_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
3eea3cad-2019-04-18T18:06:39Z-00000-000 | Weed be legal ! | Ok so mary-J and other worst drugs are two diffrent things, and trying weed out is nothing alike from doing meth etc. I been a pot smoker for 2years and not once in those years did I even THINK about trying anything else. I had a lot of people bug me and bug me about trying harder things but the answer is always the same.(No) With the government allowing mary-J I really doubt people are going to be wanting meth etc. to be legal also. And again weed doesn't harm u (for the most part). And even if people started questioning if the harder stuff should be legal that answer would already be ready to answer with a big fat NO. When it comes to ciggs. Ima have to disagree smoking is awesome bye the way(: Its not the drug dealers part on if the customer is going to come back or not; Yah he/she is going to want them to but they really don't have a say. With the fact that u are trying to say that mary-j & OTHER type drugs are the same is a lie because of the fact that they are two VERY diffrent type drugs. Meth DOES get u addictive the first time u do it; Or it can kill u, but weed is nothing like that..... |
3eea3cad-2019-04-18T18:06:39Z-00001-000 | Weed be legal ! | I meant that if you breath in smoke there is such a low concentration of oxygen it is harmful (going back to my train metaphor). 2nd even though there are so many people doing mary-J if the government legalized mary-j for that reason that would encourage people from trying to legalize more harmful drugs, like meth. it is like lemmings, if one jumps off a cliff, they all do, and that ends up killing all of them. 3rd even if you smoke it with people you know, the drugs had to come from somewhere, probably a dealer with negotiated prices, and not a store bought variety with a higher fixed price. this proves true already when people want pirated videos or video games, if you could pay less for the same thing without much risk from getting caught by the government, why wouldn't you buy the thing that costs less? which brings me to the adding of other drugs in the mary-J. cigarettes wouldn't be smoked without nicotine, if there wasn't something in there making you go back and buy a pack of cigs then you wouldn't, because smoking sucks, this is also true for most marijuana smokers who are chemically addicted, there is some reason for them to come back for it mainly other additives, like heroin, coke, ext. and the drug companies probably would also get nicotine in there as well, because if you have a business you need regular customers, and addicting them to your product is one way to ensure that they come back for more |
3eea3cad-2019-04-18T18:06:39Z-00002-000 | Weed be legal ! | 0k in someways weed can be bad for u. And Don't u need oxygen to breath? (Sry I was confused on that.) But anyway thats also why I brought up being with people u KNOW while smoking weed. And with soo many people smoking weed anyway why can't the law already just give up busting people for weed. And 1 im NOT a drug dealer and I c where your coming from and if the government ever did decide to legal it who says its going to be for a cheap price?? Thats where drug dealers can still come in and sell their product for a low price. And with the weed being in stores or where ever the gov. would sell the weed; it also gives the dealers more ways to get the product in order to sell it. :) |
3eea3cad-2019-04-18T18:06:39Z-00003-000 | Weed be legal ! | there is a problem with weed, like all drugs, I'm not saying that weed is going to kill someone if they use it once, but the fact is no inhaling related drugs are good for you. Why? because you aren't breathing OXYGEN. it is like feeding a train dirt sometimes instead of coal, it might work a little at first, but the dirt and nonflammable stuff is gonna build up and kill the engine. Honestly I never said weed was worse for you then cigarettes, but it really isn't that much better because you also don't have a filter, also it can be laced with other drugs. Thus there would obviously need to be a lot of government reforms, and I don't think anyone would listen to them, honestly if you got along just fine buying marijuana illegally why would you worry about limitations on legal marijuana like filtered bongs, or not lacing it? if you were a drug dealer wouldn't you want your customers coming back, because that is how you guarantee it. |
3eea3cad-2019-04-18T18:06:39Z-00004-000 | Weed be legal ! | Weed can help A LOT with getting off debt from other countries; Weed is very useful with helping people who may always be in pain and relaxe those from doing thins stupid; and can just have a good laugh with your peers. For gods sake weed is just a PLANT ! And there is nothing wrong with doing it with your family or friends as long as u can really trust them; enough to not lace it with something more dangerous. LEGALIZE MARY-J !!!!!!!!!! :D |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00000-000 | Manning vs Brady | asst ss tst aklat jea ifajkajt aif ast haos |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00001-000 | Manning vs Brady | Given that my opponent has forfeited this round, I will post my conclusion. However; I would like to make a quick amendment- Tom Brady threw 12 INTs, not 14. In conclusion, it appears Brady would have a better performance if he had an arsenal anywhere similar to Peyton's. Tom Brady is an all time great- and so is Manning, but Brady has never had a supporting cast built around him, Bill Bellichick is constantly changing it. |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00002-000 | Manning vs Brady | Your all smiles aren't you ? Lol Given my opponent's response, there is no need for me to post further arguments at this time. :) |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00003-000 | Manning vs Brady | :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00004-000 | Manning vs Brady | This is my first debate so excuse me if I don't do all that great. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are arguably two of the greatest QBs to ever play the game of football. However; Tom Brady has always been surrounded by less weapons. People were saying last year that Brady was declining given his 25 TDs and 14 INTs along with a 60% completion rate. However most people don't realize that the offense he played with futured several rookies- Danny Amendola(who was out several games with a concussion and also a groin injury at the beginning of the year) and Julian Edelman and Rob Gronkowski(who was injured and misses 9 games of the season) were the veterans in the receiving corps. During the short stretch that Gronk was not injured, the Patriots had a prolific offense. The Broncos, meanwhile, had a fantastic receiving corps including Demaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas, Wes Welker, along with a powerful, end zone hungry run game led by Knowshown Moreno, who had 10 tds. DeMaryius and Julius were elected to the Pro Bowl. Peyton Manning obviously had the greatest year a quarterback has ever had, 55 TDs, 5,477 and 68% completion rate. However, given the nature of his neck injury, he cannot let his deep ball loose like he used to, so his offense is based off quick passes, bubble screens and intermediate passes. This inflates his numbers quite a bit, numbers such as completion percentage and yards per attempt. Brady, however, runs a passing offense that throws a lot of deep passes. In 2013, Brady attempted 174 passes of 31 yds or more. http://www.nfl.com... In 2007, the year Tom Brady threw for 50 TDs, he had two players, Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who were sensational. Now just think for a moment, what if Tom Brady had DeMaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas and Wes Welker? Brady would have amazing numbers. And remember, Tom Brady led the Patriots to the AFC Championship, even with terrible receivers and only LeGarette Blounte-and if it wasn't for the cheap shot hit on Aqib Talib, the Patriots best defensive player, they would of had a shot at winning that game. In fact, most of his career, Tom Brady hasn't had explosive players, he put their name on the board. Also; Bill Bellichick often makes strange decisions- such as the recent cut of Kenbrell Thomkins, who won the game against the Saints. |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00005-000 | Manning vs Brady | I accept |
20d5bfe9-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00006-000 | Manning vs Brady | Fourth round is conclusion. We will be debating whether Tom Brady would be as efficient and successful with a team as talented as Manning has in Denver. I await your response. |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00006-000 | Evolution vs creationism | I will support creationism in this debate and show that creationism is fundamentally a better theory and the evolutionary model. Contention 1 is time-scale a. Evolutionist believe that evolution occurs due to natural variability and mutations in genetics. This theory is an assumption which is not in fact supported by substantive proof. Evolutionist claim macro evolution based on the findings of micro evolution and assumes that micro evolution points to macro evolution when in fact it does not. "The observable changes that evolutionists cite as evidence for their paradigm, such as in sticklebacks, bighorn sheep, Atlantic cod, pollution-resistant worms, and antibiotic and pesticide resistance are all going the wrong way. They"re the direct opposite of what microbes-to-man evolution requires." Not only are these changes in the wrong direction but Evos (evolutionists) must admit that all mutation we see are destructive in nature. The Evolutionary Model Cannot Account For This Fact...every mutation we see is destructive in nature and not beneficial, even the minor ones. cancer is a great testament to this fact. We should see a vaster array of species. For instance why is it that only homo-sapiens roam the world, why is it that there are no more neanderthals or differing human types still alive to this day? Furthermore, why hasn't the human population mutated since the dawn of recorded history in Any Way? Evolution simply doesnt have enough time to occur on such a vast and specific scale as claimed, even accepting the idea that the earth is 4.54 billion years old (which isn't fully proven) and especially acknowledging the fact that almost all mutations are defects. b. Evolutionistic ideas as opposed to creationist ideas don't hold up in the Grand Scheme of things. As logical people we must be sure to address the simple fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. In the physical realm infinity is impossible, the universe had to have had a starting point and in the current scientific view, there had to have been at one point, nothingness. This idea is impossible, there cant be nothing and if there were it is completely scientifically illogical to believe that two particles would instantaneously be created and cause the big bang. In essence we come to the problem of the push back. In the push back we simply keep asking where the origin of the origin came from. What was before the big bang? What was before the before the big bang? The creationist model can account for this however. The bible says that the Earth was created in 7 days. Fundamentalists took the english translation as fact and so assumed 24 hours was a day. The reality however is that the word used in the bible for 'day' is a poetic termed used to mean "a period of time". The word used is "yom" and can mean Several things related to time, only one of which is a twenty-four hour period. yom- 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, both compare a day to a thousand years demonstrating how this word can be used to mean different periods of time. God is a being who exists outside of the realm of time and space however. That is how he created it and that is why The Push Back does not apply to the creationist view, God operates outside of our perception of time. He is the one who created it you know... c. Creationist view points are essential to a moral standpoint for humanity. Without god's decrees which give us a moral base, humanity's moral outlook must be completely subjective while god shows us that some things are definitely wrong and some, definitely wrong. Evos absolutely cannot escape the fact that evolution means that morals are invented and imagined and accepting an evos view point means that you can no longer believe that your moral compass is correct because each person has their own moral compass and it is not your place or right to impose your beliefs on them. This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins, a leading voice of atheism, says, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." In terms of the debate, voting affirmative means accepting that there is no real meaning to life and morals do not exist, it is to throw out your very human nature. Evos are trapped in a mental cage. The only way to prove god's existence to them would be to show physical evidence. To show that some laws have been broken in the physical world. This cannot happen of course so there is no way to prove, with physical evidence, the existence of god. d. The argument from truth 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. e. The origin of the idea of god 1. We have ideas of many things. 2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. 3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God"an infinite, all-perfect being. 4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause. 6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. 7. But only God himself has those qualities. 8. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. 9. Therefore God exists. f. The world wide general consensus 1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine." 2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience. 3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. g. Pascal's Wager creationists are often denounced because they rely on faith in stead of scientific consensus or lack thereof, in fact it is atheist who have the most faith though. I've shown many large flaws in atheist and evo ideology and I have only scratched the surface. Religion has been the most longstanding and traditional outlook. Current atheist and evo ideas deny the consensus and go off on a limb based on their personal beliefs so they rely on just as much and often times more faith than believers. one nice demonstration of this fact is what is called Pascal's Wager which is a fairly simply line of logic concerning the result of either belief: If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." In conclusion Evolution is not a reliable theory and there are many many holes in it, it simply doesnt have enough time to occur. atheism fails because it doesn't recognize that there must be a being outside of reality which created it and without a creator we have absolutely no moral compass on which to rely. I have also provided a plethora of logical proofs and for those reasons I can only contend creationism over evolutionary ideas. http://www.trueorigin.org... http://creation.com... https://answersingenesis.org... http://www.compellingtruth.org... |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00007-000 | Evolution vs creationism | I will be debating on the side of evolution. Con will be on the side of creationism. |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00000-000 | Evolution vs creationism | Please extend all arguments and note that my opponent has conceeded that he loses this round, thank you. |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00001-000 | Evolution vs creationism | Please extend of of my arguments. Thank you. |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00002-000 | Evolution vs creationism | From this point forward I shall take a more formal procession to the rest of this debate as it may be simpler to keep track of what is going on, let's begin: Round Abuse Pro has abused the round by changing the definition of the resolution. He asserts that this is a debate about if evolution is real instead of competition between evolution and creationism. "This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real" Definition of Versus: in competition with another idea This is a voters issue because the negative team can not expect what to argue over in the round. Are we debating over god This round's resolution imply's that the debate will be a competition to see if creationism is better than the theory of evolution, or vice-versa. In order to assert my side of the argument I must claim that god is real. I can use any method I please to accomplish this, including debating morality. Pro ignores my arguments and thus concedes them, meaning they must be considered true. Earlier in the round I asserted that, If con accepts that god and evolution are both real then the round must flow my direction. He as not responded and because in debate 'silence is compliance', he concedes this, thus he has handed me the round as of now. not enough time for evolution Darwinian Evolution, , "Time Required for Macroevolution to Occur," No Publication, http://www.windowview.org... The short answer, in plain language, is that life appears to have taken hold on earth so quickly that virtually no time was available for chemical evolution to take place. Beyond this, there is no prospect for an evolution of information nor for chance to account for change in species leading from one major phylum of organisms to the next (as is suggested by a wide variety of tree diagrams). When calculated, the time necessary for chance to do the required work amounts to more time than what has elapsed for the known universe from its creation at t = 0 to the present. |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00003-000 | Evolution vs creationism | I will start by clearing a few things up. Firstly, I never meant the links I posted to be arguments. I posted them in case you were interested in looking at them.mostly though, it was for the people who are looking at this debate, if they were interested. I also posted the one about ethics because I wasn't ( and still am not) going to debate morality in this debate because it is irrelevant. This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real. AIDS is real. AIDS has consequences. But the CONSEQUENCES of AIDS and whether or not AIDS exists are two separate disscussions. In the same way, the existence of evolution and the "moral consequences" of evolution are seperate issues. Although, I certainly would recommend reading that book I linked you. It's free, and not very long. This debate is NOT about atheism. It is possible to believe in a god and evolution. Take kenneth miller, a molecular biologist who is also a devout Roman Catholic, and opponent of intelligent design. You completely discount the possibility that there was an "intelligent designer" that used evolution. The fact of evolution does not mean there is no God. I will not adress points that pertain to morality or the existence of God. You can take that as the signature of my agreement, but I don't care. They have no relevancy to this debate. Now, lets look at your points shall we? As I understand it, you have two main points against evolution. One is time scale, and the other is that macro evolution has no concrete proof. You state basically( if I'm not mistaken, and please tell me if I am) that 4.5 billion years is not long enough to account for the diversity of life, or at least something of that ilk. My simple rebuttal to that largely consists of: where do you get this information? Is it just an opinion? Because opinions have no place in science. An argument from personal Incredulity is not a valid argument. The evidence shows that 4.5 billion years is enough time. It's quite a long time actually. Once conditions on the earth improved, natural selection took over because conditions were improved for life to flourish. Now in regards to macro evolution. There are many misconceptions about this topic. For example: 1.) Crockoducks. I'm sure you've heard creationists talk about this, about how no one has ever found a half crocodile half duck hybrid. Well of course not. Because if we did, then evolution as we know it would be false. Nobody that understands evolution would say anything like this. I'll give you and example. Modern horses are descended from Hyracotherium, a species that existed about 50 million years ago. This creature didn't one day say " you know what? I'm going to change into a bigger mammal named a horse" and started to change over successive generations until now we have the various breeds of modern horses. It was by the process of natural selection. The taller bulkier specimens were favored over the smaller traditional hyracotherium, and the smaller ones were weeded out until finally we have the modern horse. Natural selection has no direction. 2.) Macroevolution has never been observed, or so creationists say. The reality is Macroevolution had been observed multiple times. It's just harder to observe than microevolution, primarily because it takes longer. When studies are brought up such as the fruit fly one you brought up, creationists usually say that studies like that don't count because they are still flies, or fish, or salamanders or what have you. Well... Yes. Evolution would be wrong if anything else were the case. Creationists demand that the offspring be so different from their parents that they don't even appear related. " I've been a farmer my whole life, and I've never seen a cow give birth to a sheep!". What's funny is that the theory of evolution has beer stated that one "kind" of animal could turn into another " kind". Unless, that is you ignore everything that happens in between. Here are some examples of Macroevolution( links below) :Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization. Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis http://www.talkorigins.org... Thank you for accepting! Looking forward to more! |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00004-000 | Evolution vs creationism | Road Map of my arguments in this speech: Macro v. Micro Evo, Your ethics Citations plus other links, Atheist Evolutionist morality, Concessions (LINKS) "However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. Elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it." a.)As the negative opposition is it not my responsibility to visit links you provide, I can only evaluate evidence and assertions that you provide. If it were not this way then one could simply post an argument full of website links as their rebuttal and would never be required to actually make their own arguments. Links are provided for the affirmative or negative to delve deeper into an argument to prepare for the next and to give credibility to statements asserted. For that reason if you wish to make an argument on ethics then you will have to assert and warrant it in your next speech. I have provided assertions and warrants for you to evaluate and I believe them to be sufficient, if you do not, simply make a claim that my warrant is invalid for any reason that you may think, and I will elaborate from there. (T) "This is not a debate about the existenCe of god" a.)This debate is 100% about god there is no escaping that truth. Creationism implies that a creator (God) created all life, Therefore I Must assert that god is a real being, moreover, you have not stated whether you believe god is real and evolution is real. I interpret the resolution to mean that either god is real and evolution does not exist Or god is not real and evolution does exist. One could also deduce you mean this "either or" type resolution because you have stated atheism as your religion. If you would like to say that god and evolution are both real than make that claim, otherwise it is pretty much your obligation to defend that God is Not real. Incorrect? (T) "You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please. " a.)As I said. I believe that the resolution you have provided means that either evolution is not real and god is OR god is not real and evolution Is real. This means I must advocate that god is real. Also for creationism to actually mean anything, God must be there to have created life, that is the entire premise of creationism so based on that alone I have to defend that god is real and provide evidence that says so, one way of doing this is showing why I believe that atheism is not real, leaving god as the only other option. b.) I also want to claim that if god is real then creationism is real as well so if I "win" on that argument then the round must automatically flow my direction. (Morality) "You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not." a.)The morality argument is relevant, it is a method to show that god is real which is what I must defend and therefore that atheism is something that is not real based on the simple premises of the arguments provided by most evos. Even Richard Dawkins admits that an objective moral truth cannot exist in the evolutionary model at least without god in it. This is not to say that without the belief in god we lose morality and everyone will start murdering each other, it is to say that from the atheists" point of view we cannot claim that something is Really Truly wrong or right, it just depends on how you feel, or what would be best for your evolutionary survival. (Evolution) "There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time." a.)I disagree, Micro evolution is found in experiments such as the Fruit Fly experiment where generations upon generations of fly"s were hit with low level radiation and after 60 years the only differences found were useless sets of wings and strange colors in their eyes and skin. They never became structurally different, we have never seen structural changes in organisms since we have been on this Earth only slight slight changes in resistance ect. Scientists have failed to show that the Primordial Soup which all life came from exists and have never been able to create on of their own. That is why evolution only works on a micro but not macro scale. Macro has no concrete proof. (Concessions by NEG) "You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory." a.)Neg concedes that evolution is a theory and creationism is not. However It's not just black and white like that. Although a "theory" in science is something that has experimental verification, in principle, a "theory" can't be 100% truth. The goal of formulating a theory is to get as close to the truth as possible For instance, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the theory of gravity using vector fields is a good enough theory for engineers to use when they want to send a satellite into outer space. So this theory of gravity is "true", but it has some problems. General relativity is a better theory of gravity because it fixes the problems in Newtonian gravity. So even though Newtonian gravity can be considered as a "fact" because it makes accurate predictions, general relativity makes even more accurate predictions than Newtonian gravity. And even general relativity has it's problems (ie, it can't explain gravity at very small scales), which is why a lot of theoretical physicists today are working on a theory of quantum gravity in order to understand gravity at the center of a black hole or gravity in the very, very early universe. b.)What I believe is that evolution is a Very flawed theory which need major revisions and also that creationism accounts for the origin of man better than Evolution. Concessions by the affirmative. Pro has currently not responded to the following, which means that they have admitted that to be true as of now. The rule in debate is almost always that "silence is compliance". 1.that evolution doesn"t have enough time to happen 2.d. The argument from truth 3.e. The origin of the idea of god 4.f. The worldwide general consensus 5.g. Pascal's Wager 6.That current atheist and scientific views cannot account for the orgin of the universe but creationism can I"m having a great time and I look forward to our next round roark555 :P -TheJuniorVarsityNovice |
ef778452-2019-04-18T15:25:55Z-00005-000 | Evolution vs creationism | You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Plate tectonics is A theory. Creationism is not. You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not. However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please. This is not a debate about the existenCe of god, and I would be more than happy to debate that with you at another point. This debate is SPECIFICALLY about evolution vs creationism, and you only address evolution once, maybe two times in your entire argument. You literally may as well have started talking about your favorite movie, or table tennis, or about how cheese puffs are most certainly better tasting than potato chips. Tell you what: after this debate, you challenge me to one on the existence of god. Then you can say all of that. Then you have your actual comments about evolution. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it. Every mutation we see is destructive? Not true. The overwhelming majority of mutations are completely neutral. Most are simply inherited traits. Some are harmful, some are beneficial. For exaKmple ( and I'll link these below, at least a few of them.) : Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Some negative include: projeria ( accelerated aging), EpiderModysPlasia verruciformis. There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time. Stefan molyneux " universally preferable behavior: a rational proof of secular ethics.": https://board.freedomainradio.com... http://io9.com... http://bigthink.com... http://www2.lbl.gov... |
c70c50ae-2019-04-18T12:23:05Z-00000-000 | Should we ban or keep recess in schools | Of course you need recess lol. Recess gives children a break from school. Science shows that taking breaks improves brain functionality. It's best not to study/learn for 6 hours straight. That's full on stupid. |
c70c50ae-2019-04-18T12:23:05Z-00001-000 | Should we ban or keep recess in schools | I need help on my debate on my principal |
29c64225-2019-04-18T16:04:29Z-00000-000 | MOST UNIQUE YO MAMA JOKE (one round) | Yo mama is so short that you can see her feet on her drivers license! |
29c64225-2019-04-18T16:04:29Z-00001-000 | MOST UNIQUE YO MAMA JOKE (one round) | voting will be on how how rare is the joke how funny was the joke did you hear the joke before is it better than the opponent Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00000-000 | winter or summer | they have the machines at sportplexes/ centers. Some people would not want to get into skiing for the fear of hurting themselves. This provides a safe environment for a person to see if they actually want to do it before investing in passes and equipment. also in the summer you can take trips to places that would probably be harder in the winter on account of having lug your things with you everywheres |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00001-000 | winter or summer | The machines are less expensive then the real thing? Where did you find that information? Besides wouldn't you rather do the real thing? |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00002-000 | winter or summer | Yes but in the summer the sports are all pretty much at no cost (providing you live near or on a lake) Also there are virtual machines that give you the same experience as skiing at a lower cost plus you snug and warm. And you can still treat yourself to a hot chocolate afterwards |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00003-000 | winter or summer | Don't forget the winter sports though. Skiing, snowboarding, hockey and skating can all only be done in winter. You don't even have to give up summer sports. You can do all of them indoors. |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00004-000 | winter or summer | I have to find a mutual agreement with the exact opposite point. But in winter there is a constant threat of hypothermia. Yes you can get sunburns in the summer but there is always a treatment and you can wear sunscreen. Also in the summer you van jump in the pool or get a natural golden tan. Where in the winter it takes time and energy to produce body heat for yourself. Plus getting a fire started in rigid temperatures is just to much work! |
87db2dcd-2019-04-18T17:03:33Z-00005-000 | winter or summer | I'm arguing for winter. I'll start with temperature. Winter is cold summer is hot. Exact opposites. Winter is better however. You can wear layers to warm up and you can buy hamdwarmers. However in summer no matter what you wear it is still unbearabally hot. |
d27fe383-2019-04-18T17:14:39Z-00003-000 | God's existence is highly unlikely | IntroductionIn 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for the discovery a decade earlier (1999) that our universe has a positive cosmological constant.In 2003, it has been proven by Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin (foremost authorities in modern cosmology) that any universe that has a positive cosmological constant has a fixed space-time boundary and therefore has a temporal beginning. If the same universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse consequentially also has a temporal beginning.A temporal beginning implies a cause, and this debate therefore is not about whether the universe has a cause but rather, what is the nature of that cause? Scientific Criteria of Proof To prove that God exists, I need to show that the cause of the universe exhibited consciousness and it is that consciousness that willed the existence of the universe. It may not necessarily possess all traits that are part of the baggage of religion but to meet the criteria of evidence, I must be consistently scientific and there is nothing scientific about many religious claims.The existence of God is not a claim unique to Religion. It is shared by many cultures and is manifested in Philosophy even when divorced from Religion.If God exists, it would have existed at least 14 Billion years ago and therefore pre-date civilization and religion.It is therefore futile to discredit the proof of existence based on the ad-hoc claims of religion.What is most likely true are that many religion and what people claim in their free time is wrong and God has nothing to do with them. So I hope this debate is not about Religion. Definition of God But by being the cause of the universe and with the ability to realize reality, God must be extremely powerful (omnipotent) and as the source of physical and moral laws, it must be omniscient or possess great understanding those laws. If its existence is established, it follows automatically that it established our very existence, our intellect and capacity for free-will and must be worthy of our admiration and worship.Even by allowing the existence of Evil, God remains logically consistent. And consistent with the grant of free will, God has to refrain from interference with our thoughts and actions including the ability to conceive evil and to act upon them. The act of making these choices and the moral growth that comes with it cannot be realized if evildoes not exist.Therefore, it is thru God’s benevolent nature that humanity is free and by allowing evil and suffering, fashioned us to evolve with firm and complete moral ascendancy rather than become blissful puppets with empty souls. If God exists, it realized a reality where its inhabitants were made free but guided towards moral growth. God therefore, is Divine. Consistent with the inflationary nature of the universe, Space-and-time were created during the big-bang by the energy that permeated the quantum vacuum. If God exists, the energy is not separate from God but is its physical manifestation. Therefore, God is time-less and space-less, and due to the thermodynamic nature of energy (cannot be created), God is non-contingent and necessary. The argument that something can “create” God must also show how you can “create” energy and violate its thermodynamic nature, and therefore is invalid. This debate is about existence, not about ad-hoc definitions I have demonstrated in the previous section that God sufficiently satisfies the definition of PRO. So I hope this debate will remain true to the spirit of the motion – proof of the existence of God rather than debate about definitions. Modern atheists are notorious for coming up with their own interpretation for these definitions and debunk God’s existence by showing that God failed to fulfil their interpretation. One notorious example is if God is powerful, it should be able to create a circle which is also a square. It comes with other variants like the powerful sword and impenetrable shield. A circle is a collection of points equidistant to another point and a square is formed using parallel lines. Circles and square are labels to designate different shapes, and by definition, are different. Do you see where this is going? And so please, let’s keep this debate intelligible. Having said that, I accept and let an epic debate battle begin!!! |
d27fe383-2019-04-18T17:14:39Z-00004-000 | God's existence is highly unlikely | Hello, I am a fourteen year old High School student practicing for the Debate team. This debate is on a highly controversial topic discussing the existence of a deity. I thank whoever accepts this debate and wish them good luck! I SUPPORT the topic. Relevant Definitions:1. God: noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.2. Exist: intransitive verb Have objective reality or being.3. Unlikely: adjective Not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable. 4. Evidence: noun The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.5. Logic: noun Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Debate Specifications:This debate is attempting to solidify the probability or improbability of God's existence, contingent on a logical argument advocated by substantial evidence. For that reason, it would be preferable for CON to be an actual believer of a monotheistic religion in order to eliminate the use of semantic ploy and distinguish our arguments with unique perspectives (atheist vs. theist). The Burden of Proof will be on CON, as he is attempting to negate the topic; if the BOP shifts, I will further advocate my argument. |
d27fe383-2019-04-18T17:14:39Z-00000-000 | God's existence is highly unlikely | Ok |
d27fe383-2019-04-18T17:14:39Z-00001-000 | God's existence is highly unlikely | Apologies to JGHOSTBOY but I am conceding defeat (cowardly) for this debate.It is a great debate motion and it is unfortunate I have to ruin this for my opponent and the readers.I recommend he re-start the debate by creating a new thread and hope that someone more worthy of an opponent would accept the challenge!I have recentlu become a father and my wife smacked me in the face for spending too much time debating online and playing online games!!!! |
d27fe383-2019-04-18T17:14:39Z-00002-000 | God's existence is highly unlikely | Argument Exposition: The foundation of my argument coincides with the popular atheist notion that there is no substantial evidence to advocate any characteristics, the existence, or the presence of a God. This contention will be further elucidated by various assessments that both support this case and attack those common to the theist. The Burden of Proof is on all theists to scientifically prove the likelihood of God’s existence using logic and substantial evidence that follow the criteria of scientific theory. For a theory to be considered scientific, it is expected to be: (1) 1. Consistent (internally and externally)2. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)4. Empirically testable and falsifiable5. Based upon controlled, repeated experiments6. Correctable and dynamic (changes are made with new data)7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have done and more)8. Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)Arguments:Religion is man-madeThe Bible, Tanakh, and the Al-Qur’an are all man-made scriptures manifesting artificial qualities and characteristics of a God whose existence is dependent solely on faith. God’s attributes were appointed by men whose perspective was void of scientific knowledge, resulting purely in an unsubstantiated conjecture that was appropriate for the time period. The fact that religion’s foundation is synthetic and scientifically unjustified further protests the validity of God’s existence, and almost guarantees its artifice. Faith was the only method of establishment during this primitive and rudimentary era. However, there is still no objectified explanation for why humans would embrace a concept that has no evidence supporting its validity. In an article he published in the L. A. Times, J. Anderson Thompson, M. D. , suggested:“. . . we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance. ” (2)God is only an object of psychological attachment, a figure of our imagination that provides emotional security in times of need. Both God and religion are consequences of neural psychology and composition; elements of cognitive belief that enable humans to work effectively in small groups and restrain human instinct. Belief in God is a form of mental self-preservation for those who are indoctrinated by a religious childhood or religious influence. God exists only in our minds. God is a psychological mechanism that acts as an object of attachment and psychological self-preservation; it exists only mentally, not physically or metaphysically. Evolution surpasses Intelligent DesignBiological evolution and abiogenesis are two scientifically reinforced theories that respectably predict how life may have begun and how a species develops over time. Intelligent Design, however, is a religious assertion that all life was created by an Intelligent Being, such as God. Not only does this unjustified belief defy methodological naturalism, it fails to follow procedures of scientific discourse. Because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and attempts to relate the origin of life and natural history with scientifically unverified supernatural causes, Intelligent Design can only be considered a pseudoscience, and is not in any way substantial evidence for the existence of God, nor is it a reputable scientific theory. Biological Evolution: The change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. (3)Abiogenesis: A natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds. (4)These two scientific disciplines are the most consistent, effective, and empirically testable theories concerning the origin and development of life, unlike Intelligent Design. Although no theory or belief, despite scientific justification, can be truly disproved, Intelligent Design is the most unlikely of all theories. Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific or logical argument for the existence of God. The Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent God does not exist First and foremost, it is important to address the logical integrity of God’s “omnibenevolence. ” All monotheistic religions credit God with being infinitely good, all-loving, and supreme, yet evil still exists within society. If God is omnibenevolent and omnipresent, evil should not exist whatsoever. Evil is logically incompatible with God’s attributes, thus God cannot be omnibenevolent. However, a theist may argue the following:1. An aspect of morality is observed.2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative.3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God. I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God. Morality is not universal, it is relative to individual perception; thus, God cannot be omnipresent. Addressing God’s “omniscience” with the use of empirical logic suggests:1. God is omniscient.2. God has a free will.3. Entities with free will have non-determinate futures.4. Omniscience entails foreknowledge.5. If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate.6. From 3, 5: Hence, there are no omniscient epistemic agents who have free will.7. Hence, God is not omniscient and/or God does not have free will. An Omniscient God does not exist due to contradictory attributes. The validity of God being “omnipotent” is not as susceptible to scientific scrutiny as it is to a logical paradox. The Omnipotence Paradox states: “If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. ” (5) Thus, an Omnipotent entity cannot exist. An Omnipotent God does not exist because it is paradoxical. Creationism is scientifically unsupportedCreationists have a very opaque and naive understanding of natural selection, contesting that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of God, without strict scrutiny or acknowledgment of modern scientific disciplines and theories. My argument, “Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design,” has already established that natural selection is most likely responsible for the creation of life, but the question regarding the origin of the universe (and Earth as a result of the universe’s existence) is still open for discussion. The most common argument for theism is the “Cosmological Argument,” which states:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Thus, the universe had a cause. Although sequentially these three points may be true, but the certainty of the third point is still debatable. “The Big Bang Theory” is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause. ” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (6). The foundation of this principle states:ΔEΔt ≈ h/2πMeaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang. Creationism fails to recognize modern scientific theory, which ultimately remonstrates any conception of God’s involvement in the creation of the universe. Another inconsistency in this “proof of God” is the committal of logical fallacy, known as “infinite regression. ” If the universe had a first cause, what caused the first cause? Or, if God created everything what created God? If God is of purely metaphysical properties, then quantum fluctuations or any other scientific explanations do not apply to God. God’s existence commits multiple logical fallacies, including infinite regression. |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00004-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | First off I would like to say that I agree with you. I'm a first timer to Debate.org though and am ready for a debate. Your first statement was that you thought labor unions were necessary to any capitolist society. If union membership was not mandatory however it would almost certainly void the power of the labor union. Imagine a strike in which 3/4 of the workers are still working. If as you say labor unions are necessary to any capitolist society, and making them non-mandatory would destroy their power, then you have just destroyed capitolists society by advocating non-mandatory labor unions. |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00005-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | My position is that although labour unions are a necessary part of any capitalist society to function and provide a voice for the workers as well as the buisness class, they should not be able to force membership on people and people should be free to choose whether they believe their workplace really needs a union or not. Because Unions are so often based on seniority, many newcomers are fired easier even though they actually may be more productive and dilligent. Progressive minded governments like Alberta and several US States realize that in order for buisness to properly thrive they must not be held back by overzealous unions, especially if the workers realize that strikes are not viable, for at least in my province, it is extremly hard to get rid of union even if they are unpopular. Because of the freedom of association that both the first Amendment (US) and Charter of Rights n'Freedoms (Canada) no employee who wishes to serve a certain company should be pressed to join an auxilary association such as a labour union. My thesis: In order to preserve freedom, fairness, individualism, and prosperity legislation should be in order to allow each and every worker the right to join or refuse to join a labour union. I look forward to meeting an opponent on this field. :) |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00000-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | I still hold that labor unions are not and were not a NECESSARY part of any capitalist society. I think that they played an important role in our history, but without them I think that as you said, free men would have banded together to strike. A labor union being something that people hold memberships in. In other words something that is still in operation even when a strike is not going on. I don't think that something like that is necessary. |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00001-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | When orginally developed labour unions were made of associations of workers who believed they should all unite together for negotiations with the buisnessmen, lest they be prodded and divided apart. These associations are perfectly good for periods in which there is general disgruntlemnt. They are necessary and more effective than individual people striking though, becuase they provide an orginzation in which to launch demands. People who pay union dues should reap the benefits of strike pay during times of crisis but people who, especially recent immigrints and young workers, often are less picky about their jobs and often unions too aggressive and their demands ridculous. Although strike negiotations would benefit "scabs" as much as it does union workers association to a union should be a free choice. Some would argue this defeats the purpose of a labour union but it actually gets back to the orginal priniciples of the labour union: to gather as free men, and use whatever support they have from the workforce to negitoaite, thus ensuring that workers' wants are balanced with capitalist society. |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00002-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | I would argue that we don't need labor unions. Like you, I think that strikes should allow each individual person to decide for themselves if the strike is worthy. However, if each individual person decides for themselves then it's no longer a labor union it's individual people deciding that they're going to strike. Thank you for the warm welcome. |
30e0272e-2019-04-18T19:58:16Z-00003-000 | Labour Union membership should be mandatory. | In that case welcome Statesman! Yes I do believe labour unions are good things for a country to have, lest the buisness class have free reign to oppress workers without them having any chance to defend themselves. The early anti-union laws were unfair and unjust, and hurt workers. But many modern Western societies have long gotten rid of such madness and replaced it with the inverse: mandator, big, lumbering finacial drains that siphon a company's productivity to the point where it no longer is in the workers best interest. So the question arises, how should labour unions be regulated? The answer in any free society should be simple- let the people who's fate depends on it decide! If 3/4 quarters of the workforce strikes obviously than the other quarter believes that their circumstances are unworthy of a strike (or maybe their just sleazy oppurtunists). The buisness in question should than relaize that 3/4 want demands met, and the strike should end up being 3/4 effective. However if the vast majority of workers are unhappy with their earnings than the company shoudl realize something should be done. If it's a minority, than obviously they are overzealous and have cocerns un met by the majoirty. If not everyone supports a union, than it does not speak for them. Freedom of association should differiate between one's employer and that employer's union. |
ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00000-000 | Is gaming harmful to our minds | Im dissapointed you failed to explain and extend your argument.Please vote for Pro Im the only one to give an argument.Con did not participate in the debate.Please take this in to consderation voters. |
ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00001-000 | Is gaming harmful to our minds | Do you think gaming is harmful to our youth. Well if so your WRONG gaming gives us something to do on free time and I also believe it encourages young people to have new ideas to do more than the impossible it makes them want to create a game there self and to do anything they put to there young mind and to study how to create one there self this is my claim I am i 13 year old and not all gaming IS HARMFUL. |
ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00002-000 | Is gaming harmful to our minds | Im sorry that you forfeited the round. Hopefully you can give a rebuttal next round.Aserstion One-Statistics- Thats alot of kids who play! Anyway to prove my point a majority of teenagers play video games. How can this be harmfull? Well the shooters at Colubine were gamers. There is proof that violent video games can instigate more agression in to people.http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... (Page 4 of 6)Assertion Two-Personal Experience & Tue Storys-On the morning of 1990 April 20th the two shooters of Colubine High School shot to death 12 students, a teacher, and themselves. They were "gamers" Also""A British man who bought one of the first copies of "Grand Theft Auto V"was stabbed, hit with a brick and robbed of the brutally violent new video game on Tuesday, police said."A crime motivated by the game? Was a video game really worth stabing and injuring an innocent man for?http://gadgets.ndtv.com...Is there a bit of a correlation of the storys and statistics? Personally I feel slightly more agrresive after playing vidoe games. Of course I never would kill or hurt someone over a game but others have. Certainly games can be fun but if played to frequently and excesivley then it can be harmful.Assertion Three-Studys-According to Iowa State University aggression can be caused over video games. (See first link) Also the cons seem to outweigh the pros according to this article http://www.raisesmartkid.com...Even the New York Times looked in to this-http://www.nytimes.com...Theory-VideoGames that are violent correlate with agressivness and violence in people. Video games can be harmfull to people and others if played to often. Parents should monitor and control what there kids can play and people shuld see the potentiol harm in some games. |
ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00003-000 | Is gaming harmful to our minds | I accept your challenge to this touchy topic. I will be unbiased and factual as possible.Please note that I myself am a gamer and will provide personal experiences and statistics to prove my point.This is my first debate so I will try my best.I believe that there are cold hard facts. statistics and enough personal experience evidence to prove that video games are harmful in my next post or (Opening Argument) I will provide thaes key elements- Statistics-To show how many kid are affected Personal Experience-As a gamer myself True Storys-Of kids that have been altered because of video games Reseach-Done by scientists Citaion-Where my evidence is from Good Luck! |
ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00004-000 | Is gaming harmful to our minds | Do you think gaming is harmful to our youth. Well if so your WRONG gaming gives us something to do on free time and I also believe it encourages young people to have new ideas to do more than the impossible it makes them want to create a game there self and to do anything they put to there young mind and to study how to create one there self this is my claim I am i 13 year old and not all gaming IS HARMFUL. |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00000-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | Thanks to my opponent for a great debate and excellent arguments. I will keep my rebuttal simple. My opponent has failed to sufficiently affirm the topic, "The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote." Not only does my opponent spend most of his time pointing out flaws in the Electoral College rather that explaining why the President should be elected by popular vote, the case he makes to affirm the topic is filled with errors. My opponent's argument begins by stating that, "Under this system, every four years, every U.S. citizen would vote for who they wanted to be President." While this is not an error is logic, is it na�ve. The 2008 election had the highest voter turnout in years with 131032799 votes cast [1]. But this is still only about 63% of people eligible to vote [2]. What is to suggest that the popular vote system would bring in more voters than the electoral system? My opponent goes on to say that the winner would simply be the one with the most votes, subject to any recounts if the vote is close. But he later states that "If the {2000} election had been decided by the popular vote, the controversy over the hanging chads, et al., wouldn't have mattered one jot." It is true that if that particular election had been under the popular vote system the recounts wouldn't have mattered or even had to have been performed. But again, what is to suggest that the popular vote system is better? My opponent has acknowledged that the popular vote would still be subject to recounts and therefore the same controversy that plagued the 2000 election could plague others. The next point made is that "in the extremely unlikely event of a tie, a run-off election would be held, maybe a week or two later." The only purpose a run-off election would serve, however, is to eliminate third party candidates, which hardly influence the vote anyways. In the 2008 election, third party candidates garnered zero votes in the Electoral College and only 1.42% of the popular vote [3]. Also, a run-off election would be incredibly difficult to prepare for in one to two weeks and highly unproductive to prepare for in advance, not to mention costly. The 2008 presidential election cost $1.6 billon [4], twice as much as the 2004 presidential election. If my opponent is looking for a way to break a tie, the preferential system would be a better option than the popular vote because it would automatically break ties [5]. But this is irrelevant because once again my opponent has failed to prove why the popular vote system is better than the Electoral College. Lastly, my opponent states what would be eliminated through his plan, "No electoral college, no deciding vote in the House of Representatives (like in 1824 [1]) - just one popular vote, which is the ultimate decider." First, "no electoral college" does not prove why the President should be elected by popular vote. Second, my opponent seems to take issue with the deciding vote in the House of Representatives. I will elaborate further on this in the next section on my rebuttal. To summarize, it is clear that I am taking issue with the fact that my opponent has failed to give evidence or even reason as to why, "The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote." If I had to affirm this topic I probably would have included discussions of how the United States is founded on democracy and how democracy includes everyone and maybe why a popular vote is more cost effective. Instead, throughout his case, my opponent just points out flaws in the current system, the Electoral College. My opponent tries to address the issue by discussing why the popular vote is fair, fair being defined as "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice" [6]. But all he does is give examples as to why the Electoral College is unfair. By trying to prove the Electoral College as unfair and expecting it to prove the popular vote system as fair is affirming the consequent, a serious logical error. Just because something is proven to be fair or unfair does not mean proof as to why another item is the opposite. The Electoral College is not the subject of the topic, nor is the topic asking for why it is worse. Because my opponent has simply failed to affirm, I urge a vote of negation. -Sources- [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com... [3] http://www.fec.gov... [4] http://blogs.wsj.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00001-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | I'm separating my rebuttal into three sections which, roughly speaking, correspond to how the arguments appeared in my opponent's case. === THE DEFINITION OF "PRIVATE" === On dictionary. com, my opponent's dictionary reference, there are various different definitions of "private". [1] He chose number 4, "personal and not publicly expressed". I challenge this definition, and instead believe that number 8, namely "not open or accessible to the general public", is a better definition. Why does this matter? It matters because my opponent drew the word "publicly" out of his definition to present a dichotomy between "private" and "publicly expressed". The conclusion drawn from this is that one's right to privacy is breached whenever information is made public. But this surely does not tell the whole story, for there is a difference between "rights" and "duties". A right is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral" [2] A duty is "something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. " [3] The difference is that rights can be voluntarily given away, whereas one has no such choice with a duty - the former is an entitlement which one can reject, whereas the latter is an obligation by which one must stand. And clearly, privacy is a right, not a duty. For example, I can invite whomever I want into my private life - in a relationship or marriage, for instance - and this is clearly not seen as a detriment to me. It is only a detriment if this happens against my will, or without my consent. My opponent cannot successfully, therefore, claim the argument already won in saying that we give personal information to Facebook. He also has to show that this is done without people's consent, which he has not - and which, as the next section of my rebuttal shows, is simply not the case. === PEOPLE CONSENT TO A DEGREE OF INFORMATION-SHARING ON FACEBOOK === Facebook is a social networking site. That is the very point of its existence. Therefore, people are being incredibly naive if they expect absolute privacy on the site. The question must be to what extent they are allowed to control their privacy. There are four pieces of information which always remains public on a user's Facebook account: their name, profile picture, gender and networks joined. Facebook successfully justifies this thus: knowledge about one's name and profile picture are vital for real-life friends to find you on Facebook and differentiate you from other people of the same name; your gender allows Facebook to refer to you correctly ("Write on his wall"); and knowing who is in which network allows people to know who is in a given network before setting their privacy settings to "Friends and Networks Only", which is a good privacy option precisely because people in a network (by virtue of the company or location in question) are more likely to know each other, thus facilitating real-life friends to find each other on Facebook. All of these compulsory public details - which, by the way, could be forged if the user wanted even more privacy - are therefore not detrimental to their right to privacy. [4] Every other detail about oneself can be made totally private. In his listing of privacy options, my opponent missed out the "customisation" where one can make any piece of information available "Only to Me. " [5] In this way, it is very easy for Facebook users to maintain an extremely high level of privacy. Furthermore, when someone starts a Facebook account - and before they put any sensitive information on Facebook - they are prominently informed both of the existence of the privacy policy, and of the initial privacy settings that can be changed by them. This happens when an account is created [6], and when someone first starts on their newly created account [7] [8]. A user of Facebook has therefore directly allowed Facebook to show their shared information in accordance with their own privacy settings. Their right to privacy is therefore upheld. === Alleged violations of privacy === There are three alleged violations given by my opponent. These are: 1. Advertisements My opponent needed to show that these have a detrimental effect. It could conceivably be "alarming how much information Facebook gathers from its user", but it only if they actually used this information in a detrimental fashion. Or, indeed, if Facebook hadn't asked permission before taking this information. There is no evidence that it has been used in such a way, and as shown above, they do get permission by virtue of an account's creation and continued use. 2. Change in privacy policy This is due to Facebook's change in usage. It began as a Harvard-only dorm-to-dorm site, developing into a worldwide social networking website. For the reasons already given, the information made public is not detrimental in any way. My opponent also says: "a name alone carries a lot of weight. A name on a college degree gives a very positive reputation. That same name on a porn website destroys the former reputation. This example, though admittedly somewhat intense, is possible and is a violation of the right to protection against interference with honour and reputation. " Yes, that example is intense. It is also irrelevant to this debate. Facebook is not a porn site. Nor, for that matter, is it a college degree. It is Facebook, a social networking site. What conceivable damage could be done to someone about whom it is known that they frequent Facebook? Assuming we live in a democratic state, or we are using a reliable proxy server, surely none. I fail to see my opponent's point here. 3. On the Facebook Beacon system As my opponent pointed out, this was shut down in 2009 and so not part of Facebook as currently constituted. However, he mentions "like" buttons across the internet, which if clicked result in instant updates on Facebook. Now, I have never seen this continuing feature, and my opponent provided no evidence of it. I can't see how these external websites would end up knowing about a user's Facebook account without the user actively combining the two accounts, or giving explicit consent in some other way. I am thus reluctant to accept my opponent's implication that this information transfer to Facebook is ever done without the user's consent. But even if we assume that it is, I'd point out that everything that is put onto your Facebook profile can be deleted - including former profile pictures, posts (both on your own wall and on other people's walls), and activities as well. Therefore, if you really have messed up by accidentally moving the mouse onto a "like" button and pressing it, and you want to reverse it, you can go to Facebook and do so. Immediately. I don't understand where the alleged violation of privacy is supposed to happen here, especially given my earlier comments about how the website would know about the Facebook account in the first place. In conclusion, as a social networking website, Facebook users expect and want information to be shared. They can decide who accesses this information - from everyone to no-one - and none of my opponent's allegations of privacy violations hold up. For this reason, his motion should be negated. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://www.facebook.com... [5] . http://img42.imageshack.us... [6] . http://img62.imageshack.us... after the "Sign Up" button. [7] . http://img9.imageshack.us... in the top-right, when someone moves over the Account button - as would be expected of someone exploring Facebook. [8] . http://img9.imageshack.us... - Number 6. |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00002-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | As stated before, I will be debating pro on the topic, "Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy." Before this issue can be debated we must define privacy. Privacy is defined as, "the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs," [1] with private best being defined as, "personal and not publicly expressed" [2]. The point at which Facebook becomes detrimental to an individual's right to privacy is in the three words, "not publicly expressed." Facebook and its employees do not seem to know the meaning of these words because they continuously run into trouble over disseminating private information. In my case I will first establish an individual's right to privacy and then present cases in which Facebook has violated that right. -The Right to Privacy- Perhaps the most significant affirmation of human rights is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While not binding for any country, it has set the standard for human rights across the world. Because it is charted by such a powerful organization (a statement my opponent can be sure to agree with, as established by his profile [3]) any serious violations of the Declaration can expect to draw attention, as has the issue before us now. The article of the Declaration that most concerns this issue is Article 12, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks" [4]. Facebook has absolutely interfered with privacy and potentially interfered with correspondence, honour and reputation, as will be established later. Some may argue that because a person has put certain information on the internet, or more specifically, a Facebook profile, that information is no longer private and that person has given up their right to privacy. When this becomes true depends on when a person has not "publicly expressed" information. To know when a person has publically expressed information, we must define public. Public is best defined for this issue as, "open to all persons" [5]. Therefore, a person has given up their right to privacy when they have made information known to all persons. In the case of Facebook, a person can make their information known to all persons by selecting "everyone" in his or her security options. The options available are (in order from most private to least) are: "customize", "friends only", "friends of friends", "friends and networks" and "everyone". By selecting "everyone" a person consciously gives up their right to privacy. But every other option is somewhat selective, making the information open to some persons as opposed to all. In these cases, a person has not given up their right to privacy. Therefore, when information is given to unauthorized persons, Facebook is not only violating the right to privacy of the owner of the information but the privilege of those selected to see that information. Sadly, Facebook has violated people's right to privacy by publically expressing information and it has made this violation more than once. When the world shouts, "rights!" Facebook goes left. -Violating the Right to Privacy- How does Facebook love thee? Let me count the ways. There are 400 million active users on Facebook. 50% log onto Facebook on any given day. The average Facebook user has 130 friends and creates 70 pieces of content each month. More than 100 million Facebook users engage with Facebook on external websites every month [6]. So what does this mean for Facebook? Lots of information on you which equals lots of money for them. Facebook makes money through the advertisements seen on the side of every Facebook page. And though the advertisements are small, they reel in big bucks; Facebook made $500 million last year, with about 3/4 of the revenue coming from ads alone [7]. The ads are targeted towards users; when a person puts information on his or her profile, that information is used to display ads that may appeal to the user. Although this practice seems harmless, it's alarming how much information Facebook gathers from its users. First, look at Facebook's privacy policy from 2005. "No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings." Now, look at Facebook's privacy policy today. "When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends' names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to "everyone."... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection" [8]. Obviously, Facebook has changed its definition for what is "private." Look at the first line from the privacy policy now. Facebook admits that it gives information to applications and websites. Although the information may be as simple as a name, a name alone carries a lot of weight. A name on a college degree gives a very positive reputation. That same name on a porn website destroys the former reputation. This example, though admittedly somewhat intense, is possible and is a violation of the right to protection against interference with honour and reputation. This communication of information can also go the other way, from websites to Facebook. Facebook's Beacon system sent information from particular partner websites to Facebook users' News Feeds. For example, if a person were to make a bid on eBay, that person's friends might see that information. The service was default, creating many concerns that information a user might not want to be seen (such as the captain of the football team renting Sex and the City: The Movie for the fifth time) would now be seen by all. The system was shut down in September of 2009 following a lawsuit [9]. But the communication continues today, with "like" buttons seen throughout websites across the internet. While not as illicit as the Beacon system, it only takes one false click to let everyone see what you've been doing on the internet in your free time. This unauthorized communication between websites and Facebook also violates the protection to interference with correspondence. -Conclusion- It should come as no surprise Facebook is the second most used website in the world [10]. Millions of people connect everyday, both old and new users. And although Facebook has many benefits, it has huge vice: disrespect for privacy. Any supporter of human rights would agree that privacy is a fundamental right. The United Nations is one of these supporters. But Facebook continues to violate this right to privacy by collecting and distributing information without the permission of said information's owners. Facebook's advertisement system and website interactions collect and distribute unauthorized information which is why Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.facebook.com... [7] http://www.businessinsider.com... [8] http://www.eff.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Face |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00003-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | These are certainly three very interesting topics, and though I'm very tempted by the second one, I'll go PRO on the motion that: The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote. Under this system, every four years, every U.S. citizen would vote for who they wanted to be President. All of the votes would be added, and the person with the most number of votes wins, subject to any recounts if the vote is close. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie, a run-off election would be held, maybe a week or two later. No electoral college, no deciding vote in the House of Representatives (like in 1824 [1]) - just one popular vote, which is the ultimate decider. In presenting my case, I will divide it into two sections: one, on the fairness of the system of election by popular vote; and the other, on the unfairness of the electoral college system. This is despite there being significant cross-over between the two - even so, I have split it up as I have both to make the text easier to read, and also to separate two separate, if interlinked, strands of argumentation. === FAIRNESS OF ELECTION BY POPULAR VOTE === Whichever state the President comes from, he (or, maybe not too far into the future, she) represents the whole of the United States. He/she makes decisions that affects every US citizen, both domestically through federal law and internationally through America's reputation abroad. As such, everyone eligible to vote in the country should have an equal influence in who becomes the President as anyone else. This clearly happens when the popular vote is taken into consideration - take the comparable results of New Mexico and Florida in the 2000 Presidential election as an example. In Florida, there were 537 votes between Bush and Gore [2], with 27 electoral votes going to the winner [3]. In New Mexico, the result was closer, with 366 votes being the difference between Gore and Bush - however, only 5 electoral votes went to the winner in this state. Under the current system of choosing the people who will ultimately elect the President by state electoral votes, therefore, 269 people in Florida (the amount of people who would have needed to switch from Bush to Gore, in order for Gore to win) had a bigger influence on who became the President with their 27 electoral votes than did 184 people in New Mexico (the relevant amount, vice versa, in New Mexico), with their 5 electoral votes. If it had been done by popular vote alone, then this big disparity would clearly not exist - indeed, given that Gore won the popular vote by over half-a-million votes [4], neither state would have had a bigger influence than the other, and Bush would have needed to garner support from more than just several thousand people in a few swing states in order to win. Why is it the case that Floridians are presumed to have a larger stake in the outcome of who becomes President than do New Mexicans? Granted, the number of electoral votes are allocated indirectly according to state size and population, but why does this matter? As mentioned earlier, the President of the U.S. is not any more the President of Florida than he/she is the President of New Mexico. Responsibilities given to the Office of President affects everyone equally - influencing the creation of federal laws (and being able to veto them), appointing judges to the Supreme Court, advancing and forming America's reputation on the world stage, and so on. All of these are things that affect everyone on equal lines, beyond state boundaries. So why is it that the size of the state in which an American lives has an impact on their influence on this election? How can such a system possibly be fair? === UNFAIRNESS OF ELECTION BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE === Two words: Al Gore. Seriously though, in addition to the unfairness already mentioned, unfairness also creeps into Presidential elections every time the electoral college result conflicts with the popular vote. Many times the electoral college and the popular vote give the same result, as for example in 2008 when Barack Obama won both the votes [5] - in these cases, given that there is no difference and the arguments made in the previous section, there's no reason why the popular vote couldn't have been used as the decider. But 4 times in electoral history, there has been a disparity between the two. [6] That may not seem like a lot, but when you consider that the result affects who leads the country for 4 years - and in 2000, gave Bush the incumbency advantage that the Republicans would not otherwise have had that helped him retain power for another 4 years - this disparity becomes all the more pressing and important. Two of the results spring out - firstly, we have the half-a-million votes extra that Gore received, and yet it was a mere 537 extra votes in Florida [2] that famously gave the result to Bush. If the election had been decided by the popular vote, the controversy over the hanging chads, et al., wouldn't have mattered one jot - the Presidency would have gone to Gore by a mile. The second result that springs out in particular is 1824, when John Quincy Adams became President. As it turns out, he won neither the popular vote nor the electoral college vote. It is only because his main opponent, Jackson, didn't have a majority of electoral college votes - even though he was the unequivocal winner of the popular vote - that Adams ended up winning, given that the State delegations in the House of Representatives voted in his favour. [1] Here, the unfairness is different from that seen in 2000 - in that the same person got more popular votes and electoral college votes - but it is still clearly unfair, in that that person did not end up being elected President. The system must surely change. === CONCLUSION === The Office of President of the United States is a federal responsibility, and the holder of that office has control over matters that affects every U.S. citizen equally. A system, therefore, that allocates different states a greater say in accordance to their size is fundamentally unfair and should not be in place. Furthermore, it is easy to see how the electoral college system can skew the result, such that the person who commanded the support a majority of U.S. citizens did not become President. This happened most recently, and famously, in 2000 when Bush Jnr. was elected President despite having half-a-million fewer votes than his nearest rival, Gore. This office is so important, and the holder of the office so powerful, that we cannot allow such an unfair system to continue. In many elections, yes, the two systems under question give the same result. In those instances, if they both give the same result, then there seems to be no reason not to change it. But given the importance of these elections, the unfairness of the electoral college system, and the skewed results that it is liable to give, there are very good reasons why we should change it. The U.S. President must be elected by popular vote, not by the electoral college. Sources: [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://www.fec.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) [for some reason, debate.org doesn't like brackets in URLs - but I'm sure you all know which page I mean anyway :-)] [4] http://www.archives.gov... [5] http://www.archives.gov... [6] http://www.archives.gov... |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00004-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | For my topic of debate I have chosen: 2) Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy. For which I will take the Pro/Affirmative side. Here are my options: 1. The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote. 2. Spelling differences (ex. colour vs. color, theatre vs. theater) should be standardized throughout the English language. 3. Laughter is the best medicine. |
c894524-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00005-000 | Impromptu, with rebuttal | This impromptu round, first developed in this form by Yvette, takes the spontaneous spirit of an impromptu debate and mixes it with rebuttal, a major part of what makes a debate come alive. This is how the three rounds will go: Round 1: Both sides offer their opponent three options for debate, from which that person chooses one and also chooses which side to take on that motion. Round 2: Each side makes their argument. Round 3: Each side rebuts the other person's argument. Simple! The three options I give my opponent are: 1) The U.S. Vice President should be directly elected at the same time as, but separately from, the U.S. President. 2) Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy. 3) Poker should become an Olympic sport at the earliest possible opportunity. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00005-000 | Illegal Immigration | Alright, why not? Sounds fun. I'll await your argument. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00006-000 | Illegal Immigration | This is a debate between illegal immigration. I am against it, my opponent will be for it. Round 1 is just an opener. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00000-000 | Illegal Immigration | Christmas shopping can be such a hassle, especially when it deviates me from debate rounds. I sincerely apologize to my opponent and the judges for my forfeit of a round, and I understand if my opponent takes the conduct vote. However, if I may, I'll still explain to the judges my counters for my opponent's rebuttals and the reasons why they should vote for me as victor in this debate.Rebuttal 1: Compare the amount of revenue that the American economy can receive by having independent, private firms hire them and give wages, priceless resources that illegal immigrants can become once placed into the education system in order to attain educations and become human capital, and the plan suggested that Newt Gingrich has in order to reduce the amount of illegal offenders in the United States, and we can see that not only any amount of money spent through taxes on illegal immigrants will be worthwhile, but in the long run, we can reduce our costs while private firms can increase their revenues and expand in order to benefit commerce. My opponent talks about how Newt Gingrich is not president, but that doesn't detract from the fact that this plan could definately work. In this debate, we are inherently working in a theoretical perspective on the issue of illegal immigration where my opponent and I are contrasting ideals and giving suggestions on how this problem should be resolved. Whether it's Gingrich, Obama, Bachmann, Biden, Palin, or Bieber in the oval office, the simple idea is that this plan that Gingrich offered makes sense economically when implemented. My opponent speaks in no way about how this plan doesn't work, by the way. This rebuttal kind of continues into the next one..Rebuttal 2: I find it laughable that my opponent is actually looking for evidence for this. Being required to provide evidence that industry requires resources in order to function is like being required to provide evidence that 2+2=4. If my opponent REALLY requires evidence for this, it'll be provided at the bottom of this rebuttal. The 9% unemployed is definately a problem that should be resolved, but while it is a problem that should be resolved, it is no excuse to throw away perfectly good resources that American firms could have in order to increase their revenue as well as provide stable jobs for those illegals that not only want to make an American dream crossing the border, but also the ones that have had trouble with the law in the past. Poverty is one of the major causes of criminality in America because people will need to turn toward criminality in order to make livings, and with the provision of more jobs into these regions of the country, criminality can be reduced, thus solving the problem of $1.1 billion in taxpayer dollars (not to mention that my opponent also doesn't answer the question as to how much individual taxes for Americans will go up by. He could've in his last rebuttal, but didn't). Rebuttal 3: For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about federal grants that the government gives out. For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about churches and independent charities that provide scholarships for people that have problems entering into colleges with their payrolls. Even some higher-up people in society with high-paying salaries have to attain grants and scholarships in order to fully pay the price tag that universities come with. Illegals have the opportunities necessary in order to be able to enter into college if they have the drive to enter into college and become dutiful Americans that contribute to the economy. My opponent talks only in a scenario of an economic depression when the economy rises and falls in America. He also doesn't explain in any way about how having more illegals in the country that want to go to school is in any way going to take the opportunities of others away nor why this would matter. Business is business and all people are resources and potential ways for the economy to grow and expand, and when this does happen, illegals can add to the supply of the labor market when demand increases for other jobs that need to be filled. Maybe it will be a citizen that can hold expectations. Maybe it will be an illegal. All of them are resources at the end of the day, and to just kick them out when they can add to the labor market is just wasteful. Firms feel the exact same way after the passages of anti-immigration legislations in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. These policies are kicking out their resources, especially their resources for low-income jobs that even the 9% don't want to fill. Reasons for voting PRO: The reasons for voting PRO are basically that the PRO makes economic sense as far as an economics debate is concerned. Illegals add to the resource market, costs can be reduced with the plan that Newt Gingrich suggested (which my opponent does not directly argue against), and even if costs are high, it will be worthwhile in the long-run and considering my opponent doesn't answer to the question about how much individual tax costs for American citizens will rise, his talk about how it costs Americans $1.1 billion could just be an emotional appeal. Illegals come into the nation for one reason: to make better lives for themselves through the occupation of jobs and being part of a better education system. If they're hungry, why not offer them cake? Why not offer them coffee? Why not offer them the opportunity to be able to make a good living while at the same time substantiating the economy? That's what I'm asking. The CON argument would only be a short-run resolution for a long-term problem. It'll be a good way to reduce costs now, but once firms require labor for low-income jobs and more labor for the more high-income ones when our citizens have occupied them, the CON world won't be able to deal with those problems. If you want solutions NOW that firms will regret in the future, vote CON, but if you want long-term solutions with plans to fix the kinks in the middle that my opponent doesn't respond to, your vote will be for the PRO.References: Edmonson, Brad. "Life without Illegal Immigrants | American Demographics | Find Articles." Find Articles | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. May 1996. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://findarticles.com...;. Hanson, Gordon H. "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration." (2007). Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Apr. 2007. Web. Lynch, David J., and Chris Woodyard. "USATODAY.com - Immigrants Claim Pivotal Role in Economy." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. 11 Apr. 2006. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com...;. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00001-000 | Illegal Immigration | My arguments are extended. I also suggest that I get good conduct on the fact that my opponent has forfeited a round. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00002-000 | Illegal Immigration | Rebuttal 1: "He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country." The point I was making on American prisons has nothing to do with the number of illegals living in the country, it has to due with the fact that are illegals in American prisons that WE the registered citizens of this country are paying for when they should not be here in the first place. That fact that WE pay for them to be in our prisons is bad and that they should be deported. So my opponent's first rebuttal falls right there. Then my opponent turns to Newt Gingrich and his plan to get rid of illegal immigrants living in the country that provide a threat to our nation. Despite his plan, Newt is not the president, Obama is. Rebuttal 2: First off, I would like to say that my opponent has placed no links in the rebuttal he/she made. Thus, there is no evidence for her to backup on that what she is saying is actually true. "This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in,...." I am sure the 9% unemployed really want to work in jobs right now to get money to live. "....acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor." This would take the opportunities citizens in the country who wants to go school and get education. One problem with my opponent's statement is that he/she first states that the illegal immigrants could work for jobs no one wants. I would assume that these are low income jobs. Then my opponent states that illegal immigrants have the opportunity to go to acquire diplomas and so on. So if an illegal immigrant is on a low income job how do they afford college? Not many illegal immigrants have enough money and are educated enough for these jobs, unless they are doing good in the country they live in which makes no sense for them to leave it. From my opponent's argument you can conclude one way that illegals can afford college and that is welfare. As I have already stated before *with evidence* 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant are on the welfare system. Now my opponent has provided no evidence (as I have stated before) so we do not even know the demographics of illegals going to colleges and getting educations that provide them go to into the business, law, and medical sectors. Also, in an economic depression you cut back and can only hire so few and if illegal immigrants are taking job that are needed by actual citizens as well as downsizing wages for those lower class jobs then that means they are not providing a benefit to the nation. My arguments still stand that Americans also lose money for paying a whopping $52 billion on illegals in the education system. Rebuttal 3: While the PATRIOT Act is in place, the lack of a fence on our southern border still allows them to infiltrate the country as well as the cartels. We need to stop them from getting in our country by cutting off this route and making locations where people can cross from border to border if they have the certain things needed to. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00003-000 | Illegal Immigration | Rebuttal 1: I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's statement about crime in the United States as a result of illegal immigration. He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country. According to the recent news, including this article http://www.breitbart.com... among others show that an estimated amount of 12 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States. Compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants in prisons and you will realize that it is a drop in the bucket. As for the average of seven arrests statistic, I was looking through the source that my opponent has posted and nowhere does it show the methodology of gathering the statistic nor the actual data used in order to come to this conclusion. It only reported the average, as far as I know. We won't know for sure, then, if it was an outlier because averages are not resistant to changes in data. I believe that it was Newt Gingrich, the current frontrunner of the GOP candidacy for 2012, that made a plan where illegal immigrants can go through a screening process in order to take out the illegal immigrants that have been considered to be threats to the security of the nation and place them into the deportation process. The actual condition of having illegal immigrants, according to the PRO, isn't inherently bad if it can be done correctly, and in the long run, it can be beneficial for the country. This will come in the economics question, which I will address later. Rebuttal 2: Firms in the country require resources in order to be functional, and this includes the input by human capital. This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in, but it can also come in the form of intellectual capital if more illegal immigrants can enter into the American education system, acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor. What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that economics is a careful game, and if played correctly, everyone in the American citizenry can be able to prosper, illegal or otherwise. With an expansion in the amount of human capital, coupled along possibly with a reduction of regulation on businesses in order to reduce the amount of costs that firms have, not only will illegal immigrants be able to occupy jobs, but it will leave space for more labor to be able to enter into the private sector. Firms have more labor in the end, the people have more jobs, and the economy will be able to expand. The question is by what margin individual taxes for an American will go up in the end, and regardless the answer, illegal immigrants can be benificial for the economy in the long run because they provide resources that firms are able to use, especially if more of them enter into the education system and become our country's next doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Rebuttal 3: As for the Al Queada suspicision, we already have regulations in place, including the PATRIOT Act in order to deal with terrorist activity as well as more regulations in order to keep terrorism at bay in the country. Even if this activity occurs, the United States has been more prepared for such attacks after 9/11. |
cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00004-000 | Illegal Immigration | OK to open this debate, I would like to start with a quote: "We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just - it's been outrageous." - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer The said let's start with illegal immigration and criminal activity. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2011 report, American prisons hold 351,000 illegal immigrants because of crimes that have occurred and criminal aliens actually have an average of seven arrests. This costs the US taxpayers $1.1 billion (http://www.gao.gov...). The United States of America should not take lawbreakers in as citizens and that is exactly what they are doing by being illegal immigrants. Currently, an average of three border patrol guards are attacked everyday along America's southern border with Mexico. The Justice Department has reported that assaults on US border patrol guards has increased 46% (http://cnsnews.com...). Not to mention that Al Qaeda has maybe infiltrating our southern borders already (http://www.washingtontimes.com...). Now not all immigrants are criminals, still we must enforce our laws. We cannot hold all the immigrants of the world. One immigrant, Carlos Montano, an illegal immigrant, was driving drunk in Virginia and killed a 66-year-old nun, Sister Denise Moiser, and wounded two others (http://www.cbsnews.com...). Now let's turn to illegal immigrants in school. First off, illegal immigrant obviously take up space in school for students who should really be there and thus make classrooms bigger. Also, US taxpayers pay $52 billion annually to educate illegals and that was reported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (http://www.fairus.org...). Illegal immigrants cause huge financial strains on the government. 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant families are on welfare? That is already to high compared to the too high 39% of native-born American who receive welfare (http://blog.chron.com...). The total cost of for Los Angeles to handle illegal immigrants is $1.6 billion which is not including the $600 million they pay for illegals' education (http://www.foxnews.com...). Also, due to illegal immigration, the nation's average wages have lowered 7.4% for America's 10 million native-born people who do not have a high school diploma (http://www.fairus.org...). So my opponent, if he/she pays taxes as well as the people will be voting should remember that they pay some of that $5.2 billion in education + $1.1 billion crime + the taxes you pay for 70% of illegal immigrants on welfare if you live in Texas + 1.6 billion it pays to handle illegal immigrants if you live in LA County if you live there. |
c8059f7a-2019-04-18T15:43:44Z-00000-000 | God's Signature of GOD=7_4 in Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 | extend. |
c8059f7a-2019-04-18T15:43:44Z-00001-000 | God's Signature of GOD=7_4 in Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 | My opponent has once more not proves God. His entire analysis stems from English being a sacred language where coding could occur. I still await an argument for God's existence. I also feel that it is necessary to inform all that he spelt Genesis incorrectly. His entire round makes no sense, and as I said there is no evidence to believe God even exists. |
c8059f7a-2019-04-18T15:43:44Z-00002-000 | God's Signature of GOD=7_4 in Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 | GOD=7_4 (G is the 7th letter, a circle O is either 15 or zero, D=4) Genasis=74=G7+E5+N14+A1+S19+I9+S19 My opponent is an atheist that refuses to recognize all the many proofs of GOD, design, and non-randomness in this Universe. Before I show a proof of the GOD-Creator of Earth, I'll show a proof of the FOD-Creator of the Planet Nestor... Nestor is the nearest 'true Earth-like plan-it' - our next-door neighbors - where humanoids have a nest or colony. Nestor was built(64=B2+U21+I9+L12+T20) with the FOD=6_4 algorithm: the exoplanet has 6 continents & 4 seasons, ('6 Seas') & 4 oceans, 64% of the plan-it's surface is water. With the naked eye, the Nestlings see 6 moving objects in their heavens - their '6 Classical Planets'/"6 Heavens" - and 4 don't cast shadows on Nestor/4 can't be easily seen during the daytime. Their two inner planets orbit(64=O15+R18+B2+I9+T20) at .6 AU & .4 AU, etc. See my tweaked NASA conference presentation of 9/21/09 "Identifying 'True Earth-like Planets - All New Worlds Are Built On 7_4 (like Earth) Or 6_4" at http://PlanetNestor.blogspot.com... . Nestlings' calendar is 6 twenty-seven day months + 4 twenty-six day months + 2 twenty-five day days = 316 days solar year. Every 4th year, one of the twenty-day months has an additional day. Nestlings' brain, heart, muscle, and newborns are 64% water. The recognize FOD(6_4) as The Creator - IN FOD WE TRUST - they love to play checkers and chess (64-square board), and their favorite beer is Miller 64. |
c8059f7a-2019-04-18T15:43:44Z-00003-000 | God's Signature of GOD=7_4 in Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 | I remind my opponent that s/he has the burden of proof, and that s/he first needs to prove that God exists, and only after that s/he can argue what God's signature is. So first please prove a God. Also I remind the voters that the Bible here is being taken as a historical doctrine, and any judgement should be an existential judgement base on science and logic. I see none of that hither. Also Genesis is spelled wrong. |
c8059f7a-2019-04-18T15:43:44Z-00004-000 | God's Signature of GOD=7_4 in Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 | Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis 1:1 בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ This is the original Hebrew of the first verse of the Torah/Bible. It's 7 words and 28 letters (28=7x4) and it's 'God's signature' of GOD=7_4. Of course, it translates to "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth." "As above, so below." - ancient precept of 'sacred geometry' Did the author of Genasis 1:1 consciously encode the first verse of Holy Scripture? Possibly. If not consciously, then GOD was acting in his subconscious. The ancients - Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Hebrews and others - observed the sacred combination of 7 & 4 in the heavens. There were/are 7 moving objects in the heavens that can be seen with the naked eye. These are known as the '7 Classical Planets': Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. 4 of these don't cast shadows on Earth/4 can't be easily seen during the day. There are 4 lunar phases of a little over 7 days (~7.4 days) each. The lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. The Big Dipper is 7 stars with 4 in its quadrilateral ladle. Its 4th star in its middle is the brightest. The Big Dipper points to Polaris which is at the end of the handle of the Little Dipper, again 7 stars with 4 in its quadrilateral ladle. Polaris has been the North Star since around the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Mars returns to the same point against the background of stars and in relationship to the Sun and Earth every 47 years. "On Earth as it is in the heavens." The Mesopotamians - Sumerians - were the first to keep astronomical/astrological records. They built their observatories/ temples - ziggurats ("Tower of Babel") - to be 7 levels high and first tracked the 4 seasons. The first Egyptian Step-Pyramid of Pharaoh Djoser was/is 7 levels. The Egyptians took the standard cubits of 6 palms x 4 fingers = 24 digits and added a palm to create the royal cubits of 7 palms x 4 fingers = 28 digits. The Hebrews mystically encoded the 7 Classical Planets through the 7 lamps of the menorah held by 4 branches. "Anytime an idea is connected to nature, it's not only logical - it was inevitable." Note the following examples of 'Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)'... GOD=7_4 (O is either 15 or zero) Genasis=74=G7+E5+N14+A1+S19+I9+S19 heavens=74=H8+E5+A1+V22+E5+N14+S19 objects=74=O15+B2+J10+E5+C3+T20+S19 shadows=74=S19+H8+A1+D4+O15+W23+S19 cubits=74=C3+U21+B2+I9+T20+S19 menorah=74=M13+E5+N14+O15+R18+A1+H8 connect=74=C3+O15+N14+N14+E5+C3+T20 . Synchronism: 9/27/14 07:15 Volcano eruption in Japan harmed 11 with 4 being unconscious. 07:50 "It's his signature move." - Ryder Cup Golf on NBC |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00000-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | GG |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00001-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | Extend? |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00002-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | oh, thats a shame... I really thought that you would have a interesting argument.Well ok. |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00003-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | You have won this debate. My debate was incorrect. What I meant was that not all Jews are Israelis. Once again, you have won the debate. |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00004-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | Extend... |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00005-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | So, the resolution is: " All Jews are not Israelis"This is will be my only argument for this round. ..1. Some Jews are IsraeliYou realise that all I have to do to successfully negate the resolution is to show that some, a good percentage of jews are Israeli. Obviously, I concede to the point that some jews are not israeli but you have the impossible task of showing that there are no israeli born Jews in order to fulfill the BoP which you have. Many sources state that Israel is the the country with the second largest jewish population; America being the largest. Lets hope that you know where to locate Israel. .. The rate of jewish- births per million every yearConclusion:I have shown that that some Jews are Israelis which means that the resolution is impossible to defend. Vote COn! This guy laughs at the resolution. http://www.simpletoremember.com...http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...https://sites.google.com...https://sites.google.com...http://www.myjewishlearning.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.google.co.uk... |
8cb12235-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00006-000 | All Jews are not Israelis | Some people believe that all Jews are Israelis. I may not be a Jew nor an Israeli, but I do believe the terms are different. If you call yourself a Muslim, does that mean you are an Arabian? No, it means that you believe in Islam. If you call yourself a Hindu, does that mean you are Indian? No, it means that you believe in Hinduism. If you call yourself Christian, does that mean you are a Greek (as Greece has the highest percentage of the population which is Christian)? No, it means that you believe in Christianity. So why must people say that if you believe in Judaism, you must be an Israeli? |
d4ceb163-2019-04-18T19:46:19Z-00000-000 | THE NUMBER 10 IS EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER 5 | After your third revision, I got of seeing this change and change while you simply attack me for pointing out that you've posted a topic that's impossible to debate. I will offer a mathematical proof for why 5 = 10. ******************************* Let t = a + b and a = 5 and b = 10 1. a + b = t 2. (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) 3. a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb 4. a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb 5. a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4 6. (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 7. a - t/2 = b - t/2 8. a = b ******************************** Fairly simple to follow with a rudimentary understanding of algebra. |
d4ceb163-2019-04-18T19:46:19Z-00001-000 | THE NUMBER 10 IS EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER 5 | FIVE DOESN'T EQUAL 10. 5 = 5 10 = 10 There's new FREAKIN WAY I CAN LOSE THIS DEBATE. AND PAY NO REGARD TO THE FIRST COMMENTER BELOW. HE IS ACTUALLY JEALOUS OF MY SUPERIOR MATH SKILLS. |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00004-000 | High school varsity restrictions | Varsity teams are those that represent the school, college or university against others[1]. They are not necessarily the most skilled players of their school, much like the footballers of a country leaving unknown to us the most incredible talented footballers of all time who simply weren't lucky enough to make it.The argument I have rests on two philosophies.Firstly, if you offered Lionel Messi $20,000,000 to play against Barcelona for a match do you know what he'd do? Spit on your money and tell you to F*** off.[3] He is purely loyal to this club for the bonds he has formed and what they've done for him, it's because he had to work year on year to get to play for them, that he had to work so hard to inspire them to hire him (and in his case give him expensive growth hormone to be decent sized[4]). To force you to play with the same team for a year to finally get the 'privilege' of playing for them makes you desperate to prove yourself to them and then stay loyal for all you have gone through with them and for them (and they for letting you finally be on the team). The truth is, if you make a man or woman desperate for an extended period of time for something, and never give it to them until that time, it forces them to push boundaries they wouldn't if they knew they could get in straight on talent alone. The fact that they have to prove themselves to you under a severely harsh regime provides the urge to help. After all how to armies work? You think you just send a man who can shoot amazingly well and fight like a boss out there? No you must force him to wait patiently until he can prove himself to be worthy to fight for your country, then you have not only a skilled soldier but also a loyal soldier. This is a key reason to have such a policy. After all, who would give up what they worked their butt off an entire year off?Secondly, it teaches the student patience and blind work for later reward. This sort of training is similar to the philosophy of martial arts where, even if you are amazing you must work hard[5] to be able to carry it out as muscle memory. This is vital to team success. You must make them willing to sit out a whole game if need be and yet play madly well and enthusiastically in the next match. You must teach the student to work for the sake of working and train simply to be amazing, if you force them to work so hard without recognition for a year imagine how obedient they'd be the next year?The truth is you want a loyal obedient member of a team as the coach, you don't want an amazing player who later betrays you and leaves because you let them join without proving themselves for a long time beforehand. So from the point of view of the school and coach, This policy on varsity is beneficial. The only opposition could come from an impatient student with an inflated ego. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.soccernews.com... [4] http://soccernet.espn.go.com...# [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00005-000 | High school varsity restrictions | Is it fair for schools to tell new students that they cannot be on varsity until they've been on the team for a year? Shouldn't it be based on the performance of the athlete? I think it should. That's what varsity is. If you are good, you deserve to be on the varsity team. Period. End of story. |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00000-000 | High school varsity restrictions | "The Varsity title simply categorizes and separates the best players from the poor ones." It also separates those loyal to the school to those who simply use the school to play the sport."If the new student maintains their GPA, passes drug tests, and maintains good behavior in and out of school, there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be placed on the Varsity team from the beginning or within the season of their first year" What if they get on with no-one in the team, are particularly aggressive and foul a lot on the pitch or simply are very lazy and rely purely on natural talent and don't do as told in training sessions."It IS fair." You never justified this. Nothing in life is truly fair."The other team members who have been paying for years and are still on Junior Varsity or get bumped down just because there is a better new member can just suck it up." The fact that they can suck it up doesn't justify it occurring. This was irrelevant to the debate."It's about how well you play in order to win." It's also about how willing you are to be the substitute on the bench the entire match and not complain about it as well as how good a team player you are and how humble an individual you are in taking criticism and improving."if the new incoming student meets all requirements, they should be able to play for the Varsity team if they are good enough to be on it." Ironically, if one of the requirements is to have trained with the team for a year, then that requirement must be met. So yes, you are correct but this doesn't support your side of the debate. |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00001-000 | High school varsity restrictions | I completely disagree. If there IS any sign of misbehavior from that student, then a consequence should be imposed. That's why there are credentials for all team players. They must maintain a certain GPA and maintain behavior to a certain degree. This applies to all players, so this is completely irrelevant to their Varsity or non-Varsity status. The Varsity title simply categorizes and separates the best players from the poor ones. If the new student maintains their GPA, passes drug tests, and maintains good behavior in and out of school, there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be placed on the Varsity team from the beginning or within the season of their first year. It IS fair. The other team members who have been paying for years and are still on Junior Varsity or get bumped down just because there is a better new member can just suck it up. It's about how well you play in order to win. So in summary, if the new incoming student meets all requirements, they should be able to play fr the Varsity team if they are good enough to be on it. |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00002-000 | High school varsity restrictions | It is indeed extremely unfair to the player and from the player's point of view is a total outrage of justice. However, it is only unfair to the player, to everyone else involved in the allowing or disallowing of a varsity team member this system is beneficial.From the coach's perspective, forcing a player to train with the team for a year before being allowed to play for them enables them to truly crave playing for the team and hence you have a severely loyal player who will release all the anger and frustration of how hard it was to get on the team every match (probably fighting harder than students who were always at the school because they really want to become captain and get revenge by making the team train and work to THEIR orders).From the headmaster's perspective, you know that the student could potentially be very rowdy and, since they are new to the area, are yet to develop a bad reputation outside of school (hence all other school's will say how did that jerk, or cow, get to play involving huge jeering and reduction of team morale for that very rowdy character being on it). Additionally, the student could be very bad behaved at school but amazingly good at a sport which would lead to you, yourself, having to expel the team captain of the sports team, or even a very good player. to do this would make all sports teachers despise you and several students begin to lose respect for you. Thus, by having a strict non-negotiable policy which enables you to truly analyse a student's character and behaviour before allowing them to play on your school team, you avoid such hassle and essentially maintain your own reputation if it comes to expelling them.From a psychologist's perspective, making people work severely hard and long to earn a reward leads to them perfecting what they do so much more since they have to prove themselves for an extremely long time. Why do you think we have school reports, mock exams and behaviour records as opposed to just an exam? So that a university can observe a students entire profile, not just their ability at a subject. You could be getting 100% every exam and be denied from Harvard, Yale or Oxbridge if all your teacher's and work experience (apprenticeship) employers give you a bad an inconsistent reputation. This is the same theory applied to the varsity policy. You need to know the player is going to play their hardest for our team, not just rely on natural talent and merely get on the team and then be snobbish or arrogant to team members. There is so much more to a person than natural talent. Natural talent is minimum requirement.In summary, only from the student's perspective is it unfair. It is a beneficial and justified system by all other parties that would be involved in analysing the situation. |
bb228fe-2019-04-18T18:03:16Z-00003-000 | High school varsity restrictions | Okay, but what about if a student transfers to a different high school for their senior year after previously playing on a varsity team at their old school for years? The student only had to move because of a parents' job or hurricane destruction. You, the coach, are not going to let the student play on varsity just because they haven't been there for years? It's not his/her fault! They were GORCED to transfer schools. Typically high school students don't just go to certain schools for the sport. Typically, it is the parent of the student who chooses to send the child to a certain school. It's unfair to the player. Loyalty isn't what it's about. If the student proves they are a good enough player during tryouts or practices, they deserve to play or move up to the varsity team. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00009-000 | Pun War | I would first like to hope it is a clean, and fair battle. The Pun war will proceed as follows: My opponent will begin with 3 puns, than I will respond with 3 puns, and so on and so forth. Good Luck, and I will let my opponent begin. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00000-000 | Pun War | 1. When the electricity went off during a storm at a school the students were de-lighted. 2. A bank manager without anyone around may find themself a-loan. 3. I really do have a photographic memory -- I just haven't developed it yet. I'd like to thank my opponent for offering up a great and amusing debate! Good luck with voting! -ghostwiter |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00001-000 | Pun War | I'd Like to apologzie for my error, and I will appropriatley offer an alternative pun for my number 3 round 4 post. I would ask all voters to replace pun 3 round 4 with this pun that I will supply: Round 4: Pun 3: The Roundest Knight at King Arthur's table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his name from eating too much pi. Again I sincerely apologize for this mistake, it was unintentional, I just caught it right after submitting my argument for round 4. I feel it necessary to vote in negation in regards to conduct, seeing as I have made multiple errors throughout this pun war. I thank you again for your cooperation. On to the final round, this has been a very enjoyable war and I thank my opponent for their participation/understanding throughout this debate, my opponent has presented rather clever and humorous puns, several in which I had never heard. Thank you. Final Round (5) Puns: 1. I decided becoming a vegetarian was a missed steak. 2.The mime wanted to say something, but he wasn't aloud. 3. It was an emotional wedding. Even the cake was in tiers. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00002-000 | Pun War | Your number #3 was the same as my #3 from round 2. Thus it was already used, and shouldn't be counted. 1. No one ever wants to babysit the naughty atom, they always have to keep an ion it 2. John Hancock didn't retire, he just resigned. 3. If you step onto a plane and recognize a friend of yours named Jack don't yell out "Hi Jack!" |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00003-000 | Pun War | 1. Some people's noses and feet are built backwards: Their feet smell and their noses run. 2. He drove his expensive car into a tree and found out how the Mercedes bends. 3. Atheism is a non - phrophet organization **I would like to bring your attention to my 2nd pun in round 3. A correction to that pun will be as follows: Best Buy is giving out DEAD batteries free of charge. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00004-000 | Pun War | 1. When William joined the army he disliked the phrase 'fire at will'. 2. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie. 3. The magician got so mad he pulled his hare out. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00005-000 | Pun War | 1. A prisoners favorite punctuation mark is a period. It marks the end of their sentence. 2. Best Buy is giving out batteries free of charge. 3. A bicycle can't stand on its own because its two - tired. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00006-000 | Pun War | 1. There was a sign on the lawn at a drug re-hab center that said 'Keep off the Grass'. 2. Police were called to a daycare where a three-year-old was resisting a rest. 3. Atheism is a non-prophet organization |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00007-000 | Pun War | 1. After working for 24 hours straight the worker decided to call it a day. 2. When a clock gets hungry it goes back four seconds. 3. The cross eyed teacher can't control her pupils. |
65e17858-2019-04-18T19:10:08Z-00008-000 | Pun War | Thankyou for offering up a fun and enjoyable debate! 1. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me. 2. Did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's all right now. 3. I couldn't quite remember how to throw a boomerang, but eventually it came back to me. |
641b083d-2019-04-18T15:21:57Z-00000-000 | Animal rights | I see you have the ability to quote texts on sociology and philosophy but you do not seem to have ever studied them. These are theories that have been put forth over the decades and centuries and anyone can have a theory. The problem with this is that many ideas are idiotic and contrary to what most people with a sense of moral responsibility and justice would consider ethical. Humans do not only have a social obligation to all humans, they have an obligation to every living thing on this planet. Every animal has a right to be here. If they did not, they would never have been here in the first place. Social contracts include responsibility to the earth itself and every living thing on this planet. No, I did not look up that theory, it is one that any humane, intelligent person would accept. If you had ever studied ethics you would understand that there are universal ethics. These are ideas that almost everyone on the planet would accept as being right. I am not a religious person so I am not basing my views on any religion. But, lets face it, if I went on youTube and proclaimed my parrot as the next savior because he talks at least 5 million people would convert to Parroticism. Animals have rights because they are living things. They feel love, they feel pain, they feel happiness, and depression. We have counted on animals for our very existence for centuries. Where would George Washington and the first U.S. Army have been without horses, let alone farmers, mail carriers, merchants, etc? I also have to point out that imperative research has been done using animals. I am a scientist, I don't participate in it but it has contributed to the health and welfare of mankind. You have no right to determine what species should have rights or not. You have borrowed your theories from people that have no other qualifications than that they once lived and someone put their ideas in a textbook or on the internet. One more thing to point out, serial killers usually agree with your ideas. In most cases the abuse of animals has been noted in the early life of a serial killer. |
641b083d-2019-04-18T15:21:57Z-00001-000 | Animal rights | Animals are a source of joy and are an integral part of the environment. They live here on earth with us and have as much right to be here as we do. Nobody has the right to hurt them for no reason. I have had dogs all of my life and they have a right to be fed, receive medical care, and be provided a good home. I also had a parrot for years and he was a great source of joy to me. He certainly had the right to be happy and be cared for. All animals should be free from suffering and we need to respect them. |
641b083d-2019-04-18T15:21:57Z-00002-000 | Animal rights | Thanks to pro for accepting. I'll start with my case then move to responding to his last round. == Case == Justice is a system by which people determine their obligations to each other; therefore it is not a natural entity, but a social construct.If justice is based in natural facts, then we have no reason for thinking that any normative statements are true. Mackie:[1] “The argument from relativity has as its premise the … variation in moral codes from one society to another … and … the differences in moral beliefs between … groups … within a complex community. … radical differences between … moral judgments make it difficult to treat … [them] as apprehensions of objective truths. … Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people's … participation in different ways of life. … moral heretics and … reformers, … have turned against the established rules … of their own communities for moral reasons, and often for moral reasons that we would endorse. But this can … be understood as the extension, … of rules to which they already adhered as arising out of an existing way of life. …” In order to avoid such relativism, justice is premised on contractual obligations that actors have to each other, because allocations of due are communal matters. Gauthier 1[2]: “Moral principles are introduced as the objects of … agreement among … persons. Such agreement is hypothetical, in supposing a pre-moral context for the adoption of moral rules … But the parties to agreement are real, determinate individuals, distinguished by their … situations, and concerns. … [Since] they … agree to constrain … their choices, … they acknowledge a distinction between what they may and may not do. As rational persons …, they recognize a place for mutual constraint, and so for a moral dimension in their affairs.” If morality doesn’t actually obligate us, then we have no reason to accept its principles and skepticism follows since individuals would reject other theories. Instead, we formulate what we are due from contracts with others. Also prefer contractarianism since it is based on consent—implicit in acceptance of a contract—which ultimately determines what qualifies as a net good or harm, i.e. whether intercourse is rape or if euthanasia is murder. I contend that humans have no contractual obligations to animals. First, animals have no language to formulate contracts within their own communities, let alone ours. Animals have repeatedly been proven to be incapable of symbolic communication, which is necessary to convey the importance of a given contract and willingly accept it. Even apes who are apparently able to use sign language only do so as a form of repetition, acting instinctively to do what will best achieve immediate reward, which is insufficient to formulate contracts. Second, contracts must be based on mutual benefit. Gauthier 2: “a contractarian … assume[s] … a concern derivative from the benefits of agreement, and those benefits are determined by the effect that each person can have on the interests of her fellows. Only beings whose …capacities are … roughly equal …can expect to find cooperation beneficial …Among unequals, one party may benefit most by coercing the other, and … would have no reason to refrain. … only within the context of mutual benefit can our condemnation appeal to a rationally grounded morality.” This excludes animals for 3 reasons: a) Our treatment of animals is unreciprocal - they don’t perform tests on us or use our skin for leather, so even if both groups stand to benefit from affirming, the content of their obligations will still inherently differ. b) Animals don’t benefit from our exploitation of them, so there’s no mutual benefit on their behalf that would convince them to rationally accept a contract with us. c) We would have no benefit from respecting their rights: only animals stand to gain from affirming, but that’s not a mutual benefit. Even a consequentialist impact cannot link to this since the impact would still only reinforce the importance of our obligations to humans, not animals. Now, let's go to pro's arguments. == Rebuttals ==A lot of it is him just clarifying on specifics to his position (people on welfare shouldn't own pets, no one with a history of animal abuse should own pets, etc.), so I won't touch on that since it's relevance to the debate at hand is minimal: we're talking about all animals here, not just household pets. The one statement he does make is that "Animals deserve basic rights afterall we give them to so called humans.". The problem is that rights aren't distributed like that. Rights aren't distributed by a state of identity, i.e. we're human so we get rights, you're animals so you get rights, etc., but rather they're distributed on our ability to grasp ethical premises. Cohen [3]: “Patterns of conduct are not at issue. Animals do … exhibit remarkable behavior at times. Conditioning, fear, instinct, and intelligence all contribute to species survival. Membership in a community of moral agents nevertheless remains impossible for them. Actors subject to moral judgment must be capable of grasping the generality of an ethical premise in a practical syllogism. Humans act immorally often enough, but only they … can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to he performed. The moral restraints imposed by humans on themselves are thus highly abstract and are often in conflict with the self-interest of the agent. Communal behavior among animals, … does not approach autonomous morality in this fundamental sense. Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an .external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed, … is done with a guilty mind, …” This becomes problematic for pro because only humans are capable of this. Since only humans are capable of grasping ethical premises, and animals are incapable of doing so, it means animals aren't deserving of rights. Cohen 2: "Between species … humans on the one hand and cats or rats on the other--the morally relevant differences are enormous, and almost universally appreciated. Humans engage in moral reflection; … are morally autonomous; … are members of moral communities, recognizing just claims against their own interest. Human beings do have rights; theirs is a moral status very different from that of cats or rats" == Conclusion ==To conclude, I've established a very clear case for why animals ought not have rights, and responded to my opponent's claims as to why they deserve rights. The ballot is a clear negative vote. == Sources == [1] J. L. Mackie [John Leslie Mackie (1917-1981) was a philosopher, originally from Sydney, Australia. From 1967 until his death, he was a fellow of University College, Oxford. He was in 1974 elected a fellow of the British Academy.], “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong” The Subjectivity of Values. [2] Gauthier, David P. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print. [3] Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October 1986, pp. 865–870. |
641b083d-2019-04-18T15:21:57Z-00003-000 | Animal rights | Animals should have rights to live a good life and be taken care of. I will say that animal ownership should be restricted to people that can afford to have them. Nobody on welfare should be allowed to have a pet and nobody with a history of animal abuse should be able to own a pet. Animals deserve basic rights afterall we give them to so called humans. |
641b083d-2019-04-18T15:21:57Z-00004-000 | Animal rights | They shouldn't have rights |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00000-000 | Lets All Be Random | Personal Questions to Ask a Guy? Mean Things to Say to Someone Funny Names to Call People? What Is My Gangster Name How to Ask a Friend a Question? Text Messaging Pranks? How to Intercept Text Messages? What Is a Good Catch Phrase Funny Catch Phrases? What Are Cool Nicknames Who Are the Most Famous People That Have Either Asked or Answered Questions on Quora Dirty Would You Rather? Ways to Turn a Guy on? What Turns Guys on? How Can I Turn My Boyfriend on Ways to Turn on Your Boyfriend? What Is a Good Prank Call Things to Say for Prank Calls? Why Do Guys Ignore Girls Where Can I Find Short Jokes Random Questions to Ask Your Boyfriend? Random Things to Talk about? How to Talk to Random Girls? Pub Quiz Team Names? Letter to My Boyfriend? How to Write a Goodbye Letter to a Boyfriend? Why Are the Majority of Questions Here Completely Crazy What Is a Nickname What Is a Good Prank Excuse for Missing School? Naughty Dares? Embarrassing Dares? Awkward Questions to Ask a Friend? Funny Personal Questions? Chain Text Messages? What Is a Good Cheer Joke Thought Provoking Questions? Are You Funny Funny Question of the Day? What Are Annoying Quotes How to Make a Guy Jealous? Dirty Questions to Ask Someone? What Are Good Golf Team Names Funny Golf Team Names? What Are Common Funny Fill in the Blanks ever noticed that most octupus turn purple when they eat a blue mushroom hat without trying toswollow a wale. |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00001-000 | Lets All Be Random | One day there was a sunny fence ginger who ate nineteen sprinkles exactly every minute and went to Starbucks to meet with a teacup assassin. I caught writers block off a canon cow who caught me not reading in a fish tank so I went to the doctors and they gave me a tissue to blow my ears into everyday and it would go away. I killed the cow with an angry flannel monster and ate my way out of a hive when I was abducted by undead bees. The tangled old octopus sparingly poured tea with his eleven arms – he is a mutant. “Blah, blah, blah,” said the cheese monkey as he road into london on his ice cream horse underneath the moon who had been graffiti'd with the words “ I MUST EAT” by seahorse aliens. |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00002-000 | Lets All Be Random | GUESTS ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SMOKE OR DO OTHER DISGUSTING BEHAVIORS IN BED. What happens to an irrisitable force when it hits an immovable object? Hotel lobby, Bucharest: THE LIFT IS BEING FIXED FOR THE NEXT DAY. DURING THAT TIME WE REGRET THAT YOU WILL BE UNBEARABLE. What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus. Venison for dinner again? Oh deer! I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add. Hotel room notice, Chiang-Mai, Thailand: PLEASE DO NOT BRING SOLICITORS INTO YOUR ROOM. I am in shape. Round is a shape. The wise never marry and when they marry they become otherwise. "Love is temporary insanity curable by marriage." - Ambrose Bierce You can't have everything...where would you put it? Can a short person "talk down" to a taller person? Notice at a Public Bar: OUR PUBLIC BAR IS PRESENTLY NOT OPEN BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED - Manager This is a non-smoking gas pump. If a guy that was about to die in the electric chair had a heart attack should they save him? If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches? The things that come to those that wait may be the things left by those who got there first. Success is not about who you know, rather who knows you. If, in a baseball game, the batter hits a ball splitting it right down the center with half the ball flying out of the park and the other half being caught, what is the final ruling? A sign seen on an automatic restroom hand dryer: DO NOT ACTIVATE WITH WET HANDS. If a transvesite goes missing, would you put their face on a carton of Half and Half? Did Noah have woodpeckers on the ark? If he did, where did he keep them? If you get this message, call me, and if you don't get it, don't call. On the side of a milk carton: Allergy advice - May Contain Traces of Milk Why are all of the Harry Potter spells in Latin if they're English? I changed my iPod's name to Titanic. It's syncing now. Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. I am a nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore, I am perfect. Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. Save water. Shower with your girlfriend. Why put a towel in the dirty clothes basket if when you get out of the shower you are clean? Notice at a Public Bar: OUR PUBLIC BAR IS PRESENTLY NOT OPEN BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED - Manager Can you daydream at night? Why is it that everyone driving faster than you is considered an idiot and everyone driving slower than you is a moron? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Do they bury people with their braces on? I was born intelligent - education ruined me. I think therefore I am... I think. |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00003-000 | Lets All Be Random | was walking to my car when I noticed my pants were on fire. I turned to my friend and said, "I think were going to need an oven and fast." He grabbed me with his soggy fingers and said.. "Snap out of it, Man." Then he proceeded to chant and walk in circles around me. I looked down, My pants were still on fire, but by this time it had spread to my legs and three other ligaments. I was getting pretty agitated that no one seemed to care about my third degree burns, or my soon imminent death, but I went along with his plan still hoping he'd manage to save me through his voo-doo witchcraft. After I came out of my trance from the fire I noticed that I was now in the kitchen of my grandma's house baking a cake.. I Screamed "WHAT THE?" My Grandma ran in and slapped me for cursing. Then she proceeded to say, "I swear if you talk like that 5 more times, I'll beat the living daylights outta you." I was quite confused as to what was going on and what I did to deserve this true life mad lib. I just stood there in silence with a look of uttermost confusion.. and I stared at the women who had once been a kind sweet old lady, who wouldn't even kill a baby piglet, now turned into this vicious beast of a monster with veins protruding from her neck like a porcupines quills on a midsummer day. She gasped, and then with the blink of an eye turned back into the sweet old lady I had once known. "Would you like some cookies, dear?" "Ummm, yes, grandma." As she went to retrieve the cookies, I was planning my escape.. Looking around pondering what unimaginable thing would happen next if I stayed. As my grandma neared the corner with her plate of cookies, I ran to the door as fast as my burning legs would take me. As I made my silent escape I heard grandma yell, "You forgot your cookies dear" Little did she know I didn't give a damn about those cookies. As I ran I thought about my previous life and how this whole day had been more interesting than my whole entire life on earth had.. I began to ponder if this was karma punishing me for just sitting on the laptop all day typing short stories for little to no pay. When I decided to stop and catch my breath, I wiped the sweat from my face and looked up to see what else this new world had to offer. Far off in the distance I could see a huge building, maybe a hotel or some sort of jail. I wasn't too sure.. but I marked that location off my list, the last thing I needed was to go to a jail and get killed by a bunch of mobsters.. I mean seriously, my pants were already on fire. I decided to turn to my left and see what my next choice would be. There were flying cantaloupes, rainbows and songs of happiness near by, I mean I was a little frightened by the flying fruit but I'll take this any day over prison inmates. I skipped closer and closer to the festivities and when I arrived I seen all my friends I had went to high school with. They were holding hands and singing Kumbayah around the camp ice.. Yes It was a giant block of ice situated on three wood logs.. I felt much more comforted here than I did at my grandmas. I took a deep breath of relief and I thought, maybe, this day is getting better. I joined hands and with Germany and Tokyo and began to sing with everyone else, but as soon as I belched out my voice changed to an annoying high pitched squeal.. Similar to ringing in your ears. Everyone turned toward me and gave me the death stare and I knew I had screwed up once again, they all walked in slow motion towards me saying the same familiar chant I had heard earlier, before anyone could reach me I awoke in a frantic sweaty rush in my bed.. My legs were no longer on fire and I felt slightly normal again. I noticed that my mom, a preacher, and several other family members were standing around me sobbing and chanting.. I said. "What's going on?" They informed me that I had been possessed by a spirit named Robert that liked to make people crazy by making there dreams seem similar to real life, only completely insane. They told me that I had been very lucky to be through such a traumatic experience and live to tell about it, without needing to be put in a psych ward. I turned to the preacher and said. "I think were gonna need an oven and fast." That's when they knew I was a goner. |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00004-000 | Lets All Be Random | So like as I was saying, the mass spectrometer in my room actually turned out not to be a mass spectrometer, but the mutant remains of the massive spectacle-o-meter. [Its an easy mistake to make ok!] Its a giant Machine invented by highly intellectual pink ants, designed to track down old granny spectacles, and sort them into size order. Except as I previously mentioned this one was a mutant. It was genetically mutated at birth, and instead of sorting out all these glasses, it brain washes them into thinking they are clones of david tenant. This means there are now billions of old spectacles flooding out of my door, and they are all ridiculously egocentric, because most of them think they're really hot. Except that pair over there, they just think they're an old christmas turkey, that had a little much to drink. Seriously watching a pair off glasses acting as a drunk Turkey is probably the strangest thing I've ever seen. Ugh. It just barfed. Deodorant. At least puking deodorant smells better than the sweaty army commando in my deserted sausage factory. (Althought it landed right in the lasanga. Blech!) Hmmm. Havn't fed the guy in a while. I might send some of my Tennant glasses round with some kind of a food. Like monkey lasanga, (He won't mind the deodrant...). Or a Robot. Or pie. Mmmmmm........ |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00005-000 | Lets All Be Random | I stepped on a Corn Flake, now I'm a Cereal Killer. Screw world peace, I want a pony. A Hairy window broke a silly pineapple with a Blue fridge- cause we get hairy windows theses days. The way you play the cheese guitar with the licorice strings and your fishy fingers, is just incredible.-errrrrrrrrrr gross. My world is where everybody is a pony and we all eat rainbows and poop butterflies. |