. I have done this, and win here as well. III. The Constitution Allows (at least some) Social Welfare Programs.All I needed to show was that, in at least one way, the Constitution allows for one of these programs. I have done this. I would like to throw in one of my opponent's rebuttals here, first, to demonstrate how, in a roundabout way, I have one this debate:"There are two ways the Air Force could be constitutional..."I threw this in as a trap. There is a really simple way that the Air Force is constitutional: the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since the Founders could not foresee everything, it was necessary to include a clause that allowed the government to be flexible. The Air Force is justified under the necessary and proper clause, with the context of the common defense clause. What this means is that, like the 'general welfare' clause, the common defense clause is somewhat elastic, and to be executed through the power of the purse and the necessary and proper clause. Pro was never able to resolve this, or the fact that it would be redundant to only mean later mentioned powers. I win here. The other place I clearly win is when my opponent concedes, "I do believe that tax breaks are constitutional using the doctrine of limited implied powers." My opponent directly concedes the debate here, since tax breaks ARE a form of social welfare [see earlier source material], but indirectly concedes that implied powers exist, especially since, in this debate, the idea of limited implicit powers is unclear. ConclusionI have, therefore, won this debate on all three fronts, showing that the Constitution helps the poor and needy, that its context necessitates flexibility, and that at least one social welfare program is constitutional. Even if you, somehow, do not buy that, there is no way that Pro could have met his BOP. I would like to thank Pro for this interesting debate, and sincerely hope he continues on this site, as he is very skilled. Also, floor, I apologize for lack of sources in this round, as I felt none were necessary. |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00001-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | Thank you, Con. To start with, concerning the BOP (Burden of Proof), this is my first, formal debate with someone, so my apologies for being a bit inexperienced, to put it simply. I shall give a rebuttal of Con's claims (though I admit that I do agree with some of them) and clarify some things that should have been done in the beginning. As I said, this is my first formal debate, so once again, my apologies for not being 100% prepared, even though I should have been. I would also like to note that one of the sources I am using is a Kindle book accessed via my iPad's Kindle app. Due to the lack of page numbers, the "location" numbers shall be referenced instead. The location numbers are out of a grand total of 6,700. My opponent states that "the Constitution explicitly allows for help to the poor and needy". Indeed, I do define social welfare as "A governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. This can come into the form of Bail Outs, Food Stamps, Federal Unemployment Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc." Also true, I did not explicitly connect the two together, though that was my intention. It is true that coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army, among other provisions mentioned in Article I, Section 8 do help the poor and needy and everyone on Con states, an I am in full agreement of his statement for this part of the debate. A minor thing I would like to note about is the use of the term "post roads". As Robert Natelson, a distinguished and one of my favorite originalist constitutional scholars explains, "The eighteenth-century term "post road" did not include every path over which the mail might travel. The meaning was more specific then that. A "post road" was a major throughfare built for speedy travel between distinct localities, distinguished from lesser highways in which it featured stations (called "posts" or "stages") for hiring and changing horses." [1] My opponent states that "the Constitution actually does provide for welfare programs". Is is true that my opponent's viewpoint was at least represented, though it was a minority view only held by at least two people (as far as I know), Alexander Hamilton, and Justice Joseph Story, though I want my focus to be on Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, one of the main authors of the Federalist Papers, and one of the few (if not the only) big government type founders. He probably was a secret monarchist as he posted about the pros of the English system, [2] The Constitution does say that "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.", but it simply means that Congress has to pass a bill in order to appropriate this money in order for the government to conduct its abilities. Think of it as a budget, per say. That being said, this clause doesn't explain how the government provides for welfare programs. Neither does the necessary and proper clause. According to Robert Natelson, "During the Founding Era (as today), the doctrine of incidental powers (a.k.a. implied powers) gave an agent some discretion in how he carried out his duties. However, this discretion was limited in three important ways. First, the agent could only act for the purpose of carrying out the principle powers. [...] Second, [...] Third, incidental powers never included authority as important as the listed powers." [3] Now, to answer my opponents rebuttals. Unfortunately, due to the limited charter count, I cannot respond to all of them. "What about the Air Force?" The United States Air Force has existed through various entities since 1907 (starting with the Aeronautical Division of the Army Signal Corps) [4] and only became a separate entity in 1947. Although the Constitution does not explicitly state that Congress shall have the power to provide for and maintain an Air Force, the technology just wasn't there at the time. From what I see, there are two ways that the Air Force could be constitutional. First, a Constitutional Amendment providing for an Air Force, or second, abolishing the Department of the Air Force and replacing it with the Navy, Marines, and Army having their own specialized Air Forces for their own unique needs. Douglas MacArthur, then-General at the time, stated in 1931 that "The Naval Air Force will be based on the fleet and move with it as an important element in solving the primary missions confronting the fleet. The Army Air Forces will be land-based and employed as an essential element to the Army in the performance of its mission to defend the coasts at home and in our overseas possessions, thus assuring the fleet absolute freedom of action without any responsibility for coast defense." [5] "Since tax breaks and Social Security are within the realm of taxes, and are methods of government welfare programs" I rebutted that latter half above earlier in my post. As far as tax breaks go, yes, I do believe that tax breaks are constitutional using the doctrine of limited implied powers. Social Security, on the other hand, while it is a tax, the Constitution does not express power for a program like Social Security. While the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness of Social Security is for another debate, Social Security is not a constitutional tax. Though Congress has the power to collect taxes, it only does so for "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States", that is those powers that are enumerated to Congress. "Yes, some framers preferred a strict view. Yet, others, like Hamilton, preferred a broader view." True, there was, at minimum, a legitimate debate on the subject. But, as I have stated earlier, Hamilton's view was in the extreme minority of his time. During the founding Era, it was the 28 year long (1801-1829) Anti-Federalist presidential administrations (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) that prevailed against the 4 year (1797-1801) presidency of John Adams [6] (12 if you count the No Party President George Washington who, at times, had Federalist leanings). Unfortunately, due to the lack of time that I have, I wasn't able to complete my side of the debate as I had intended. Sources: [1]: The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert Natelson, Location 1742 [2]: James Madison's Constitutional Convention Notes, June 18th, 1787 [3]: The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert Natelson, Location 1444 [4]: http://www.airforce.com... [5]: The Army and its Air Corps: Army Policy Toward Aviation 1919"1941 by Dr. James P. Tate, Page 78. [6]: http://americanhistory.about.com... All Constitution References From: http://www.archives.gov... |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00002-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | I shall first lay out three distinct points in support of my side of the case. I will attempt to be simple and concise in my arguments. A quick note: Pro has the exclusive BOP in this round. All I must do is cast doubt upon his claims, and I shall win the debate. I. The Constitution explicitly allows for help to the poor and needy. I generally dislike semantic arguments, but, based on the resolution provided, I have to give one here. My opponent's resolution is, "The United States does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy. " My opponent also defines social welfare. However, he never explicitly connects the two together. Thus, I simply have to negate the actual resolution. With this in mind, the Constitution obviously provides for powers that help the poor and needy, including coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army, among other provisions deliberately noted in Article I, Section 8. These help the poor and needy because they help everyone. Coinage helps to facilitate trade and economic growth, post offices and roads allow for quicker and more accessible communication for all, and national defense helps everyone retain their rights and physical safety. Thus, in this sense, the Constitution allows for help to the poor and needy because the Constitution has provisions that help everyone. II. The Circumstances behind the Constitution necessitate a more flexible interpretative approach. Remember that the Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation, which was inadequate because it lacked any effective method of governance [1]. What this means is that the Constitution necessarily empowers the federal government, often in ways that are implied, rather than explicitly noted. Remember, it is literally impossible for the writers of the Constitution to imagine any possible scenario the government could require power in. This means that, with the background of the Constitution in mind, we should default to flexibility. What really seems to be the case is that my opponent has a dislike for implied powers, since he does not find that the federal government has the power to spend as it pleases, via the power of the purse. If this is the case, then my opponent should surely find the printing of paper money unconstitutional, since it is not explicitly provided for [1]. III. The Constitution actually does provide for welfare programs. What we must live with is the fact that the "general welfare" provision in Article I, Section 8 is ambiguous. I will submit that, at the time of the drafting and the ratification of the Constitution, that my viewpoint was at least represented. This means that there exists at least one viable path for general welfare to include welfare programs. Let's note the text in question: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. " - Article I, Section 8However, several other provisions are necessary here: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. " - Article I, Section 9"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "These two clauses permit the "power of the purse," that is, the ability to spend, provided the money is explicitly designated in law, and allow for the passage of any laws that are necessary for the government to conduct its abilities. What we must note is that the first implies that Congress can spend as it pleases, provided the money is appropriated in an explicit manner. More importantly, the necessary and proper clause, writes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 44, is created so as to give the government more powers than explicitly enumerated. He claims that a full enumeration would have been impossible [1]. This means that, should the government require government programs, such as tax breaks and subsidies, to fulfill some purpose, perhaps interstate commerce, the intent was to allow this. However, we must come back to the phrase "general welfare. " Well, consensus was not present with regards to this. Alexander Hamilton writes that, "The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. [3]. This substantiates what should be common sense; if the framers had intended general welfare to simply relate to the enumerated powers, then putting general welfare in the Constitution in the first place would have been redundant. Rebuttals"Anything outside of these limited powers is put under the 10th Amendment. .. "This is not the case. Here, Pro is ignoring both 1) implied powers, and 2) the necessary and proper clause, both of which give the government the required flexibility, since it would have been impossible to enumerate every single power the government could possibly have, as noted by Hamilton. Remember, if Pro really wants strict construction, then he must defend that paper money is illegal, since Article I, Section 8 only allows for "coin money," and Section 10 commands that "make anything but gold and silver legal tender in the payment of debts. ""Congress provides for the 'common defense' by. .. raise and maintain an army. .. and. .. navy. "What about the Air Force? "Congress provides for "the general welfare. .. "To dispute on face, does it not seem redundant to explicitly note "general welfare," but really just mean other provisions listed elsewhere? Alexander Hamilton, as mentioned earlier, noted as much. "Make rules for. .. bankruptcies. "Excuse me, but a bankruptcy helps the poor and needy by allowing for the liquidation of debt for those who cannot pay [4]. This is an example of explicitly helping the poor and needy. "lay and collect taxes. .. "Since tax breaks and Social Security are within the realm of taxes, and are methods of government welfare programs, it appears that the Constitution allows for such programs [5]. The opinions of random framers. .. Yes, some framers preferred a strict view. Yet, others, like Hamilton, preferred a broader view. This means that, at the minimum, legitimate debate existed, and that Pro cannot meet his BOP. Sources:1. . http://www.policyalmanac.org...2. . http://www.constitution.org...3. . http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...4. . http://www.uscourts.gov...5. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...*All Constitution references from:. http://www.law.cornell.edu... |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00003-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | I would like to start by stating the reason for the "No Supreme Court Cases" rule as brought up by JohnMaynardKeynes in the comments section and Con in the acceptance round. This debate, as I have stated in the introduction, has to do with weather or not social welfare programs "are a legitimate power of Congress under the Constitution in accordance to the intent of the writers and proponents of the Constitution" rather then the supporters of post-20th century living constitutionalism supported by FDR in the 1930's and 1940's. Plus, there's also the benefit of not scouring through the legal jargon of court opinions, oral statements, etc. My argument is relatively simple. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress limited, specific powers most of which are sound in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution (the rest are scattered throughout the document). Among these limited powers are the powers to declare war [1], establish post offices and post roads [2], and to provide for and maintain a navy [3]. Anything outside of these limited powers is put under the 10th amendment which says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". [4] On the other hand, there are some, such as my contender in this debate, who claim that the Constitution grants the government to "provide for the [. .. ] general welfare" [5] as stated in the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble is not a legally binding portion of the Constitution, rather its an explanation of the overall purpose of the document. The Congress, for example, provides for "the common defense" by the powers to declare war [6], raise and maintain an army [7], raise and maintain a navy [8], and define and punish offenses against the law of nations [9]. Similarly, the Congress provides for "the general welfare" by establishing post offices and post roads [10], to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes [11], and to make rules for naturalization and bankruptcies [12]. The other clause that uses the phrase "general welfare" is known as the taxing power. It states that Congress shall have power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [13] In other words, Congress has the power to impose taxes as a way to raise revenue to pay the debts of the United States (especially the Revolutionary War debts at the time of the Constitution's ratification) and to "provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States". But if you look earlier in my argument, the common defense and general welfare were talking about the enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 (and various places elsewhere within the document). If Congress can indeed pass any regulation under the broad phrase of "promoting the general welfare", the other powers of Congress, as well as the 10th amendment would be of no use to limit Congress's power as they were intended. Even if the broad construction of the general welfare clause is used, most of the legislation pertaining to social welfare programs are not "general". Instead, they pertain to particular interests like business (such as the bail outs), individuals (such as social security and medicaid) or regional (of which I could not think of anything of the sort at the moment). But what did the Founders have to say about promoting the general welfare? The Elliot Debates, that is, the debates on the ratification of the Constitution in the state legislatures, show a significant amount of debate. In one of the debates, George Mason, an anti-federalist in opposition of the Constitution and a delegate from Virginia, gave a hypothetical scenario where the government turned out to be oppressive and asked if a writer should expose to the people at large the abuses that the government has conducted. He asked the other delegates "Could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? " [14] He also added that "Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction". [15] George Nicholas, a friend of James Madison and a federalist in favor of the Constitution and a delegate from Virginia (I believe) responded to George Mason's concern and said that "The opposers of the clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defense; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense, that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defense, in consequence of this power". [16] George also made reference to the Necessary and Proper Clause (or the "sweeping clause" in the debate) which states that Congress shall have the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". [17] George stated that "The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the extent of legislative powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else the people will have a right to declare it void. " I would put more information in, but I'm out of typing room to produce anything substantial, so I'll wait for the next round. Your turn Con. Sources [1]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 [2]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 [3]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 [4]: Amendment 10 to the Constitution [5]: Preamble to the Constitution [6]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 [7]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 [8]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 [9]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 [10]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 [11]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 [12]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 [13]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 [14]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 442 [15]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 442 [16]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Pages 442-443 [17]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 [18]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 443 |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00004-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | I accept, and will argue that the Constitution gives Congress the power to help the poor and needy, though Pro's rule against Supreme Court rulings is quite curious. I will note that Pro has the sole BoP of this round, since Pro is making a claim against the consensus in the status quo. I look forward to reading Pro's argument. Good luck! |
c931450-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00005-000 | The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy | The federal government of the United States has, for nearly a century supported programs generally for the poor and the needy. While the results of these programs are continuously argued about between Republicans and Democrats, one thing that doesn't really get mentioned is the constitutionality of these programs. I am here to debate in opposition to the claim that these social welfare programs are a legitimate power of Congress under the Constitution in accordance to the intent of the writers and proponents of the Constitution. Resolved, that the United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy. The following shall be the definitions and rule of this debate. Definitions The U.S. Constitution: The United States Constitution and all of its Amendments. Social Welfare: A governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. This can come into the form of Bail Outs, Food Stamps, Federal Unemployment Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Rules 1) No Supreme Court Rulings 2) You must cite the Constitutional Clause you may use, but only those that pertain to the powers of Congress 3) First Round Acceptance Only |