_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00006-000 | Lets All Be Random | How do you want to die?Well, I want to die like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car. Did you know that the statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness? Think of your three best friends. If they are okay, then it's you.I am a wonderful person! I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally.I also dream of a better tomorrow... where chickens can cross roads and not have their motives questioned........... |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00007-000 | Lets All Be Random | What do you think about the magical yellow unicorn who dances on the rainbow with a spoonful of blue cheese dressing? my comments: -my nose is a communist |
b9745472-2019-04-18T16:58:28Z-00008-000 | Lets All Be Random | I like randomness...... Do you? Because if you accept this debate, you are in for a wirlwind of RANDOMNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00000-000 | The Earth is Young | Note I apologize to my opponent for my delay. I am typing this up with only 9 hours remaining and have been in the hospital most of the day with my step-dad. This is not my best argument, but it is better than forfeiting. I would like to thank my opponent for his reply. Pro's argument rests entirely on the decay of Earth's magnetic field. Pro's problem is that he fails to take into consideration the fact that Earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and fails to take into consideration polar shifts. Let's look at these a bit closer.Issue 1: Magnetic FluctuationPro's case relies on the Earth's magnetic field decay to be a constant. The problem is, this assumption is clearly false as seen by this graph (http://www.windows2universe.org...) Lenny Flank notes:"[W]hen rocks on the sea floor are scientifically examined, they demonstrate a striking magnetic pattern: on each side of the mid-Atlantic rift where the earth's plates emerge from the mantle, differing "stripes" of varying magnetic intensity can be found, each the mirror image of the stripes on the other side. As each area of crust emerges and solidifies, the metallic particles within it are magnetized, and take on the strength and polarity of the magnetic field within which they emerged. As the sea floor spreads apart through plate tectonics, new areas of rock emerge and are similarly magnetized. This produces a pattern of different magnetic strengths." (http://www.huecotanks.com...) Issue 2: Polar shiftOverwhelming evidence from both lava flows and oceanic ridges support evidence that the magnetic field has shifted overtime. The last time such an event occured was about 780 KYA as NASA notes:"Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth's magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound." (http://www.nasa.gov...) ConclusionFor the reasons mentioned above, the decay of Earth's magnetic field cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the age of the Earth - either from an old Earth or a young Earth. There is no scientific justification for Humphreys' model to attempt to extrapolate their magnetic measurements for the last 150 years or so back to the moment of creation. I turn it over to Pro. |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00001-000 | The Earth is Young | IntroductionI would first like to begin by stating that I fully agree that the math behind radioisotope dating is sound and that the operational methods used to measure ratios of isotopes yield very precise results. What I do not agree with however are the assumptions behind the process of actually interpreting results as a "date" to determine the age of a rock. I will begin by attempting to explain, for the prospective reader, how radioisotope dating works.Basics of Radioisotope DatingRadioisotope dating, or radiometric dating as it is also known, refers to the method by which secular scientists attempt to formulate an age for a given rock specimen based on the ratio of isotopes within the rock. Isotopes are basically radioactive forms of elements which naturally decay in an attempt to become more stable. These volatile atoms will, over time, decay to become different atoms with different numbers of protons and neutrons.By measuring the current rate of decay, scientists can determine how long it would take for a given decay process to occur. By measuring the amount of parent (radioactive isotope) atoms and daughter (more stable element) atoms, an age can then be acquired by calculating how long it would have taken for the parent atoms to decay to the measured amount of daughter atoms. There are however key assumptions which, if they were in error, would greatly alter the dates given and therefore would be grossly misrepresentative of the age of what is being measured.Assumption #1 - Initial Isotope RatiosThis first assumption is entirely unknowable, to state the obvious. If one is no present to record data, one is left with pure speculation. Clearly it is impossible to know for sure what the initial ratio of isotopes were in any given rock sample. If a particular sample had any amount of Pb at its conception, assuming a zero amount for the sample would grossly inflate the age. No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. My opponent addresses this issue with the usage of zircon crystals which indeed seem to control for the problem of initial ratios. Regardless, this assumption remains model-dependent (1).Assumption #2 - Lack of ContaminationAs with the first assumption, assuming no contamination is speculative at best. Both assumptions are model-dependent in that they require a model such as the accretion model of the Earth's formation from molten rock. If the biblical account be true, then even zircon crystals could have been formed with Pb already in them; and the Flood could have provided a medium for plenty of isotopic exchange between rocks. Since not much more can be said about these assumptions other than that they are ultimately unknowable, allow me to focus most of my addressal to the following assumption (2).Assumption #3 - Constant Decay RateIndeed, decay rate constancy seems to be the most impervious to dissent. Yet, utilizing certain methods of dating other than radioisotopes, such as that of planetary magnetic field decay, have revealed that the Earth could not be much older than 6,000 years. Thus, it is clear that decay rates are likely to have drastically varied in the past. One clear example is the presence of detectable amounts of helium in zircon crystals which have been dated to be 1.5 billion years old. It was found that, "up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would produce was still in the zircons. This was surprising because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals." The presence of helium in these zircons is linked directly to U-Pb decay as it is a by product of the decay process. For the helium to be present in these zircons, radiodecay would have had to be over 100,000 times faster in the past (3).ConclusionAs Pro's case rests entirely on the reliability of radioisotope dating, I have effectually refuted it. Radioisotope dating cannot be trusted to yield accurate dates as many unknowable factors can be greatly inflating ages and explain the ubiquitous discordant measurements which are inconsistent with each other. I look forward to Pro's response to my rebuttals and defending my case against his.References(1) https://answersingenesis.org...(2) http://www.icr.org...(3) http://creation.com... |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00002-000 | The Earth is Young | Note that part of the arguments that I will present in this round are taken from the team debate that we unfortunately could not finish. The arguments that I will present are the ones that I wrote. I will also present a few new arguments that are not from the debate. Note that I had an issue putting images into my debate. I linked it to the photo album where necessary. Argument 1: Radiometric dating According to scientific estimates, the Earth is roughly 4.5-4.6 billion years old. How do they come to such a conclusion and under what basis do they make this claim? One of the ways to test this is through radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a technique that is used to date material such as rocks or carbon by the decay in the radioactive elements. There are over 40 elements that are used for radiometric dating [1]. Figure 2-1 (. http://bit.ly...) gives a good diagram of how radiometric dating works [2]. The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) where t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, and λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. [2] So, how do we know that these dating methods are reliable? For one, scientists have tested radiometric dating against the historical record. If the dating techniques match up to what we know the age is, then we make a good case for the reliability of such a method. Mt. Vesuvius erupted in the early afternoon on August 24, 79 C. E. In 1997, scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and University of Naples wanted to test the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating to see if it could accurately measure the age of this very young volcanic material. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. This is only a 7 year deviation from the actual date of the material [3] Based on the oldest known zinc, radiometric dating has found the Earth to be at least 4.3 billion years old [4]. Furthermore, dating ancient meteorite impact showed the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old: “The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. ” [5]. Argument 2: Things older than 10,000 years old It is incumbent on the affirmative to prove that the Earth is younger than ~10,000 years old. Thus, if we can show that there are objects and items on the Earth that are older than 10,000 years old, we negate that part of the resolution. Although it would not fulfill our burden to show the Earth is ~4 billion years old, it will add a much stronger case for our side. Example 1: Oldest DesertThe oldest desert on Earth is the Nambid Desert, a desert located in Africa. It is estimated to be 55 million years old [6]. Example 2: Oldest fossilThe oldest known fossils, and most likely the oldest known life form on the planet, dates back to 3.4 billion years. [7]Example 3: An AxeRecently, an axe ws found that dates back to 45,000 years. According to NatGeo [8]:"The team’s geologists dated the youngest of the terraces associated with the hand axes to at least 45,000 years ago using radiocarbon dating, and they estimated the oldest terrace with stone tools to be at least 130,000 years ago. " Conclusion In order for Pro to effectively refute my case and affirm his own resolution, he must show why we must reject the scientific evidence for radiometric dating and also account for the history that we see that suggests a much older date for the Earth. The data is clear that Earth is far older than 10,000 years old and the scientific consensus is clear that the Earth is roughly 4.56 billion years old. Sources1. . http://bit.ly...;2. . http://bit.ly...;3. . http://bit.ly...;4. . http://bit.ly...;5. . http://on.doi.gov...;6. . http://bit.ly...;7. . http://www.nature.com...;8. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...; |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00003-000 | The Earth is Young | Evidence Consistent With a Young EarthPlanetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent" (1). The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years. Unless Pro can adequately provide an observed mechanism which could sustain the field for millions of years, my case will stand (2). Dr. Russell Humphreys, a well known creationist physicist, has provided a model which best represents and explains the phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay. In this model, magnetohydrodynamics accounts for the energy loss of the planetary dipole field: ". . .motions of the conducting fluid in the core should slowly twist the dipole magnetic lines of force into more complex shapes, subtracting from the dipole field and adding to the non-dipole field. Resistive losses then make the non-dipole field decay more rapidly, so eventually the latter type of losses should prevail" (3).Basically, Humphrey's model proposes that the decay we observe is due to ohmic losses in the dipole-generating current of Earth's liquid core. Both creationists and secularists believe that the Earth was set into motion, and from this motion the planetary magnetic field was produced. But since, physically, the Earth's core provides resistance and turbulence between the inner and outer core. This resistance then in turn slows down the current and thus weakens the strength of the dipole field over time.For Pro to effectually refute my case, he must provide a reason why we should not accept Humphrey's model and why we should rather accept another such as the dynamo model. The data is clear that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at quite a substantial rate, and if it truly is an exponential decay due to energy loss, then the biblical creation view of a less than 10,000 year old Earth is supported.References(1) https://www.sciencenews.org...(2) https://answersingenesis.org...(3) http://www.creationresearch.org... |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00004-000 | The Earth is Young | Acceptance. |
faf4daa-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00005-000 | The Earth is Young | Affirmative Position (Pro): The Earth is less than 10,000 years old.Negative Position (Con): The Earth is greater than 4,000,000,000 years old.Debate Rules:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments)Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)Round 5 - Final Rebuttals (No New Arguments, No Defense of Arguments)*No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info.........)*No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org.........)*Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu.........)Both parties agree to these rules upon acceptance of the debate. Failure to adhere to these rules should at least result in the loss of conduct point per the judgment of any prospective voters. |
28404904-2019-04-18T19:33:29Z-00000-000 | Bacteria is more important than humans | I understand that bacteria are important for keeping life on earth running. However, you can't deny the fact that humans can protect the Earth from things bacteria cannot. We control the fate of this planet, and as intellegent beings we are important for protecting life on Earth from catastrophic forces. With great power, comes great responsibility. They do their part, we do ours. In conclusion regarding my contention that humans play a role in the preservation of life that is just as important as bacteria's, I urge a con vote :) |
28404904-2019-04-18T19:33:29Z-00001-000 | Bacteria is more important than humans | It seems my opponent has not been able to respond in time. |
28404904-2019-04-18T19:33:29Z-00002-000 | Bacteria is more important than humans | Now on to the debate. Don't get me wrong, bacteria are very important as far as maintaining life on Earth. Yet, you have to ask yourself, does that make them "more important" than humans. I believe that people and bacteria are EQUALLY important. We are the dominant species of this planet, and with great power comes great responsibility. You see, us humans have something bacteria don't: intellect. Forces that threaten the planet, like meteors for example, we have the ability to stop, yet bacteria do not. As far as evolution goes, it's not usual for a species to be as powerful as we are. We came forth only under extremely rare circumstances. Now that we exist, we are life forms capable of deciding the fate of all other life, and a force like ours is important for preserving life from catastrophic forces. If bacteria are LESS or EQUALLY important than humans, I win this debate. Unless my opponent proves how bacteria are MORE important, I will win this debate. On that note, I urge a con vote. :) |
28404904-2019-04-18T19:33:29Z-00003-000 | Bacteria is more important than humans | Human history have been plagued with a selfish and narcissistic mentality that humans are the great and important species. Such an attitude stems back to the bible, from texts such as: 'And God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and master it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the flyer of the heaven, and every live creature that creeps on the earth." (1.28) Such a mentality have left much of the natural world in ruins. Driven by greed to maximize ones profit without consideration of externalities, has led to the depletion of natural rain forests, the pollution of air, and the extinction of many species. Humans often feel that it is a god given right for them to have dominion over the earth, and even many non-believers, with a false conception of evolution, believe that all species are on a linear ride to becoming more complex...the journey to becoming a human. It has been mind numbing for me to hear people ask me, 'well if evolution is true, how come chimps have not turned into humans yet?'. This shows the ignorance that exists among us humans. What I would like to argue in this debate is that humans are not the most important species. In fact, humans are likely one of the least important species from a naturalistic perspective. And the specific argument is that bacteria is more important than humans. What is important? From a naturalistic point of view, it is important to survive. It is important to spread our genes. From a societal perspective, what is important can take many different forms depending on culture and beliefs, along with other factors. I will now let my opponent start the debate by trying to argue that bacteria is not more important than humans. |
3c45def3-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00001-000 | The United States should legalize marijuana | My arguments still stand. |
3c45def3-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00002-000 | The United States should legalize marijuana | I will be affirming the resolution that Marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. My argument will consist of five contentions in which I will prove that the U. S. government should legalize marijuana. Contention 1: People deserve the freedom My first point will be that there is no good reason to not make marijuana legal. Many people ask 'Why should marijuana be made legal? ' but we should ask 'Why should marijuana be illegal? ' Individuals deserve to make their own choices. The government only has the right to put limits on these choices hurt another person. This doesn't apply to marijuana, since the person who chooses to use marijuana only affects the person that uses it. Contention 2: Keeping marijuana illegal is too expensive. The second point is that marijuana legalization would save the U. S. government a great deal of money. In one year alone the U. S. government spends $42 billion trying to get rid of marijuana by chasing down peaceful people who happen to like to get high [1]. These people get locked up in jail and we the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock up these people. This is a extremely expensive method and simply costs too much. Think of how many better uses that money could be put too. Contention 3: It would give the government more funds. If marijuana were to be legalized it could be taxed and the government could get revenue to do its job better, such as paying off our national debt. Contention 4: Marijuana prohibition doesn't help the U. S. The third point I will make for why marijuana should be legalized is because prohibition doesn't help the U. S. in any way at all, and cause a ton of problems. There is not one good piece of good evidence that prohibition decreases marijuana use, and there are quite a few theories that suggest that it might be increasing marijuana use. One of the unintended effects of weed prohibition is it is very popular in high schools. Why is this? Because it is available. People don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana, marijuana dealers usually do not care about the age of their customers as long as they have enough money. It's easier for high schoolers to get their hands on marijuana then it is for them to get alcohol, because alcohol is legal and regulated so it will stay away from kids. We would do better if we just relied on honest open programs to educate the youth and regulated it so it stays out of the hands of kids. But our current prohibition plan does not allow such reasonable approaches to weed. The The programs such as 'DARE' lie about marijuana and also does not even work. We tried and failed miserably in alcohol prohibition, and now it is time that we learn from our past. [2] Contention 5: Marijuana has medical uses. Marijuana should be legalized because it also has certain properties that would be useful to the medical feild. In past years the palnt has treated many different sickenesses and disorders. It has even been used to treat the harsh effects of Kemo Therapy durring cancer treatment. Some of the ailments that marijuana is effective against are Arthritis, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, Eating Disorders, and many more [3]. Conclusion In conclusion, legalizing marijuana would be better the keeping it illegal. The pros outway the cons when it comes to it. It would save money, and it would even decrease teen marijuana use, and it would make a lot of medical patients feel better. Vote Pro! [1] . http://www.alternet.org...... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3] . http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com...... |
3c45def3-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00003-000 | The United States should legalize marijuana | First I would like to say this debate has happened at least 10,000 times, and pro for legalization always wins because it has sooo many good reasons, but in this debate I would like to twist this. I smoke pot, and I will admit it, so my arguments won't really be about health issues or about how its the devils weed, but how it will affect small pot growers, and how it will turn into a government corporation. So if you want to debate the normal bull sh*t about how its good for you, then whatever you will win, but you should tell me how legalizing pot will help small pot growers, and the middle to lower class smokers in general so I know you are just trying to help your horrible debate record. Peace, and good luck. |
3c45def3-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00004-000 | The United States should legalize marijuana | I will be affirming that Marijuana should be legalized in the United States. My opponent whoever they may be will have to give proof that it shouldn't be legalized. First round will be for acceptance. Good luck to whoever accepts this challange. |
2108f750-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00000-000 | Mario is better than sonic. | I would also like to add the fact that Mario is a murderer and kills his enemies opposed to Sonic who frees animals when he jumps on enemies. And my final point the music in Sonic games has much more variety and helps add to the gameplay. The Sonic games generally have much better game music. |
2108f750-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00001-000 | Mario is better than sonic. | However Luigi is a very similar character to Mario with the same power-ups and abilities as Mario. The difference between the two is only height and the colour of their clothing, along with minor facial details. However Tails is a completely different character with the ability to fly or hover (depending on the game). He also has a complete different appearance to the other characters. The opposing side mentioned 'glitches' however you will find every game including the Mario games have a fair share of glitches. They also mentioned game play being more important than the story line however this is an opinion as many people believe the story plot is just as important if not more. |
2108f750-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00002-000 | Mario is better than sonic. | The other side brings up story, however what good is story when your games are full of glitches, and certain characters have an annoying effect on the game. Take the player two for example Tails is a bratty kid while Luigi is Mario's little brother. If you want to talk story the maker of Sonic himself said he ripped of Dragon Ball Z. Mario games are not plot centric making more focus on game play witch is the most important aspect of a video game. |
2108f750-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00003-000 | Mario is better than sonic. | However Sonic games have much more creative story lines compared to 'Saving the Princess' in the majority of Mario Games. Also Sonic saves entire world over one princess meaning through out all the games he has saved multiple lives with multiple lives. Whereas Mario has saved very few. In Sonic's games there is usually more story plot and side characters which the player can take the roll of for certain task. This makes each game more unique rather than the repetitive story plots of the Mario game. |
2108f750-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00004-000 | Mario is better than sonic. | We have all played Mario, He after all is the subject of some amazing games. Sonic on the other hand has gotten bad games like Rise of Lyric and Sonic 06,a game so famous for being one of the worst games of all time. Sonic has been the subject of a couple good games but the number of functional games without glitches that break the game to your favor or to the games makes it clear that Mario is indeed better. Ask anyone who Mario is most people will know. Also the Sonic games lie to you Sonic is not the fastest thing alive. Mario is the far superior game |
19866eec-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00000-000 | US Involvement in Wars | The US invading the middle east trying to be the international world police created Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Both times we funded rebels groups, only for both groups to take the money and push their own agenda, killing thousands. ISIS is already on the verge of defeat, if not already defeated. Our assistance in the Middle East is no longer needed. The longer we stay, the more problems we stir up, and the more American lives are killed. |
19866eec-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00001-000 | US Involvement in Wars | As a power, the US should be involved in war. First of all, the US is a global power and the residents of the country feel a sense of security. That feeling exists because the US has a strong following and it's a part of the country's culture. If a country tries to engage in disputes with the US, there are strong consequences. It's like branding for a company. Take a company like Apple for instance. If a smaller phone producer comes up with a new idea, Apple will jump right in and create a better version of it. That's just like the US and their military. If the US wasn't involved in so many conflicts, they would be just like any small country. They wouldn't be a global power. Without the title of a global power, the people in the country start to feel less confident in their country's ability to keep them protected. Additionally, the US keeps the world safe due to the fact that 73% of the public has trust in their military. They help stop the spread of terror by having their presence in various countries across the globe. For example: US presence in Afghanistan has stopped terror groups like Al Qaeda from spreading. Another main thing is that when the US is involved in other wars, it keeps American soil safe because US residents don't want wars in America. Ultimately, the US should be involved in wars to keep the world safer. |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00000-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | "Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency." Indeed, who knows, but the "tackling" as so eloquently put is the more acceptable (and long term) option of actually reducing people's weight. The figures show nothing at all about "pavement congestion" this is merely an inferential ploy by my opponent. Again we get back to the actual percentage of obese individuals, there are more people walking the streets that actually like walking slow than those that can be possibly annoyed. Your fix is merely a crass short term one. At least the government is thinking ahead. ;) Which brings us to "Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads." You have simply failed again to explain why your preference is more important than anyone other individuals in this matter. If it is a given choice then the action should not be punishable. You are advocating either obesity as being illegal or obese in public as illegal. The former reverts back to what moral superiority do you claim as right and the latter to a totalitarian house arrest for the obese for in public you will be beaten/tasered. What about 'borderline' individuals? Will the police carry scales for testing? By what right does the government have to know a person's weight? What about those 'thin' people who walk slow? Will the police enforce their speeds as well? People who walk in small groups side by side? Tourists standing on footpaths creating flow problems? What about those people who walk with several bags in each hand? As you can see the lines are fuzzy, it is an ill thought out plan. "I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested." I am certainly interested because you supply no information about by-laws, merely the 'front page' as it were of the website. "Procedure for passing secondary legislation in the UK Subordinate legislation is a collective term for statutory rules, regulations, ordinances, by-laws and rules created by persons or bodies to whom Parliament has delegated some of its law-making powers. Stages to go through Authority for making the subordinate legislation comes from an enabling or 'delegating' Act that will set down the requirements for making the subordinate legislation. Certain persons or bodies, such as the Scottish Executive, are given law-making powers allowing them to enact such legislation. Generally, subordinate legislation is created when signed by the person authorised to do so by the enabling Act. There are no specific stages in creating subordinate legislation, however there are two procedures for it coming into effect: 'Negative resolution' - the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days 'Affirmative Resolution' - the subordinate legislation must be affirmed by resolutions in each House of Parliament before it may come into effect." http://www.out-law.com... Despite its unfortunate address, the link in question is an international law firm. "I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law." "My favourite pastimes are eating and walking yet I agree that eating and walking in public ...." Nope that doesn't work does it? "My favourite pastimes are eating and walking yet I agree that obesity and walking in public should be illegal" Maybe that will work then (still not fully analogous to your example). Ok the law as it relates to DUI is due to the fact that drinking impairs judgement, and is a risk factor in one's own and possible others death and or injury. Walking should be encouraged one would think. There is no health risk to other pedestrians. Claims of frustrated men dashing madly, risking oncoming traffic etc are not the blame of any other individual other than those that do the mad dashing. So no, I don't agree that the population in question will agree to house/car confinement. It is detrimental to their health and well being. Regards, Puck |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00001-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | With thanks to my opponent for such a prompt reply, I should like to respond as follows: At the beginning of his argument my opponent wrote: "Firstly the obese are like vehicles, now they are like drunkards. My opponents sole case rests on asserting obese individuals are like something they are not." And at near the end… "Assuming all obese will react similarly is to say BMI is a personality motivator. Clearly that is not correct either." Of course, one should not generalise in debates, but on the basis of absolutely no research, I had no choice! My opponent, on the other hand, did do some research: "Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project, 2007, predict that if no action is taken, by 2050, 60% of men and 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese. Department of Health, UK Government." Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency. Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads. I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested. http://www.parliament.uk... However, Acts of Parliament usually apply across the entire country, rather than just one city, which is why I proposed a by law instead. Furthermore, I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law. Anyway, thanks Puck, for the debate and thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support! |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00002-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | Firstly the obese are like vehicles, now they are like drunkards. My opponents sole case rests on asserting obese individuals are like something they are not. "My opponent went on to suggest that the Mayor wouldn't have the authority to introduce a ban. Perhaps he is right, otherwise I'm sure just such a ban would have already been introduced - after all, what a vote winner!" "Health Survey for England (HSE) data revealed that in 2006, 38% of adults in England were overweight and 24% were classified as obese. 67% of men and 56% of women were either overweight or obese in 2006. 29.7% of children aged 2 to 15 were classed as overweight or obese in 2006. Figures for boys and girls among this age group were 30.6% and 28.7% respectively. 17.3% of boys and 14.7% of girls were obese. Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project, 2007, predict that if no action is taken, by 2050, 60% of men and 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese." http://www.dh.gov.uk... Clearly it is not a "vote winner" if there is a substantial proportion of people who would be opposed to any 'anti-obese' legislation. There will be far more people against such a bill as for. "so a ban on the obese walking side-by-side might not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny." If you recall (or read :P) "Negative resolution: the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days" If you consider the population percentage of obese individuals, the inherent public outcry and the fact that the odds of a member of parliament able to oppose the bill being obese, any such attempt would be surely foiled. "Only when they get in people's way. It's just like people drinking alcohol. It's fine in a pub, but not on a tube or bus, which is why the Mayor banned it." The process of becoming drunk is a swift one, as is its relative state of removal. Obese individuals cannot be obese at home and not in public, unless you are now advocating house arrest for all obese individuals in the possibility they annoy you when you walk down the street. Again as a population majority (on the assumption you yourself are not obese) then their wants outweigh your own (no pun intended). "I'm aghast that my opponent thinks that I would advocate the wholesale and indiscriminate targeting of obese people. My idea is that, only after a fair warning, would the police bludgeon uncooperative overweight people to the ground using batons or Taser them - to kick them senseless while they are down would be barbaric. The idea is that the abnormally fat would be left unconscious or otherwise incapable of continuing their journey (and thus causing their prostrate bodies to create further obstacles for hard-pressed commuters) is simply abhorrent." A bill targeting obese individuals is exactly "wholesale and indiscriminate targeting of obese people". While the police are politely bludgeoning said obese individuals in public or tasering them to a fetal weeping mess on the sidewalk, you create a perfect footpath block. What happens after is less relevant. The fact remains, you stop public flow for as long as it takes to subdue and remove the targeted individual. If the population of obese is high, then such occurrences would be common. "Asking a bunch of drunken yobs on the tube to chuck away their booze may provoke a violent reaction. Similarly, if someone asked a couple of obese pedestrians to disguise their ignorance of common courtesies and kindly step aside and allow more important people to get past, they are liable to lash out, especially if it is a hot day or they are hungry (which is almost always)." Again with the drunken analogy *shakes head* you really need to come up with reasons on their own merit. Common courtesy would be to politely ask. Is that such an abhorrent notion you would advocate legislative enforced police bludgeoning instead? Assuming all obese will react similarly is to say BMI is a personality motivator. Clearly that is not correct either. It is the other person (or should I say you?) you gets annoyed and lashes out (this debate :P). |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00003-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | Many thanks to my opponent for his considered reply. He wrote: "So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit?" Ha, ha, ha! Or strolling whilst under the influence of alcohol? Or walking without due care and attention? No, naturally, I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians should be subject to road traffic regulations, though it could be argued that people who swerve about the pavement and bump into other pedestrians because they are either drunk or they are texting on their mobile phones are almost as big a nuisance as the obese! My opponent went on to suggest that the Mayor wouldn't have the authority to introduce a ban. Perhaps he is right, otherwise I'm sure just such a ban would have already been introduced –after all, what a vote winner! That said, it is still my understanding that the Mayor of London does have some limited powers in matters relating to transport, for example he introduced a ban on drinking alcohol on public transport a couple of weeks ago, so a ban on the obese walking side-by-side might not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. My opponent continued: "…by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you?" Only when they get in people's way. It's just like people drinking alcohol. It's fine in a pub, but not on a tube or bus, which is why the Mayor banned it. My opponent then wrote: "Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer." I'm aghast that my opponent thinks that I would advocate the wholesale and indiscriminate targeting of obese people. My idea is that, only after a fair warning, would the police bludgeon uncooperative overweight people to the ground using batons or Taser them - to kick them senseless while they are down would be barbaric. The idea is that the abnormally fat would be left unconscious or otherwise incapable of continuing their journey (and thus causing their prostrate bodies to create further obstacles for hard-pressed commuters) is simply abhorrent. My opponent's final argument was that Londoners inconvenienced by the walking chicanes that the obese represent should ask them to move aside. This would not be advisable. Asking a bunch of drunken yobs on the tube to chuck away their booze may provoke a violent reaction. Similarly, if someone asked a couple of obese pedestrians to disguise their ignorance of common courtesies and kindly step aside and allow more important people to get past, they are liable to lash out, especially if it is a hot day or they are hungry (which is almost always). I look forward to my opponent's reply. |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00004-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | I understand this debate is meant to be 'light hearted'. I would hope so anyway. Still, it is Pro's position that he advocates a form of discrimination. "The obese are the human equivalent of vehicular wide loads" We have separate laws for humans and vehicles because...well simply they are not analogous legally. "The same principle should be applied to the narrow, crowded pavements (sidewalks) of central London." So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit? "The Mayor of London should pass a by-law that would empower the police and Community Support Officers to force abnormally fat people to keep out of normal people's way by walking in single file, with the use of batons and Tasers being sanctioned to enforce the law." To start with in the UK, the Mayor of London cannot simply "pass a by-law". There are no specific stages in creating subordinate legislation; however there are two procedures for it coming into effect: Negative resolution: the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days Affirmative Resolution: the subordinate legislation must be affirmed by resolutions in each House of Parliament before it may come into effect. Secondly, by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you? This is hardly a sound legal basis. Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer. "thus forcing decent, hard working commuters to risk their lives by dodging onto the road in an effort to get past them" No, that is an individual choice, one would argue based upon impatience and a societal norm where you don't ask the person in front of you to move aside. In each case it is certainly not due to the obese individual. "decent" and "hardworking" are merely fallacious ploys that appeal to emotion. Unless wife beating welfare cheats have a secret anti obese pedestrian sidewalk technique we don't know about. |
5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00005-000 | Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. | Clearly, a slow-moving convoy of trucks hauling abnormally wide loads should travel in single file, because if they drove side-by-side they would effectively block the entire carriageway. That is why they are prohibited from doing so by law. The same principle should be applied to the narrow, crowded pavements (sidewalks) of central London. The obese are the human equivalent of vehicular wide loads and yet they are allowed to impede the progress of ordinary Londoners who are in a hurry to get to work by plodding along the pavement at a snail's pace side-by-side, thus forcing decent, hard working commuters to risk their lives by dodging onto the road in an effort to get past them. The Mayor of London should pass a by-law that would empower the police and Community Support Officers to force abnormally fat people to keep out of normal people's way by walking in single file, with the use of batons and Tasers being sanctioned to enforce the law. |
916d759a-2019-04-18T14:11:11Z-00000-000 | Is fast food bad | The salad could still be unhealthy and have too much dressing. Not "that" bad implies that it is bad, just not terrible. Somewhat bad is still bad. The resolution is negated. |
916d759a-2019-04-18T14:11:11Z-00001-000 | Is fast food bad | Fast food is not that bad you have the choice of a salad or a hamburger |
ff56666d-2019-04-18T19:00:09Z-00001-000 | Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa | Just to clarify: I'm a girl. My oponent says that we need to instsitute education in Africa. We are already doing that, and there have been no signs of continuance improvement. We've tried everything, but we can't help a country whose leaders are not willing to accept our help. He says that the only way to solve the problem in Africa is to implement education, but we are already doing that, and as I just said, it's not working. There hasn't been any sign of significant change in Africa, The government is corrupt in places, and the government has used their power in the past to intercept our efforts. Trying to help develope Africa is like trying to knock down a solid brick wall with a feather. He says that the U.S. has used the majority of its money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the U.S. is already $9 trillion in the whole, and we can't afford to continue to waste money in a futile, yet good-hearted effort. |
ff56666d-2019-04-18T19:00:09Z-00002-000 | Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa | I accept. As the Negative I only have to prove the opposition wrong. If I do that Vote in Negation. He says, that Africans abuse U.S. Aid but that's not true. We need to be instituting education in Africa. The only way to do that is by education, and aid. They won't abuse us if we do that. Then, he says Africa can not lean us forever, that's true but, reducing aid will not solve the only way o solve is to implement education in the region. And he says its to expensive and the U.S. can not afford it. That's ridiculous reject that notion look to the fact that we have spent more money in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are the reason that we have so much money spent is not Africa it's other nations and voting affirmative would not solve for that. We will still see the impacts of a bad economy. |
ff56666d-2019-04-18T19:00:09Z-00003-000 | Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa | Over the past few years we have been helping Africa with development-related aid. They have been using it, but they've barely changed. We are in a tough economic situation right now, and we've already spent at least $9 billion in Africa since we've gone over. Where are the fruits of our bearing? Where is the evidence that all the money and time we've spent has not gone to waste? There is none. They have abused our help, they will never be able to survive by themselves if we're their crutch, and it's way too expensive for us to afford. In consideration of this, I urge you to vote affirmative on this bill. Point 1: In the past, they have abused our help. Africa has taken our help and has used it up, and now they just want more. We are losing more and more money helping these people, and what have we gotten in return? Nothing. Nothing but depletion. How do you fix somebody else's problem when you haven't even fixed your own? You can't. That's just irresponsible. I understand that there are people who want to help the situations in Africa. That's why there are programs out there for people who do want to help and volunteer. But the U.S. as a whole nation simply cannot afford to waste any more time or money to people who don't show any improvement for all of our work and help. We are not wanted in Africa. We are outsiders and intruders to them. We cannot force ourselves onto people who don't like us. The only reason why they are showing any likeness for us is because we help them, when they can't even help themselves. Let another country with fewer burdens take care of Africa. Point 2: Africa cannot lean on the U.S. as a crutch forever. Our help to Africa is like drugs to a junkie. We say that we are supporting them to help them become a more developed, democratic, and stable area. But we are not supporting them; we are carrying them on our backs! What the U.S, is doing with Africa is like teaching somebody to ride a bike by riding the bike yourselves, and letting them sit on your back and not touch the bike at all. We are their crutch. They are using our resources, our money, our time, and sucking it up, but they don't give us anything in return. Africa is barely any better than it was before we went over, and they won't get any better, until we make them take care of themselves. They'll never be stable until they know how. And as long as we do all the work, they're just sitting on the sidelines and watching. Point 3: It's too expensive for our current economy. Africa is an extremely corrupt and violent continent, and we can't waste time dealing with power abusers when we could be using the $9 billion to deal with something else, such as health care, the war, our economy, public option, or something more important to us and our problems. We are in a very tough economic situation right now, and we really could use the money that we're investing in Africa. The money that we're using in Africa could be used to deal with more pressing issues in America right now. The responsible thing to do is to deal with the most important issues first, and then deal with the other ones after. Conclusion: So in conclusion, as long as we've been over there, they've abused our help, in order for Africa to be a stable, democratic, and developed nation, they need to stand on their own two feet by themselves, without our help, and all the help we're giving them is costing us economically. We simply cannot afford to waste any more of our precious time and money on something that we can't support. In consideration of this, I urge you to vote affirmative. |
ff56666d-2019-04-18T19:00:09Z-00000-000 | Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa | Sorry, about the guy thing. Line by Line: She says, were trying to implement education right now, but that's not try what we have been doing is giving food. When you think of Africa you automatically think of giving food, not education. Voting neg is key to solve that physiological mindset. And she says, that the leaders aren't accepting the Aid but, that's also not true Africa wants as much Aid as they can get the last G20 meeting proves. And she says, that the Government is corrupt, yes it is and the only way to solve that is to implement education. The Africans don't know what aid is and only education can solve that. And she says, were 9 trillion dollars i the hole but also says, they we've spent 9 billion dollars in Africa since we have been there. The problem with that is voting affirmative won't solve 9 billion dollars is not substantial to 9 trillion. Counter Plan: We should reduce our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason why is because, she concedes that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the only way to access her economic advantage is to vote negative. |
d09825aa-2019-04-18T19:08:19Z-00000-000 | I will not win this debate. | -"since u are con u must have losignm streak but since i am pro i hvae winning streak buts incei ave mere 5 and u have 20 which is bgiger than 50 i have won this debate almost ceritaningly so plaesa womceb ack when you chtink you can lose this debate which you cant so i win hahaha votep ro"- -My opponent seems to belive i can not read retard.. he is false- -Or my opponent thought he could "faceroll" his was to victory by repeatedly bashing his skull off the keyboard- -Another thing would be that my opponent wants me to win.. this would cause the sun to give up on earth and make pluto laugh at us for takeing it off the planets list- -i have lost for i posted no evidence that i would win nor lose this debate but my opponent clearly states that he wants to lose by telling me to win.- -I urge a pro vote immediatly if you like your sun.- |
d09825aa-2019-04-18T19:08:19Z-00001-000 | I will not win this debate. | since u are con u must have losignm streak but since i am pro i hvae winning streak buts incei ave mere 5 and u have 20 which is bgiger than 50 i have won this debate almost ceritaningly so plaesa womceb ack when you chtink you can lose this debate which you cant so i win hahaha votep ro |
d09825aa-2019-04-18T19:08:19Z-00002-000 | I will not win this debate. | I have a losing streak almost in the twenties while you have a mear 5.. come back when you earn your fail. |
d09825aa-2019-04-18T19:08:19Z-00003-000 | I will not win this debate. | Prove me wrong. |
d3feb035-2019-04-18T18:07:10Z-00000-000 | All people in america are incurably stupid | My opponet as found no way to counter myargument because its obviously true. |
d3feb035-2019-04-18T18:07:10Z-00001-000 | All people in america are incurably stupid | My opponent has obviously neevr lived in aemrica, which is one of the most backwards and ignorant coutries ever to exist. It seems like eveyrone in America is a moron, and they dont even realize it which makes it worse. |
d3feb035-2019-04-18T18:07:10Z-00002-000 | All people in america are incurably stupid | no no |
d3feb035-2019-04-18T18:07:10Z-00003-000 | All people in america are incurably stupid | Its unbelievable how stupid people are today, especially in America. |
a696b816-2019-04-18T17:02:27Z-00002-000 | The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated | I accept this challenge. This will be fun. I define screen time as the amount of time spent watching TV including videos and DVD"s; playing computer games on video consoles or on computers and using computers for other purposes. Screen time also refers to using telephones for texting and social networking. Outdated is defined as old-fashioned or obsolete, and recommendation is defined as a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action. The proposal of a 2 hour limit for the use of electronic devices is old fashioned and obsolete. I disagree to this topic and will be arguing against it. Good luck, and let the best debater win! Mikicat10 |
a696b816-2019-04-18T17:02:27Z-00003-000 | The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated | Arguments can be defended at any timeNo foul language or personal attacks. Pro will try to prove the topic, while con will try to disprove it. Forfeits count as a concession. Failure to abide by the rules will result in a forfeit |
a696b816-2019-04-18T17:02:27Z-00000-000 | The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated | Today's children are spending an average of seven hours a day on entertainment media, including televisions, computers, phones and other electronic devices. To help kids make wise media choices, parents should monitor their media diet. Parents can make use of established ratings systems for shows, movies and games to avoid inappropriate content, such as violence, explicit sexual content or glorified tobacco and alcohol use. Studies have shown that excessive media use can lead to attention problems, school difficulties, sleep and eating disorders, and obesity. In addition, the Internet and cell phones can provide platforms for illicit and risky behaviors. By limiting screen time and offering educational media and non-electronic formats such as books, newspapers and board games, and watching television with their children, parents can help guide their children's media experience. Putting questionable content into context and teaching kids about advertising contributes to their media literacy. The AAP recommends that parents establish "screen-free" zones at home by making sure there are no televisions, computers or video games in children's bedrooms, and by turning off the TV during dinner. Children and teens should engage with entertainment media for no more than one or two hours per day, and that should be high-quality content. It is important for kids to spend time on outdoor play, reading, hobbies, and using their imaginations in free play. Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens. http://www.aap.org... |
a696b816-2019-04-18T17:02:27Z-00001-000 | The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated | The recommendation of a @ 2 hour secreen time is beneficial and trustworthy as long periods of electronic use is linked to medical and mental problems. The average 8-year-old spends eight hours a day using various forms of media, and teenagers often surpass 11 hours of media consumption daily, according to the authors of the AAP statement. More than three quarters of teenagers have cell phones, and teens ages 13 to 17 send an average of 3,364 texts per month. Several studies have linked high media consumption with poor health outcomes. For example, children with TVs in their bedrooms are more likely to be obese. The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages media use by children younger than age 2 and recommends limiting older children's screen time to no more than one or two hours a day. Too much screen time has been linked to: Obesity. The more TV your child watches, the greater his or her risk is of becoming overweight. Having a TV in a child's bedroom also increases this risk. Children can also develop an appetite for junk food promoted in TV ads, as well as overeat while watching TV. Irregular sleep. The more TV children watch, the more likely they are to have trouble falling asleep or to have an irregular sleep schedule. Sleep loss, in turn, can lead to fatigue and increased snacking. Behavioral problems. Elementary students who spend more than two hours a day watching TV or using a computer are more likely to have emotional, social and attention problems. Exposure to video games is also linked with an increased risk of attention problems in children. Watching excessive amounts of TV at age 4 is linked with bullying at ages 6 through 11. Impaired academic performance. Elementary students who have TVs in their bedrooms tend to perform worse on tests than do those who don't have TVs in their bedrooms. Violence. Too much exposure to violence through media " especially on TV " can desensitize children to violence. As a result, children might learn to accept violent behavior as a normal way to solve problems. Less time for play. Excessive screen time leaves less time for active, creative play. http://www.mayoclinic.com... |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00000-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | Well, I must say, it's been a fine debate. I have enjoyed it greatly. I would like to thank pro for such an interesting topic, and I think offering a choice between topics for the acceptor is a great idea for the future. Let's take a look at the evidence pro presents. Pro claims that heating and buckling would not have a significant impact on the structural integrity, as the source I cited claimed, but cites no source or evidence himself. His claim is therefore baseless. Pro provides no evidence that every single piece of steel should have been bent. This claim is also baseless. Pro ignored my ethical argument as to why NORAD wouldn't have shot down the planes. Therefore, it is dropped, and my point is considered true. The man in the confession tapes is bin Laden. [1] Pro provides a picture of the North Tower with small objects falling. He provides no evidence, however, that these objects are actually columns. They could be anything from window panes to rebar in the floor. For the molten metal question, there is simply no official report of any molten metal being found at the site, as I have established last round. Pro has failed to dismiss the reliability of my source. In conclusion, none of pro's arguments are valid. The best he can come up with to support his conspiracy theory is isolated evidence and rumours. Summary Conduct- As pro didn't forfeit whilst I did, I concede this point to him. Sources- Pro's sources generally consist of isolated pieces of evidence without context and pages making demonstrably false claims, such as the molten metal. Therefore, this point should go to me. Arguments- I have refuted all of pro's weak evidence and arguments. As the burden of proof is on him, I have succeeded in winning the arguments. Once again, thanks for this great debate. Sources 1- http://www.google.com... |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00001-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | Heating and buckling would not have a significant impact considering that the strength of the steel was NOT weakened considerably. About the molten metal, here is a site with many witnesses that saw these "pools". http://www.historycommons.org... While it may seem ridiculous, considering the crash, every piece (enormous steel pillar) should have been distorted/bent. Not cleanly cut like the one in the image. The fact remains that NORAD is obviously successful at conducting interceptions but failed twice in a single day. This is very suspicious. The plane was flying around for 45 mins but NORAD did not take any decisive action. About the CIA tapes: I do not believe my opponent has successfully refuted my point. The man in the video is obviously a different person. Also, if no explosives were used, then the steel columns would be BENT, but not SHREDDED like in this image. http://911research.wtc7.net... Don't forget that the buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. http://911research.wtc7.net... Let's sum up the points: 1. The CIA's Bin Laden tapes seem fake considering the man who is supposed to be Bin Laden does NOT resemble Bin Laden. 2. The buildings were built to take much larger forces than that of the plane. 3. The fire would NOT have significantly weakened the structure of the building. 4. NORAD is famed for successful interceptions (67 interceptions in the 2000) but suddenly fails twice in one day. 5. Pools of molten metal were found weeks afterward, a phenomenon that jet fuel is not hot enough to cause. 6. The floors and steel rods would be stacked, bent but not shredded if nothing but the plane was used to take down the building. 7. The building fell very fast, too fast to just be a non-demolition collapse. In conclusion, the theory of 9/11 being an inside job is very plausible. I'm sorry for the very short response as I am extremely low on time. Thank you for the good debate. |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00002-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | First, I apologize for forfeiting last round. I had some nasty internet issues that ended up deleting my argument, and by the time I reconstructed it, it was too late. I would like to sincerely thank pro for forgiving my previous forfeiture and ask voters to remember this in the "better conduct" point. However, all of his arguments are faulty, and although I lost a round, I am not about to let those to unchallenged. Firstly, he accurately quotes the source [1] as saying that the heating of the steel alone is insufficient, a fact which he established in the last round. However, he fails to counter my point about uneven heating and buckling stress. Therefore, he has dropped this argument. I would love for him to address it next round, but please note the dropped argument when voting. Next, he quotes a source claiming that molten steel and iron were found in the towers. His source, however, is unreliable. It is a secondary source with no citations. When looking at my source [2], note that every point is cited. There is no evidence of any molten metal found a ground zero. This wasn't included in any report, contradicting the account of molten metal found by firemen. Pro's source is simply unreliable. Next, he cites a single piece of steel as proof that explosives were used. This is simply ridiculous. One would need much more evidence than one coincidence to prove a massive conspiracy. Finally, there are serious ethical issues involved with shooting down a rogue commercial plane that may not cause any harm. Would you have shot down planes, not knowing the damage they would do, and risk murdering innocent civilians? I would have, but I have foreknowledge, a luxury they didn't have. Also, the person in the films is bin Laden, he just looks a little different than the 2011 version. [3] Sources 1- http://www.tms.org... 2- http://www.consensus911.org... 3- http://www.npr.org... |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00003-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | Extend my previous arguments into this Round. I request that the voters do not penalize my opponent for the forfeit. |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00004-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | "In fact, the source provides an excellent explanation for why the towers fell, and (spoiler alert) it doesn't involve planted explosives. " While that is true, I am merely using the article's facts to support my claim that the plane alone could not have caused the crash. My opponent then addresses my claim that even jet-fuel temperatures would have caused the steel columns to fail. The very next sentence in the article states that: "But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650"C fire. " . http://www.tms.org... Even with the steel columns weakened, the plane alone could not have caused the crash. I will now continue with further arguments. Even weeks after the disaster, firefighting teams could find pools of molten steel and iron. There is no way a jet-fuel flame could have caused this. The presence of molten metal pools suggests the use of thermite. . http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com... Yet another interesting fact that proves a planned demolition of the towers is the picture below. One can clearly see the clean-cut steel column. This is the way metal pillars look after having been cut by "cutter charges" used by demolition teams. . http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Next. Consider the fact that the US has an air-defense system known as NORAD. Being a highly advanced defense system, NORAD conducted 67 successful interceptions in 2000, but then suddenly fails twice in one day? . http://www.911myths.com... I would also like to note that the "Bin Laden tapes" released by the CIA are fake. Take a look at the man in the video, he is clearly not Osama. . http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... I will bring in more arguments next Round. I await my opponent's response. |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00005-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | This is an interesting argument made by pro. However, I'm afraid it's a little off. Let's look at the what the flaws in the case are. First of all, pro cites the following source: http://www.tms.org... This source is used to justify the claim: "This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down." However, the source in question doesn't say anything about this. In fact, the source provides an excellent explanation for why the towers fell, and (spoiler alert) it doesn't involve planted explosives. I will get to this fascinating yet scientific explanation in a moment. However, let's first examine my opponent's second claim. He preemptively attempts to refute evidence against his position: jet fuel. My opponent is correct in his knowledge of the burning temperature of jet fuel under such circumstances and of the melting point of steel. However, the claim that 600 degree C temperatures "would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings" is false and, ironically, refuted by his own source. Steel loses about half it's strength under such heat. Then, add one final factor into the equation. The exterior of the columns would have been heated first, creating what is known as "residual stress." Essentially, the uneven weakening of the steel would cause the column to fail. After the top floor fell, the rest of the building did too. [1] In conclusion, there is a scientific explanation for the collapsing of the towers with no need to invoke a conspiracy theory. Also, my opponent's own source disagrees with his position. Sources 1- http://www.tms.org... |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00006-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | Marvelous, thank you for accepting. Let's begin! First, I will begin with simple statistics. The skyscraper was built to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the plane, yet somehow, the building still collapsed. This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down. http://www.tms.org... Many people point to burning jet fuel as the source of the problem, however, this too is false. Jet fuel burns at about 600 C, but the melting point of steel (which the "skeleton" of the building was made of) is 1500 C. Jet fuel would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings. http://education.jlab.org... http://911research.wtc7.net... Considering the above, I think it is safe to say that there is no way that the planes alone could have caused the fall of the skyscrapers. I will expand on my arguments in the next round. On to Pro. |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00007-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | I will be con for the resolution "9/11 was an inside job. " Keep in mind that, as my opponent is making a positive claim whilst I am doing no such thing, the burden of proof is on him. Good luck! |
fbac7365-2019-04-18T15:32:18Z-00008-000 | Your choice out of some of my favorite topics | It has been too long since I have struck fear into the hearts of my enemies! Mwahaha! Please choose one of the following topics, in parentheses is my position on the topic, so you will be arguing opposite: Women in Combat (Con) US military vs. Russian military (Russian) 9/11 was an inside job (Pro) Russian T-90 vs. American Abrams (T-90) AK-47 vs. M16 (AK-47) Death Penalty (Con) In Round One, no arguments, just state which of the above you would like to debate. Also please confirm your position on the topic. No new arguments in the last round. So! Let's begin! Any questions can be answered in the comments. |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00000-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | Alright Kyubi, it's time to roast this Bear and Bird.Move Set:So... how does the duo return to the stage? I mean, aside from Jumping of course. And Jiggy as a taunt? Kyubi could do better than that. Besides, that's more suited for a victory animation more than a taunt.You say Kyubi's too fire based? And you're very bird based. And Kyubi also attacks with his tails, mainly used for his tilts and back air. Also, 40% of Pikachu's attacks are electric based. And he's in Smash!Popularity:I concede Banjo-Kazooie is very popular compared to Yo-kai Watch, and that's where we're coming from. Smash Bros is a wonderful game series for advertising a character by giving them a move set that could attract customers to this underrated game series.Stage:So we celebrate Christmas by playing Smash Bros in July? And this stage doesn't seem very playable competitively. Quite a bit of stuff going on on a mountain, which you'd have to mainly use air attacks with more precision than you'd see in For Glory videos.Springdale is more simplistic, with Terror Time as an added bonus. Alright, it's a city. So what? You'd expect the players to fight Gargaros while jumping on buildings? Onett is already a stage with buildings to jump on. My idea for Uptown Springdale as a stage is pretty good. There would also be buildings in the background, however. Now you should see what my image is a bit better. My opponent concedes that my stage is good. I think we've heard enough. Kyubi can go roast those animals while the voters decide whether the Bear and Bird is good for Smash Bros, or the Nine Tailed Fox. |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00001-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | *opponent is frozen, open to attack* This round is for arguments AGAINST the opponent's Smash character. 1. Moveset/Controllability: Kyubi's moves all seem to focus on something to do with fire. To me, character's need a strong focus, but also a little variety. All of your proposed Kyubi smash attacks are fiery blasts with very little variation. Kyubi's neutral B, the flame blast, is a ranged attack but again is just another fire-based move. The side B and Up B also deal with fire, the latter involving a little bit of wharping. This is really its only second unique power. I like the idea of the stun pulse for Down B, but too me, it seems just a bit OP and hard to escape from being stunned over and over again. The final smash seems pretty cool but does not bring anything really new to the table. I like the idea of summoning a Soultimate though. 2. Popularity: According to these wikia articles ([1],[2]) the majority of Super Smash Bros. games including the latest has larger sales in the U.S. than in Japan. Therefore, it would be more appealing for a more U.S. recognized character to be in the game rather than Kyubi. This is not to say that Banjo-Kazooie does not sell bad in Japan. Although there are many games and anime on Yo-kai Watch, it is not as popular as Banjo-Kazooie. Also, there is few voters and fans who want to see Kyubi in the game. If you search on Google "kyubi super smash bros.", most of the articles that pop up are about Kyuubi from Naruto [3]. Typing in "banjo kazooie super smash bros" will produce better results. 3. Stage Architecture/Design: Uptown Springdale is probably a good choice since it's one of the main location you go to in the game. However, the stage you propose could be a little better considering it's a bustling city. It is a flat road, and although sometimes simpler is better (my favorite course is Final Destination), there could be a bit more considering it's a city. 4. Stage Obstacles: Actually I like the obstacles my opponent proposes, it reminds me of the Mario Circuit track from Brawl. The idea of Oni Time is pretty, like how it brings up the first boss from the Terror Time. Unfortunately, the stage is not much else besides these obstacles. Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://vgsales.wikia.com.... 3. https://www.google.com... *shoots a grenade egg without mercy* |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00002-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | Forward Smash: Kyubi creates a fiery blast in from of him.Down Smash: Kyubi creates a blast in front and behind him.Up Smash: Kyubi slashes upward with both hands, with a fiery 2nd hit. Neutral B; Flame Blast: Kyubi launches a ball of flame straight forward, dealing 7% damage and launching the opponent a small amount. This fire ball moves at a decent speed, and it’s good for keepaway. However, only 1 Flame Blast can be on screen at a time, and disappears after 3 seconds, travelling quite far. [Kyubi has fire attacks in the games.] Side B; Blazing Dash: Kyubi engulfs himself in fire and flies forward at half the length of Final Destination (meaning this attack covers a decently big area) If used on the stage, Kyubi will cancel this move when at the edge of the stage. The attack does 14% damage, and takes 2 seconds to end. If used in the air, the move can’t be used again unless Kyubi gets hit or touches the stage.Up B; Flame Warp: Kyubi disappears into flames, reappearing a short distance (roughly 4 character lengths). The beginning of this attack does 3%, and minor launch power. The end of the warp does 2%, and even less launch power. [Yo-kai have been shown to be able to warp in the games.]Down B; Stun Pulse: Kyubi snaps his fingers, stunning opponents directly in front or behind him. The more damage the opponent has accumulated, the longer they’ll be stunned (at 100%, the opponent gets stunned for the max 8 seconds). If used multiple times in succession, the stun power halves until it’s 1/16 of the original length. After 30 seconds of using this move, it regains the full power. This attack also does 1% damage. [In the anime, Kyubi is shown to have the ability to manipulate a person’s mind.]Final Smash; Inferno: Kyubi charges up power to unleash his Soultimate Move, Inferno. This creates a giant fire blast, similar to Samus’s Final Smash. It does a total of 40%, and has amazing launch power. [In Yo-kai Watch, a Soultimate Move is a powerful attack that deals great damage to the enemy, though some can heal and some raise your stats.] Popularity:Yo-kai Watch doesn't seem to be going well in North America, but it's quite big in Japan. It has phone games (Wibble Wobble, my sister plays), there's an anime, movies, and currently 5 games in Japan (3 are generation 2, with Shingochi being a middle version). I'm hoping with the inclusion of Kyubi, Yo-kai Watch will gain some more fans.Stage Info:My chosen stage is Uptown Springdale (There's 5 different sections of Springdale you explore in the games). I picture it as a flat road which you could potentially fight near the blast zone (touching the blast zone results in losing a life). There will occasionally be cars coming in from the background, dealing 20% to anyone who gets hit,launching them pretty far. After a while, you'll go into Terror Time, where you would fight Gargaros, the Red Oni, when he shows up. He'll try to hit you with his club, which is a sure KO at 40%. Sources;Kyubi: http://yokaiwatch.wikia.com...Terror Time: http://yokaiwatch.wikia.com...; |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00003-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | *charges at opponent* 1. Move set: Banjo and Kazooie, though they are two characters, are basically one character. Unlike the Ice Climbers, they die together. A more similar character would be Peach (she uses Toad like Banjo uses Kazooie). Banjo-Kazooie is a 3D-Platformer, basically like Super Mario 64, and because of this the bird and bear have a wide range of moves they could be able to do. All of these are based on the 1998 original and 2000 sequel, Banjo-Tooie. To give you an idea of what the look like, here they are: http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Banjo is the bear, Kazooie is the bird. They are in Beak Bayonet Mode, the Special attack sideways. 1.Walk/Run: Banjo runs like normal 2.Sprint: Kazooie performs the Talon Trot, basically where she uses HER legs to make the group go faster. 3.Jump 1,2,3: 1)Banjo does a standard jump, 2) Kazooie does her flap flip to glide a bit, 3) Kazooie uses her wings to fly. 4. Basic attack: Banjo punches outwards 5.Special attack: Shoots a 3 blue eggs in that direction, very rarely will shoot grenade eggs or ice eggs. 6.Special attack sideways: Beak Bayonet, Banjo charges as opponent using Kazooie as a bayonet. 7.Special attack down: Golden feathers, it takes away a damage very slowly but leaves the player very vulnerable. 8.Smash attack down: Kazooie does the bill drill, basically like a bird jackhammer. 9.Smash attack sideways: Banjo does his pack whack, where he swings his backpack at opponents. 10.Smash attack up: Kazooie does the Rat-a-tap-rap, where she pecks at opponents. Every now and then she will let out a fire explosion (in dragon form), but very rare. 11.Taunts 1,2,3: 1) Banjo pulls out a Jiggy (a collectable from the game), and Kazooie eats. 2)Banjo plays his banjo and Kazooie plays her kazoo, 3)Kazooie pokes on Banjo's head, and he growls. 12.Grab attack sideways: Banjo claw swipes his opponent away. 13.Grab attack down: Banjo dust the ground Beak Buster, which is basically a ground pound. 14.Grab attack up: Banjo throws his opponent up and Kazooie shoots a blue egg at them. 15.FINAL SMASH: Jinjo Revenge: A bunch of Jinjos (characters in the game) fly through the air and hit people (kind of like Ness's or maybe Lucas's I forget), and in the end the Jinjonator attacks the player with least damage. This video right here is a great guide if you are confused, most of the moves I listed are in this video of Banjo Tooie from my one of my favorite YouTubers. 2.Popularity: Banjo-Kazooie and its sequel Banjo-Tooie were extremely popular in the late 90s and early 2000s. Rare was critically acclaimed for these games, and many fans looked forward to the sequel, Banjo-Threeie. However, when rare was sold to Microsoft, they remained dormant for years until Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, which received mixed reviews. However, many classic gamer fans would much appreciate the return of Banjo to Nintendo, and many wanted him to be in the new game for Wii U/3DS. However Nintendo ignored the votes and added other, less-vote garnering characters instead. Although not as popular as he was back in the 90s, many fans would love to see his return. In the sources are a Wikipedia page on the series for more information plus game articles about adding Banjo-Kazooie to Smash Bros. 3.Stage Design It makes sense to have design before obstacles, so here it is for Freezeezy Peak. This stage is based off of the snowy, Christmas-y world of Banjo-Kazooie. A stack of present which forms a hill lays to the right. In the center of the stage is a Christmas tree, very big, with a few holes around it. The tree has 3 levels of branches to crawl around in and a star at the top. To the left is a snowy slope. Every now and then the Walrus character will come out, and you can punch him for fun. Overall, not a very big stage, but still packed with cool things. Stage Obstacles: Atop the present stack is a Sir Slush, an enemy in the game who throws snowballs that damage players. You can disable this snowman by damaging his top hat, but he will reform after a minute. He attacks randomly. In the holes, Munchies will occasionally pop up and chomp at the player, but damaging them will send them back to the depths. Also coming out of the holes every now and then are Twinklies, and you can eat these for a health bonus. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...(series) https://www.gamespot.com... http://www.cinemablend.com... https://www.gamefaqs.com... The last source is especially good. *shoots an Ice egg at opponent* |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00004-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | My character will be Kyubi from Yo-kai Watch. The stage that comes with Kyubi could be Springdale, the main character's hometown. I've already got a good move set for Kyubi, now for me to think about how my stage plays out. |
7e6849be-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00005-000 | New Super Smash Bros. Character+Stage Contest!! | This debate is a Smash Game: My opponent and I will each choose a video game character or a video game duo (example: Ice Climbers) from any game, any console, so long as he/she/it is a video game character to be a new character in the Super Smash Bros. series of games. Also, to make it even more fun, you can choose a stage to go along with your character, but it has to be a location from the game/series from which they originate. Categories that will be judged are: 1. Moveset/Controllability 2. Popularity 3. Stage Obstacles 4. Stage Architecture/Design These are the only categories I can think of, and I'm sure there's more so feel free to add them in your first round. First Round is for acceptance, adding categories, naming your character, and your stage. Don't add anything but their name and the game/series the come from, and the console. Round 2 is for opening arguments in the categories only. Round 3 will have no new arguments, but only rebuttals to the other's character. My characters, and like the Ice Climbers are a duo, are Banjo and Kazooie from the Nintendo (N64/GBA)/Microsoft(XBOX 360/XBOX1) series of Banjo-Kazooie. My stage would be Freezeezy Peak, a world from within the first game of the series. 3...2...1...GO! *smash music* |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00000-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | (INTRODUCTION) Thank you for your argument. I appreciate that you did not forfeit, as that is quite common these days. (REBUTTALS) These feats of Captain America are impressive but I believe that a lot of these feats take place in multiple universes, there is even one where he is Iron Man. I believe that using different information from separate universes is a little unfair, as it means in one universe Captain America could be stronger than another. I tried to find a resource that proves Cap once lifted a tree, but I found none. It is very unlikely that he would use Mjolnir against Master Chief, probably because Thor owns it and not Cap. Yes, Captain America is quite good at multiple martial arts but he does not know all of them, Even if he is a better hand-to-hand combatant that does not mean he would win. As for the speed, I again found no resource supporting your claims. Yes, he may have knocked out Namor (Who is NOT stronger than the hulk) But Namor was out of water, and was not at his peak. Also, Colossus is only 500 pounds, below Captain America’s strength. Stalemating against Wolverine is not a surprise, as Wolverine is not as skilled as Captain America. I hope you get the point. “And Captain America does have more experience: Cap was a prominent comic character in the 1940's that eventually lost popularity. But like I previously mentioned, be made his official comeback in 1964. Modern day (2014) to 1964 is 50 years of experience, and that's not counting his WWII years.” FALSE! What you said about the publication history of Captain America is true, however time in Earth 616 and time in our world is different. “It is possible that 4 years of comics in our universe are the equivalent of 1 year in the Mainstream Marvel Universe, as it is revealed in 2013's Indestructible Hulk that the 2008's Skrull Secret Invasion happened one year ago in Earth-616. This would mean that from 1961 (the debut of Fantastic Four #1 and the beginning of the "Age of Heroes") to 2013, only 13 years have passed in the Earth-616.” {1} There you have it. Captain America is younger than Master Chief, who was and still is training and has been for 40 years straight unlike Cap, who only started military training after the age of 21.. And as stated before, alternate realities, at least in my opinion do not count. I hope everyone gets my point. (FINAL ARGUMENTS) I believe that Master Chiefs weapons which include various guns, grenades, laser swords, flame throwers and more plus Master Chief’s enhanced abilities are simply too much for the Winghead, and again, Cap has no particular defense to weapons. A quick list of Master Chief’s weapons is in order. -M6 Grindell Non-Linear Rifle: One of the most if not the most powerful guns in Halo. It is extremely damaging to infantry and Captain America would probably be considered infantry. {2} -M41 Rocket Launcher: While this beautiful piece of weaponry is primarily used to fight vehicles, if it can tear a 66 tonne Battle Tank into rubble, just imagine what it can do to one person.{3} -Overshield: A defensive weapon, yet still useful. “The Overshield technology is developed by the Covenant to enhance their Sangheili warriors' personal shielding system. The Overshield can be used by anyone utilizing a personal shielding system such as a SPARTAN in a MJOLNIR armor or Sangheili with a combat harness. “ {4} For more weapons used by Master Chief and his fellow soldiers please check this link: http://halo.wikia.com... Anyways, my point is that these extremely powerful weapons plus one extremely powerful guy = one dead Captain America. (CONCLUSION) I once more thank my opponent for an excellent debate. Please vote Con! DDD (RESOURCES) {1}http://marvel.wikia.com... {2}http://halo.wikia.com... {3}http://halo.wikia.com... {4}http://halo.wikia.com... |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00001-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | I will submit to Master Chief's feats, But Captain America has some equally impressive if not greater accomplishments under his belt: -Cap has defeated Super Soldiers like Master Chief without being injected with his own serum. -He easily beats a group of Asgardian Trolls. -He is one of the only people worthy to wield Mjolnir. -He is adept in every martial art (a way better hand-to-hand combatant than Master Chief.) -While Cap's average strength is 2,400 lbs., he has been shown to lift a tree, toss an anchor, and haul a supply truck. So is strength is more comparable to Chief's than you might think. -Steve has outrun birds that can sprint 50 mph, while trudging through snow. Again, 30 mph is his AVERAGE speed, but Cap will break the boundaries if need be. -He can throw his shield faster than a speeding bullet (literally). -Roger has caught a TORPEDO with his bare hands and deflected it upward with his shield! -He can dodge bullets and lasers even without his shield. -Knocked out Namor the Sub-mariner with a single punch (and Namor is stronger than the Hulk). -Pushed down Colossus (a guy with organic steel skin). -Incapacitated the Hulk. -Stalemated against Wolverine numerous times. -Has battled and defeated a majority of characters in the Marvel Universe. I think you get the point. And Captain America does have more experience: Cap was a prominent comic character in the 1940's that eventually lost popularity. But like I previously mentioned, be made his official comeback in 1964. Modern day (2014) to 1964 is 50 years of experience, and that's not counting his WWII years. Also, you mentioned Cap being killed by Sharon carter? Well, she actually used a high-tech gun that didn't kill him, but rather put him in alternate realities throughout time and space; reliving old memories and battles, giving him even MORE experience! Finally, Captain America has fought opponents like Master Chief. The Punisher and Winter Soldier are both violent war veterans that wield many guns and advanced technology, yet Captain America has beaten both of them. That's my argument for now, Thanks. Sources: www.comicbookmovie.com |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00002-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | (INTRODUCTION) I am so, very sorry that this has taken so long. School has been crushing the life out of me and I have found little time to debate. (REBUTTAL) “After receiving the super-soldier serum, Steve Rogers could run 30 mph,” Yes, but Master Chief could run half a kilometer in 30 SECONDS! Simple mathematics will tell you that in total that is around 60 Kilometers per hour, or for you americans out there that is 37.2823 miles in an hour. There goes that argument. {1} “lift 2,400 lbs” That is around 1 ton. Impressive, better than any human on the planet, however, Master Chief can “he could easily destroy Wraiths (Covenant Tanks)” {1} A Covenant Tank weighs around 47 tonnes (47,000 Kilograms) {2} So, essentially Master Chief can lift 47 times more than Captain America. Still seems like Star-Spangled Avenger has a chance? No? Ok, let’s continue. “and survive 200 foot drops onto cars unscathed” Master Chief survived a fall from space unscathed. Point: Master Chief. “At the end of the day, no one has Captain America's experience.” I would say that Master Chief has equal or even more experience. He was experiencing SPARTAN-II training at the age of 6, has fought and killed thousands of aliens and must have way more training then cap. Not including the period when he was frozen Captain America is only 36-38 years old from my own calculations {3} however Master Chief is around 46 {1} as of Halo 4. I believe that I have refuted all I need to. (ARGUMENTS) “His bones and muscles are denser and harder and so are amplified to the highest human potential, which makes him very durable compared to a normal human. He is durable enough to the point that if a person beats him with a thick wooden stick, the stick would eventually break and Rogers would show little discomfort. This level of durability is how he survived other forms of extensive punishment throughout his career such as falls from several stories like when he landed on a car from 6000cm/200 feet with no discomfort. Roger's durability is high enough to where he can take blows from beings with low superhuman strength, and not be fatally injured.”{3} This points out that Captain America is durable, however he has no unique resistance to weapons, like guns, blades and explosives. May I point out that Captain America has died? Two notable occasions include Captain America Vol 5 25 where he was killed by a sniper? And Uncanny Avengers Vol 1 17 where he is stabbed? While yes, Captain America has his shield to defend himself, but what if Master Chief knocks it out of his hands? Without the shield he is toast. Even if Cap were to use his shield offensively, he cannot win. Master Chief’s bubble shield can simply block the incoming shield, All that is left is a man with peak human conditioning vs. A man who has superhuman-level strength, futuristic weapons, armor that can let you survive falling from space, and his very own A.I. (CONCLUSION) I am done for now, thanks. DDD (REFERENCES) {1}http://www.comicvine.com... {2}http://halo.wikia.com... {3}http://marvel.wikia.com... |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00003-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | Okay, since I can't rebuttal yet, I'll start off with some of Cap's history. By the way, thanks for accepting my debate proposal. After receiving the super-soldier serum, Steve Rogers could run 30 mph, (although he has been known to up his speed to 50 mph) lift 2,400 lbs., (1,200 lbs. on each sidebar) and survive 200 foot drops onto cars unscathed (and without his shield). The serum also increased his brain capacity, making him a genius in tactics and strategy; his IQ rivals Tony Stark's. After fighting Nazi forces and super villains for several years, he was frozen in ice after a mission gone wrong. His official comeback was in 1964, and since then, he's battled HYDRA, AIM, gods, monsters, a Russian assassin designed to kill him, and even his fellow Avengers. At the end of the day, no one has Captain America's experience. I mean, why else would they make him the leader of a modern superhero team after he was displaced in time? Cap stands for truth, justice, liberty, and freedom! Sources: 1. marvel.com/universe/Captain_America 2. marvel.wikia.com/Captain_America 3. www.comicvine.com/captain-america 4. http://bit.ly... |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00004-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | Thanks, DDD |
d0cf22e6-2019-04-18T15:44:57Z-00005-000 | Captain America would beat master chief in a fight | Captain America: the Sentinel of Liberty; the First Avenger; the Star-Spangled Hero. He is the benchmark for all fictional soldiers. Master Chief may be an incredibly powerful super-soldier, but even he has to bow down to Steve Rogers. Cap is a physically perfect human being, a tactical genius, and a master combatant. These, along with many other traits, would make him the victor in this fight! |
61a0f5f5-2019-04-18T17:11:16Z-00001-000 | Creationism | Arguments Extanded |
61a0f5f5-2019-04-18T17:11:16Z-00002-000 | Creationism | Arguments Extanded. |
61a0f5f5-2019-04-18T17:11:16Z-00003-000 | Creationism | Arguments Extended. |
61a0f5f5-2019-04-18T17:11:16Z-00004-000 | Creationism | I shall accept this exciting debate.First is Rebuttals.Rebuttal 1:"a religious theory that was made up by Bronze Age myth writers/theologians that literally copied much older creation stories and formed their own."Con doesn't list any examples. Since we can conclude that Biblical Creationism includes all of Judaism, we will began there. Judaism is estimated to be around 3,700-3,900 years old. This is when Abraham first spoke of God.(1) Of course Moses saw the creation of most the laws and other aspects of Judaism, and virtually every prophecy in Judaism that led up to Christianity, around 3,300 years ago.(2)This makes Judaism that second oldest religion on Earth, behind Hinduism, which existed outside the known world at this time. Greek Mythology is known to be older than 800 B.C (2,800 years ago) because of Homer's writings, but it's not known how much older Greek Mythology is. With Judaism being as old as 1,900 B.C, it's save to assume that even if the Greek Mythology came (or came into creation) with the Dorian's, it'd be younger than Judaism because the Dorian's Invasion took place in 1,100 BC, around 200 years after Moses and 600-800 years after Abraham.(3) The Dorian's would have no influence at this time, nor would Greece, assuming the actual Mythology is that old. Even if the Dorian's had the full religion made up before the invasion, they weren't influential enough to affect a religion forming 3,600 kilometers away, (although the Dorian's aren't known to be as old as Abraham.)Con's argument isn't consistent with religions of the time. Abraham's religion bore little in comparison with other religions. First is that it's Monotheistic. Second is an origin story. Most religions in the known world shared a similar Creation Story, where the living and breathing Earth was a life force of some form, and was viewed in a mystical way. Judaism viewed the Earth as a rock crafted by a creator. There was nothing mystic about the planet, and it wasn't a living God of some form. Judaism was very unique from other religions, which is why Greeks saw the Jews as arrogant for denying the existence of other Gods, and the Roman's tolerated the Jew's unwarranted rioting because their Religion/culture was a unique piece of history unlike any other in the region.[1] http://www.religionfacts.com...[2] http://www.jewfaq.org...[3] http://www.britannica.com...Rebuttal 2:"Please prove to me Creationism is a scientific fact"Con must prove that, without a doubt, Creationism is false. Both sides have BOP since I must prove Creationism is possible, but Con has more BOP responsibility since she is instigating the accusation.I will provide an argument in my Arguments.Argument 1: ConsistencyWhile Judaism is unique from other religions, it does share text consistent with other hysterical texts of the time. These include a Great Flood. The Great Flood Myth is, in essence, the same across European/Middle Eastern/Far Asian mythologies.(4) The stories are similarly seen in American Mythologies, and some African Mythology, with heavy consistency.(5) Such consistency is reason enough to believe they could have likely been based on an actual World-wide flood. While not provable in nature, it gives some highly reasonable merit. Historical texts with such consistency are often considered indicators of truth to historians.[4] http://www.academia.edu...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...Argument 2: ProbabilityThe probability of Creationism is hard to determine. The probability of Evolution is near impossible, especially with Chromosomes.When a child is born with a different number of Chromosomes, called Chromosomal Abnormality,(6) it's plagued by physical and mental disorders. No menioned case has been found where the abnormality didn't negatively affect the child. Few animals share the same number Chromosomes, so for Evolution to have occurred, most species can't just change what Genes they have, but must also change number of Chromosomes. We see this between Humans, with 46 Chromosomes, and our "close neighbors/ancestors", Chimpanzee, Orangutans, and Gorillas, who each have 48 Chromosomes.(7) Such successfully evolution is near impossible, especially for the Red Viscacha Rat with 102 Chromosomes.In-between Evolution would be too. A Myriad of species kill members born with slight mutations or anything that appears to have birth defects, including Monkey/Gorilla species. Evolution would be halted, and Human's wouldn't have made it past the first one or two mutations, especially the mutations that removed chromosomes.In-between Evolution would be impossible because of the nature of a mutation. Before you got birds, you'd have creatures with awkward feathered arms with no real design. In fact most design would have required biological engineering. A bird could never have obtain a good pair of wings naturally. Nor could they have formed over time. The wings wouldn't be as systematic as they are by random chance. Random and Systematic do not exist together, which would apply to literally millions of species that formed since the beginning. A T-Rex bloodline would have died out long before, as the odds of a mutation staying beneficial or consistent throughout a million years and a hundred thousand births and tens of thousands of mutations, are near to nothing. Unless over 99.999% of all notable mutations are harmless, Evolution would near never be successful. Consistency is also an issue. A long line of mutations would have to be consistent and complete themselves over time. This is almost impossible since close to all mutations aren't hereditary, and the ones that are hereditary would diasppear in a few generaions, especially since the mutation variant would have to eventually mate with a pure-bred variant.Evolution from Bacteria is impossible. as most bacteria will become a small colony, but long before reaching the cell count of, say, a water bear (40,000 cells), the organism would starve to death much like the ever growing amoeba which starves death once it gets too big. A species couldn't make it passed glob stage, as anything baring enough cells to hold organs would die from starvation before ever reproducing. The evolution of a working digestive system, assuming it was possible without genetic engineering, would kill off any species operating with a work-in-progress set of intestines.All this creates a highly reasonable excuse to believe Creationism over the impossible probability of Evolution. With how systemically perfect everything is, from birds so happening to be such systemic feathers AND the bone structure needed to fly with them, while close to no other species on bares similar bones... It's reasonable to conclude that everything had to be created, not random generated.[6] http://www.marchofdimes.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...Argument 3: CreationismThe fine-tuning of the human species is beyond random chance. A species that can survive anywhere in the world, subtract Antarctic, with such impossible biological complexecity. No species would have evolved to became more complex than needed. The fine tuning in other species is almost equally beyond random chance. Most adaptations and mutations could only have worked if they had a co-existing mutation along side them. Lungs would required Bronchi and Trachea. The Trachea would have to have formed appropriately for the system to work, and the Lungs would have to immediately know the difference between air and other substances. The Trachea would have needed the open-close mechanism needed to keep water and food out.Blood is also questionable. Again, most mutations need co-existing mutations to work. Blood needs Veins, and Veins need Blood. Neither without the other. Adaptions like sucking lood as well. Before they could drink, they needed the anticoagulant saliva. Species with blood would have bled out long before coagulation became a common feature. Most adaptions formed through mutations to match a hostile situation would take generations to form and wouldn't have occurred quick enough to save the species. Another issue is gender. The creation of gender would have been impossible. Every species held one gender, and they had no reason to evolved seperate, and co-operating, sex organs of the needed complexicity that shocklingly operated together to form a fetus of any kind. For this, you'd need the following all AT ONCE:-Seperate co-operating Organs-Seperate co-operating sex cells-Seperare co-operating hormones-Complex fetus baring organs-Complex features of the fetus such as a working umbolical cord-A fetus that had immediately adapted to such a situationThe amount of co-operating variables and the odds of an immediately efficent operating reproducive organ that doesn't kill the child and keeps it alive and growing are close to zero. No possible mutation could have slowly added such co-existing features. The first fetus to be created in a vagina would have died immidately. The Fetus would have biologic adaptions to an egg, not a vagina.The amount of fine-tuning and systematically co-existing variables and adaptions in each species matched with the complexity of Earth would make the odds of it having happening without a creator far less than the odds of there being a creator. This also when considering how every known planet is simple in comparison to other space objects, and desolate, but our one planet can not only sustain life, but does it with such complexity of a massive intertwined ecosystem where a current in the ocean slowing down by a mph can cause an ice age in Europe and an earthquake Asia... (that being only an example.) We find the existence of a God to be as probable as, if not far more probable than, the random and impossible odds of existing without one. |
61a0f5f5-2019-04-18T17:11:16Z-00005-000 | Creationism | My argument is that Biblical Creationism is nothing more than a religious theory that was made up by Bronze Age myth writers/theologians that literally copied much older creation stories and formed their own. Please prove to me Creationism is a scientific fact and I'll give my reasons why it is nothing more than myths and legends and also non-scientific. Thank you. |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00007-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | Thanks, soda. So like I said, I'll argue against your points and then bring up my own.Sexual ObjectificationLet me start out by saying humans are sexual creatures. We are attracted to people of the opposite (or occasionally same) sex. A man looking at you in a sexual way, or a woman looking at a man in a sexual way (yes, women can think of men in a sexual way too) is a.) not a bad thing, and b.) not sexist, nor something we need to fight against.With all that being said, I noticed your points aren't really about men or women looking at each other simply in a sexual way, so thanks for that. However, you go on to say that by using attractive PEOPLE in ads, it promotes the dehumanization of women. So I have a couple things to say about this. First of all, there are many ads that use an attractive man (sometimes just in his underwear) to sell a product. Here is a pretty good example of that: Although there are more ads that contain scantily-clad women over men, it's silly to deny that there are also ads that "sexualize" men in order to sell their products. So this means, by your own logic, that all humans are just dehumanizing each other, as we use male and female bodies to sell products.I have a couple things to say about this: 1.) How does this affect you? I'm looking at the ad beside this text right now, and I think to myself "huh, I wonder if that Air Freshener is any good." What I don't think is "huh, this ad is over-sexualizing the male body and is dehumanizing this man by using his body as nothing more than an object and something to look at." And even if I did think that... it's not affecting me. It's obviously his choice to participate in this ad, and I'm sure he's quite happy with it - he's able to show off his body, get some attention, get some money, and become somewhat popular. The company hiring this guy isn't "dehumanizing" him by paying him money to model beside an air freshener to catch the eyes of women. They aren't saying "you're less than a human because you're attractive and use your attractiveness to get attention and sell products." Anyway, the same situation, but with a woman, doesn't affect you. It's her choice to look pretty to sell something. And if it does affect you, I'd like to know how.2.) The word "objectification" needs to go. An object is not something you have sex with. I wouldn't have sex with a lamp. I wouldn't have sex with a guitar. I wouldn't have sex with a chapstick (unless I was drunk). By saying you're "objectifying" them is actually discouraging people from joining fields like modeling, acting, etc. And the first objective of feminism was to empower women and let them know they can do whatever they want with their lives? As long as it isn't "looking attractive," you can do what you want. On top of that, this isn't going to change how I view women. People won't see a Carl's Jr. ad(amazing burgers by the way), and think "wow, those hot women are holding Burgers! I value women as less than men now! I now only see women as something to have sex with!" ...This wouldn't (and doesn't) happen.My other point is regarding nipples. Check out the graph below. Areas in green represent places that completely allow women to go topless. Orange is relaxed laws, and it's illegal for women to be topless in red areas [1]. So, this shows that in 100% of Canada, and more than 90% of America, it is not illegal for women to be topless. Although there is that small 10% in America, there is a pretty good argument behind the reason female breasts are frowned upon being shown in public: sexual stimulation. Studies have shown that the female nipple lights up and reacts with the same area of the brain as the clitoris does [2]. So this means that the female breasts are technically a sexual organ. So we have two options; treat the breasts the same as any other sexual organ and cover them up, or fight to uncover the clitoris as well, as it shares a common function with the nipples. If you believe the nipples should be free, so should the clit.So let's sum this up real quick. Men and women are both sexualized in TV, as humans are sexual creatures. It's up to the person offering their body to make a decision regarding how they make their money, it's not up to you. "Objectification" just doesn't work, as nobody (not many people, anyway) wants to have sex with an object. And the female nipples are equivalent to the clitoris, so covering them up isn't "unfair," but it is "sexualizing," as they are sexual organs. ...Which isn't a bad thing. Where I live, I've seen maybe two topless women at public beaches in my whole life.Slut ShamingThis is another situation that actually also affects men. Men are called players (and other terms I can't use here) for sleeping with many women. It's generally frowned upon for anyone to sleep with a lot of different people. With that being said, I agree that people should be able to sleep with as many people as they want, however feminism isn't going to do anything about mean people. There will always be a name that people will come up with for someone that they disagree with. If I call Mike a "dick," am I suggesting penises are bad? If someone calls you a slut for sleeping with a lot of people, you ignore them, as they're a mean person and will find something else to call you anyway, and go on with your day. Feminism isn't going to magically stop all the mean people from existing. If they don't chastise one of your behaviors, they'll chastise another."A man's virginity is seen as nothing, a woman's virginity has extreme importance to her." And you find a way to twist this into "women are oppressed"? It's scientifically proven that (I don't want to get into detail) if not stimulated correctly, it does hurt the first time a girl has sex [3]. To ensure they have a good time and aren't hurt (physically or emotionally), it's recommended that girls take pride in the person they lose it to. It's not only more emotionally meaningful to women than men [4], it's more uncomfortable/painful.So, to sum this bit up, we see that men and women are both "slut shamed," by being called mean words for having sex. We also see that these are just words, and to take offence to these words is silly. Society as a whole doesn't believe it's bad to have sex with many people, and the media sure doesn't promote against it. It's just a few people that are mean to begin with who will call you out on anything anyway.Double StandardsI'm actually not quite sure where you get this idea that people think women who are in positions of power are looked at as pushy or bitchy. Almost every TV show or movie or book I read, a woman who is in power pretty much kicks the hell out of all the guys. Hell, most women in most media are portrayed as better than men. What I mean by this, especially in action movies, sure there are more men than women, however the women jump in, guns blazing, showing up the men, saying some cheesy "let the girls play now" line to make the men look weak, etc. Bosses being called bitchy or annoying or anything happens to both men and women. There just isn't a gender-exclusive word for men. With that being said, there are plenty of negative gender-exclusive words for men. And again, I have to reiterate my point that women in the media, whether in positions of authority or not, are often looked at as badass and able to show up the men. In fact, it's often men who are portrayed as clumsy, stupid, weak, etc.To quickly add one more thing to this, that whole "ban bossy" campaign that was going around a while ago was absolute rubbish. If being called a mean word deters you from entering a career path you want, maybe you weren't really fit out for that career to begin with. Someone who gives up after being called a bad word (happens to everybody) probably wouldn't have been that beneficial anyway. Alright, I don't want to take up too much space, so I'm jumping in to why I think feminism is a bad thing. I'm going to skip the fact that the wage gap is a myth and show that feminism spreads lies and is dangerous to women.Victim BlamingThis whole idea of "slut shaming" and "victim blaming" suggests that women should wear what they want, do what they want, and act how they want, and in the end not expect any negative repercussions. Now I agree that it would be fabulous to live in a crime-free world, but that is unrealistic and currently is not the case, so it is smart and safe for men and women to take precautions while walking around alone, or in general. To suggest that women should be able to do what they want and not suffer consequences is asking for special treatment, as well as superiority. There aren't "theft walks" with people saying we should be able to wear what we want and not fear getting mugged. Same goes for other forms of crimes (that surprisingly primarily effect men). Feminists are only asking for *more* rights when it benefits women. This is not a positive/equal thing.Feminism Spreads LiesLike I said earlier with the wage gap, there are "statistics" that feminists present as fact, that aren't actually fact. Primarily the "1 in 5 women are raped" nonsense. Not only are almost all of these "statistics" taken from surveys [5], and not factually based with evidence at all, they scare the hell out of girls. Apparently 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted. This puts fear into young girls and women in order to "show how oppressed they are." Although I agree there is a problem in developing countries, this doesn't reflect North America at all.Anyway, no more space, so thanks.Sources[1] http://gotopless.org...[2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu...[4] http://www.womenshealthmag.com...[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00008-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | I think my biggest points for this argument will be the sexual objectification of women and their bodies women's bodies are treated as a commodity here in the west many ads show women in scantily clad clothing often in suggestive poses. I do believe this is necessary and acceptable in some cases such as lingerie for example but in many cases not such as music videos clothing ads and of course the famous Carl's Jr burger commercial. Sexual objectification dehumanizes women in both men and women's eyes a woman becomes just an object and not a person so a man feels free to treat her as one for an example of this i go to to women's nipples we have all seen that women have to cover their nipples on TV or in photographs whereas men do not have too and for what? there the same nipples there's no difference the only difference is a woman's breasts have become sexualized while a man's chest has not this is unfair and a product of sexual objectification. Women also have to deal with slut shaming while it is acceptable for a man to go out and sleep around a woman is expected to remain chaste if a woman does sleep around or work in the sex industry such as porn or prostitution she is deemed a slut,whore,skank so on and so forth as if somehow their sexual choices are a bad thing a lot of this comes from religious teachings but it has now become ingrained into our cultural norms. Even the concept of virginity was used to co modify women whereas a man virginity is seen as nothing a woman has extreme importance to her and even just the wording "lost her virginity" is used to shame her when you have sex you don't lose anything all you do is have sex but somehow for women they lose their "innocence". Now for my point this is still alive and well here in the west while attitudes towards women sexuality and sexual freedom are becoming more relaxed men are having a hard time giving up their old attitudes there is still a double standard when it comes to men and women and a lot of it comes from either religious teachings or cultural norms. There is also a prevailing belief here in the west that woman who are in positions of power are somehow intimidating pushy bitchy or bossy and of course there are women who are bad leaders but much of this is the fact that they are women. So in conclusion i do believe feminism is needed here in the west because while attitudes are shifting they are not where they could be and without feminism they could easily go back to the old ways. |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00009-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | Dietorangesoda and I have talked before about the necessity of feminism in the west, and have happily agreed to have a debate about it! So here we are now.For the sake of this debate, we have agreed that we will only refer to feminism in America and Canada. I'm more than happy to agree that feminism (or a form of women's/human rights movements) are needed in many parts of the world, especially developing countries. But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity of feminism in USA and Canada.I don't believe feminism is necessary anymore, as women are treated equally (arguably better than men in many cases), and there is no systematic sexism/discrimination against them. Obviously Dietorangesoda disagrees with this.Let me point out that the definition of feminism has little to no impact on this debate, as it's the actions and reasons behind those actions that represent a movement/community.So without further ado, let's get on with this. I'll allow Dietorangesoda to present her opening arguments, I'll argue against them in R2 and bring up my own arguments, and we'll continue this all the way to the end.Thanks, Dietorangesoda, for accepting this in advance and hopefully we'll have a great debate! :) |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00000-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | I'm afraid i can't argue all your points in this round as i'm in a hurry now to finish this poll due to lack of time but i will try to argue as much as i can. Firstly you say that women and men are treated equally when it comes to sports this is not completely true boys are still far more encouraged to go into sports then girls and girls are often seen as butch if they enjoy sports too much. Next gender roles are an actual thing and how society demands you to act you will often conform this is just psychology not even to do with feminism and while there are biological differences these wouldn't go away men and women would still be different just the gender roles would. Next all movements have radicals no matter who you join i am a huge advocate for the LGBT movement but i can admit we have radicals that go too far and feminism is no exception and also about egalitarian thing it's not up to me to change the movements name so i can't really decide that but perhaps in the future thats what it will be called And for my conclusion i'm going to keep it brief because i believe i have made all my points for feminism i do still believe it's necessary and while it's not perfect and i admit that women will probably always need it i do however think the feminist movement should shift their focus onto other problems then some of the ridiculous ones that they do like the shirt guy such as women's rights in 3rd world countries the Muslim sexual assaults in Europe and a variety of men's issues. But i will not abandon it simply because some radicals got into it instead i think we should fix it and bring it back to what it was before i really could on with more points but i think i'll let the other rounds speak for themselves thank you for debating me and good luck. |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00001-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | Well it's unfortunate that this debate is coming to an end, but I had fun. Finally a decent debate with a feminist. So thanks :)But let's get back to business.Gender RolesI hate this term, and I hate how people want it abolished even more. Men and women are biologically different, and tend to do things that most of their gender tend to do. Nobody is "forcing" men or women to do something that most men or women, respectively, do. The reason we slightly encourage it is because that's what makes everybody happy. Almost every single woman I know would rather stay home and raise her child than continue working and stay away from her child, while it's the exact opposite with almost every man I know. Now I know this is anecdotal, so here's a graph from a feminist blog [1] that tries to spin this into something else, but the numbers don't lie. Women would rather stay at home or work part time even if money weren't an issue, whereas men would rather work full time. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. It just shows that women PREFER one thing, while men PREFER another. I understand that this is a little bit off-topic, but it's still a non-issue that feminists like to bring up and claim they're being mistreated, while it's simply women's choices to do something over men. Feminism is attempting to stop women from doing something they want to do, because they're terrified of the term "gender role." Nobody can do what the majority of their gender does because... well, no good reason. Alright, back to sports. You don't want to stop pushing boys to be athletic. That's great, neither do I. I'd like to take this a step further and say that boys and girls are equally represented in physical education classes, and neither one is currently being pushed harder than another. Although men tend to be biologically more athletic than women, this isn't even looked at anymore. So if anything, there are no gender roles when it comes to school and physical education. In addition, I see that you accept the fact that boys are picked on when they aren't athletic enough. So I have a solution. Instead of throwing feminism at it, and expecting every single person on Earth to "find the error in their ways," how about as well as teaching people to be nice (something that doesn't require feminism), we ensure boys (and girls) are athletic enough to either a) not be picked on, or b) stand up for themselves if they are. To say "with feminism, everyone is happy" is unfortunately an incredibly unrealistic and impossible-to-achieve goal. Again, one more reason I believe feminism to be detrimental. Much like my argument about the slutwalk being detrimental to the safety of women by taking all responsibility off women, feminism (as you'd like to see it) is detrimental to boys, by taking all responsibility off them to stay in shape and be able to defend themselves. Feminists assume that by saying "hey, read about feminism," all bad people in the world will magically disappear. This is unfortunately not true, and should not be taught."Not All Feminists"Have you heard of the hashtag #NotAllMen? The hashtag is feminists' way of making fun of men who simply point out that not every man acts the way some women and feminists believe they do, which is a valid point. But feminists have decided to chastise men for simply pointing out that the woman/feminist is wrong when she makes a generalization about men. And now you're doing the same. Let me take an excerpt from a feminist article saying how ridiculous saying "not all men" is, and replace that phrase with "not all feminists." [2]It's defensive bullsh*t that doesn't really do anything but prove the bearer of Not All Feminists is more concerned with saving face for themselves than, you know, actually acknowledging the concern that another person is expressing.I understand that not every feminist hates men, or not every feminist doesn't understand the statistics of average earnings or sexual assaults or typical education by gender etc. I understand that not all feminists are the same, and not all are bad. However... the face of feminism is what is most commonly seen. So when your (possibly your) good friend Julie Bindel, who is pretty popular in the feminist community, with 13,000 followers on Twitter [4], claims men should be put in concentration camps [3], it says something. And it doesn't matter that not all feminists agree with her, what matters is there are a large number of feminists (and normal people) do agree with her, and non-feminists take note of that. You can say "not all feminists," and I'd happily agree with you, but keep in mind, when men did the same thing, about their gender even, not even their ideology, they were ridiculed and chastised by the very people you share an ideology with for doing so."All those women are radicals" It's very easy to just say "see all those examples you provided of feminists doing detrimental things to the whole of society? Yeah they don't count." Unfortunately though, we are talking about the necessity of feminism, and when those women are a huge part of feminism, I can't do anything but bring them up to explain how unnecessary feminism is, or at the very least, how poorly tens of thousands of feminists represent the movement.With all that being said, why is it so hard to not call yourself an egalitarian? When you agree with me that there are a lot of feminists who are just bad people, for lack of better words, wouldn't it make more sense to associate yourself with a group that is not known for having radicals, and is known for helping women and men equally? Just a thought."There will always be men who rape." This is true. And you, one feminist, disagreeing with practically the foundation of the entire current feminist movement (the slut walk), unfortunately has very little impact on the entire feminist movement and the necessity of it.Feminists only help womenI'm glad you can see that there aren't any feminist groups that try to help men. So this contradicts what you said earlier to a degree, although you did say helped and not helping, so that's fair enough. However I have a big problem with your next statement. "...the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for." The examples I gave are as follows, word for word: "Men are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, robbed, homeless, commit suicide, get injured at work, and many more." If you think rape is an issue that needs addressing, and getting killed isn't, then you fall into the category of why feminism is detrimental to society. Because you're doing two things. You're a) saying a problem that primarily affects women is more important to address than an issue that affects both men and women, and b) you're saying rape is the most serious type of crime. Now I'm not doubting the severity of rape, but my main point is that you (and almost every other feminist) claims they're for equality, yet only protests against the issue that primarily affects women. Not the issues that equally affect both men and women.But like you said, feminism is feminism for a reason, and does only combat issues that primarily affect women. However like I've said before, feminism and feminists are doing this in the wrong way.Female PrivilegeSo because this is my last round, I'd like to bring up female privilege. I'm not doing this because I want to show that women have it better than men, I'd like to simply show that there is no need for feminism, as women aren't treated worse than men, aren't oppressed, aren't held back, etc. I don't have a hell of a lot of room left, so I'll bring up some major points and provide links and pictures so support the ones I haven't covered.From an early age, men will be told to never hit a woman, yet if a woman were to hit a man, she would not receive even close to the social penalties that a man would if he were to hit her.Women are not required by law to join the military draft if the country were to go to war.Women will receive more help when they are in need, or even when they are not, than men.If a disaster were to strike, women would be among the first to be saved, giving the impression that a woman's life is more valuable than a man's.The social pressure is on a man to pay for the majority of things a couple does together.Any accusation a woman makes on a man will be taken seriously right off the bat and will, at the very least, be investigated.The qualifications for women to join the military is less than that of men - something arguably detrimental to women's safety.If a woman doesn't get a job, it's not because she isn't good enough, it's because of sexism.If a man doesn't get a job, it's because he isn't good enough.A woman will most likely not be charged with or accused of sexual harassment if she were to act inappropriately toward a man, whereas a man could easily lose his job and reputation if he were simply accused of doing the same toward a woman.Here's a few more - [5], [6] And you're trying to say that feminism, a movement suggesting that women aren't treated as well as men, and is trying to "grant women equality," is necessary? I'm sorry, but looking at the above lists, and taking into account the lack of evidence supporting any feminist claims, it's pretty hard to say women aren't treated equally to men. It's pretty hard to say a movement is needed to provide equal treatment for women. It's pretty hard to say women are at a disadvantage. It's pretty hard to say feminism is necessary.Thanks!Sources[1] http://sites.psu.edu...[2] http://jezebel.com...[3] http://www.infowars.com...[4] https://twitter.com...[5] https://mensresistance.wordpress.com...[6] http://www.feministcritics.org... |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00002-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | While your argument about masculinity has some valid points i believe you are too stuck in gender roles for instance the athleticism pressure on boys yes it great when a boy is athletic and pursues this and i don't want to stop it however the problem lies within our culture of taking sports and physical ability to seriously. If a boy is scrawny or small he is often bullied by other boys for being weak and not being able to play sports and even worse is when a boy is athletic and muscular but isn't interested in sports not only is sometimes bullied by peers but even ridiculed by coaches and adults for not wanting to join out for a team. With feminism boys don't have that kind pf pressure if a boy wants to join a sport then great but if he doesn't that's fine too I am indeed aware of that whole shirt incident and i too thought it was ridiculous but like every other group your going to get some radicals in your mix and the feminists that were upset about it were more misandrists then anything none of the feminists i know cared about it and same goes for your links and Facebook petition all those women are radicals because women do have to minimize risk sadly they are caught up on a perfect world where men never rape and while i agree that boys should be taught to respect women and that they should stop if a girl says no there will always be men who rape. I'm going to keep this brief i am not aware of any feminists groups that go around trying to end any types of men's problems because as i've stated earlier the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for. However the things i listed have been looked and fought for by feminism so i would say feminists are helping men even if they don't go our and scream about it i mean where would we go protest anyway? I am aware that men have problems and are not perfect however feminism much like the BLM movement LGBT movement and others are about the minority and the downtrodden and for centuries men have been in power and not kept down. However this doesn't mean feminism is about man hate it just means of course were going to focus on women's issues primarily so men can't get angry about this if they want a movement for their own join the meninist movement or create a new one. |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00003-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | Thanks, Diet.Victim Blaming"I don't know a feminist or even just a woman out there that doesn't agree that women need to minimize risk of sexual assault..."Here's 8,000+ [1] in Toronto alone. What the 'Slut Walk' teaches women is that they should not have to take precautions to avoid harmful situations, and instead rely on all men on Earth collectively deciding to stop doing bad things to women. The feminists who promote the Slut Walk have sort of good intentions, but portray it in a harmful way, and the primary victims of the messages feminists present are other women. It's a nice idea - not living in a world where we have to be careful of other people - but that is far from reality, and if it ever becomes a reality, it won't be any time in the near future. Bad people will always exist.The average time spent in prison for men who commit rape is 65 months, whereas the average time spent in prison for men who commit murder is 71 months [2]. This shows that rape is taken extremely seriously, and results in prison sentences that are on average just 6 months shorter than that when you kill somebody. The feminists that take part in the slut walk seem to think rape is trivialized and not taken seriously. Well, if you spend almost the same amount of time in prison as someone who has ended the life of someone else, which is arguably the worst type of crime, then yes, it's taken very damn seriously. But wait - rapists actually spend more time in prison than people who have committed manslaughter [3]. So they actually spend more time in prison than someone who has killed somebody. To say, after seeing these facts, that rape is not taken seriously, is ridiculous.But back to minimalizing risks of sexual assault. Here is a page that has over 11,000 shares on Facebook, which talks about how dumb it is to take precautions to avoid dangerous situations [4]. This article practically demonizes people who suggest reasonable, logical ways for women to avoid being raped. And keep in mind, it has over 11,000 shares on Facebook, meaning there are 11,000+ people who believe women shouldn't have to take precautions to avoid danger, and instead should shift all the focus on "teaching men not to rape." Here [5] is a feminist/woman telling men not to rape women in 50 different ways. At the beginning of her enlightening post, she says she would send this around as an email, and that safety experts should teach this, instead of teaching women to be safe and take care of themselves. And the replies are all other feminists/women agreeing that this should be passed around as an email. Because we all know simply saying "don't do this" will stop someone from doing it.My point is that taking all responsibility off women, and assuming that simply by "telling men not to rape," we will end rape, is ridiculous, and detrimental to the safety of women. The majority of feminists are on board with this idea. And like I said before, it's not so much the words of the group, but how they present themselves.I believe my point about the length of rape sentences should nullify your point that rape cases aren't taken seriously. The unfortunate part about rape is that it's incredibly hard to prove. And unfortunately again, we can't change the law to be "guilty until proven innocent," as that's just illogical and can/will lead to an incredible amount of innocent people in jail/prison.It is a fact that some people (not just women) will regret sleeping with someone, so they claim they were raped. It's just in human nature to try and avoid making yourself look bad. I'm not saying there are a lot of false rape cases, but it does happen, and to ignore this is ridiculous. And the women actually aren't "demeaned" for their style of clothing if they claim they were raped or sexually assaulted - what really happens is common criminal practice. When someone claims to be a victim of something, the police or people around ask questions to see if it could have been prevented.I was mugged when I was in grade 10, and the very first thing the police asked was "what were you wearing"? Do I claim they are blaming me? Do I say this is misandry? No, I tell them what I was wearing so they can get more information, and so they can give me advice on how to avoid bad situations. Making it a bad thing when women are given ways to avoid dangerous situations is dangerous to women - something feminists want to avoid. Fancy that.Finally, whether or not believing in the wage gap was an "honest mistake," it is still untrue, and it still spread like wildfire in the feminist community. I'm still told a reason feminism is needed is because men are paid 23 cents more than women for the same job. If it isn't a lie, it's wrong, and spreading incorrect ideas is obviously detrimental. Feminists still cling to the idea that the wage gap is true. It's good that you believe it's false, but a lot of feminists believe it's true, and go out of their way (equal pay day) to fight for equal pay, even though they already have it.MenI'm starting to think you aren't reading what I'm saying. I already addressed this point, and you already said it. So refer to my "masculinity" paragraph in the previous round. However I see you brought up a new point. "...Young boys ... Don't have such pressure on them to play sports and be athletic." So you honestly think not trying to keep (people in general) athletic and fit is a good thing? You, a feminist, are claiming that it's good that boys aren't pressured to stay athletic. This is another reason feminism is detrimental. It's too focused on "absolute equality and treatment" to care for the health and well-being of the very people it is trying to help. Being athletic isn't a "gender role," it's common sense and good for your health. If feminists were so concerned about men's "depression, drug or alcohol abuse, extreme anger, and PTSD," they would be finding ways to combat this. It is now acceptable for men to show their emotions, and I honestly can't remember a time in my life where someone made fun of me for crying or being upset about something. So even if feminism helped at a time with this, much like women's right to vote, work, etc. feminism is no longer necessary to help with this "problem." And if it was, the feminists saying "I bathe in male tears" sure as hell doesn't help. The picture to the right received 650+ likes, and 160+ retweets [6]. So there are hundreds of women that enjoy another woman who wears a shirt basically making fun of men who cry. And if you've been around the internet at all, you'd see there are also mugs that have this saying that self-proclaimed feminists drink out of.Oh, and here's another example of the incredible double-standard that feminists have. Feminists claim not to judge someone by how they dress. Yet they went absolute apesh*t on this guy for how he dressed [7]. This guy landed a friggin satellite on an asteroid, and feminists/women are too concerned about his shirt to care that he's made a major leap in the scientific industry. And you still think feminism is beneficial? It's literally halting scientific exploration because they're judging the way someone is dressed... something they claim to be against.Anyway, good point about the kid not growing up gay, I didn't mean he would just "turn gay," I meant he would be confused, as most boys don't play with dolls etc. But that's fair. However, he will still be picked on because he is playing with "girly" toys, and dressing "girly." What's more important, political correctness, or the well-being of your son? My four year old (assuming I had one) wouldn't care if he couldn't play with dolls or not, but what he would care about is being picked on and bullied for playing with something I'm inviting him to play with. I'd rather my son is happy and does the same thing as other boys, than unhappy.I also see you didn't argue against the "1 in 3" thing I brought up.Etc.Ignoring the "combating gender roles" thing, what exactly has feminism done to help men's rape and sexual assault? Can you provide a link to a feminist page or a page showing what feminism has actually done to help male victims of rape, or to stop rape against men? "Attitudes shifting" and actual precautions or measures being put on place to stop these things from happening or helping victims are completely different things. It's great that good men and women now view rape seriously. But there's still an issue with the bad men and women. How exactly is feminism going to stop people from being bad? Like I said before (and if I haven't, I'll say it now), feminism has done a lot of good in the past. My point is that feminism is no longer needed. Bad stuff happening can be combated by the law and good, decent people, not by a group of women bleeding all over themselves [8]. But all joking aside, feminists are fighting for women's rights, not for men to be safer on the streets and prisons and wherever else. Like I asked before, if you could provide something that shows feminism is currently (or is needed in order to) helping men (in more ways than making it normal for boys to play with dolls), I'll happily argue against those.Most people understand feminism has a negative connotation, so why not go the route of egalitarianism?This site doesn't recognize "misandry" to be a word. This is sexism against men.Sources[1] https://twitter.com... [2] http://www.bjs.gov... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://thinkprogress.org... [5] http://www.girl-mom.com... [6] https://twitter.com... [7] http://www.cnn.com... [8] http://modernwomandigest.com... |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00004-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | I will address victim blaming and feminism spreads lies first i don't know a feminist or even just a woman out there that doesn't agree that women need to minimize risk of sexual assault however it isn't the prevention that most feminists are upset about what we are the most loud about is that when women are victims of sexual assault how she is treated and handled. Take the college rapes for example in many cases these boys are given little to no punishment at all often not even a suspension while the girl is either slut shamed demeaned for her style of clothing or behavior and in many cases she isn't even believed some girls have to practically scream at the top of their lungs and do outrageous things just to get the college to take them seriously. Another one that i am glad to say is lessening is the the victim blaming you are probably speaking of when a woman is raped or assaulted especially if she was a sex worker a "slut" or was behaving or dressing in a more provocative manner. She is often dismissed as if her assault didn't matter particularly with sex workers whose lifestyle choice often makes people see them as somehow less. As for the feminism spreads lies i don't know of any besides the pay wage gap and i think that was an honest mistake which is why most people except the radical feminists aren't still perpetuating it. As for men they have indeed been helped by feminism today young boys are able to much more freely play with toys considered more feminine dress in a more feminine manner and don't have such pressure on them to play sports and be athletic. Which doesn't mean we will have a gender neutral society it just means gender roles won't be so set in stone another thing would be men expressing emotion for many years a man was taught he shouldn't cry and he shouldn't be upset in front of people even though sadness and crying are human traits that shouldn't be squelched it has caused men many problems including depression,drug or alcohol abuse,extreme anger,and even in some cases PTSD and other psychological trauma. I refute your claims that playing with dolls and such confuses children about their sexuality because sexuality in inborn into you and if a child turns out gay then it is because they were born gay not because they had a doll growing up. Now as for feminists helping men there have been many causes the feminism movement has picked up for men including the LGBT movement men's rape and sexual assault combating gender roles freely expressing male emotion and so and so forth prison rape isn't nearly as common as people think in fact much of the homosexual sex that goes on in prisons is consensual and often times men's rape and sexual assault is not taken seriously usually by other men if the man is raped by another male he is seen as weak for not being able to fight the male off and if he is raped by a woman he must have enjoyed it right? because a man could never not want sex from a woman. This is further exploited by the myth that if you become aroused during a rape you must have enjoyed it when in fact arousal and even orgasm happens more often during rapes then people once thought however is usually not reported out a victims shame. The feminist movement has helped to educate and highlight these facts and we are seeing attitudes shift now women's sexual assault is being taken more serious then ever and men's are even being legitimate none of this would have happened without feminism. |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00005-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | Thanks, Orange.I'm glad we can agree that "objectification" isn't the best word to describe this, but I can understand that it's hard to find a word. My solution would be to not put negative labels on natural human behavior. I'm attracted to women, like most men, and that doesn't mean I think of them as nothing more than something to have sex with. And even then, even if my sole purpose of getting to know a girl was to have sex with her, it still doesn't mean I'm treating her as less than human. There's this strange stigma going around recently, thanks to feminism, that it's bad to hook up with people. All thanks to the word objectification. By hanging out with someone simply to have sex, even if consensual, you are "objectifying" each other, which is a horrible thing, except both the people participating are just unaware of it.Alright, let's get to business.Over-sexualization of peopleNobody is made to do anything in the media. A position opens up, and someone says they would like to do that. If a woman doesn't want to wear a bikini next to a burger, she doesn't have to. If a man doesn't want to stand shirtless next to an air freshener, he doesn't have to. Nobody is forcing people to do this. If they want a career in modeling or acting, they can apply to companies that they feel suits them. The choice that other people make on what to do with their own body isn't up to you to decide if it's right or wrong. This is one of the reasons I consider feminism to be a bad thing. More often than not, feminists claim to be for equal rights, opportunities, etc, but when someone does something they don't like, even if it doesn't affect them one bit, they try to put a stop to it. What you're doing, saying how horrible it is for a woman to look attractive next to a burger, is the exact opposite of what the original feminism's goals were. You're (in a sense) telling women what they should and should not do, because you do or don't like it. The women in these commercials have every opportunity not to call in and audition for the part, and they have every opportunity to leave if they feel uncomfortable. There isn't a problem here.I can't argue against every point your article brings up, but the main theme I noticed was basically "the less clothing a person wears, the more sexually they are looked at." Now, this isn't a bad thing, nor is it breaking news. If a woman sees a naked man, she will (more often than not) look at him in a sexual way. If she sees a man in a suit, or shirt and jeans, she will (more often than not) look at him in a non-sexual way. Same applies for men. Watching movies or ads or music videos with naked men and women isn't going to change anyone's perspective of men and women. The sexual crime rate has decreased [2], so obviously men are viewing women in a more respectable way, and more is being done to ensure women are safe. Ads that show women in bikinis aren't going to raise the sexual assault rate, nor will it change anyone's perspective of women. I can speak from personal experience... I'm a man. I see ads with attractive, scantily-clad women all the time. I don't view women as "objects" or give their ideas no value or significance. To think that men will all of a sudden not care about women, or think of them solely as "sexual beings" because they saw a semi-clothed woman in an ad is ridiculous. I also have one huge criticism of this article. The title alone is making women out to be victims, and men out to be aggressors. The title alone (as well as the rest of the article) portrays men as sex-crazed animals, and women as victims. If this is feminism, then feminism is horrible. Not only do women look at men in a more sexual way the less clothes they have on, they tend to (as well as men) buy products on impulse if an attractive model is used in the ad [1]. So what exactly is feminism trying to do, other than make women look like weak victims of horrible big bad sex-craved men? Well, stop people from doing what they want with their own lives.Slut ShamingI agree that someone who has a lot of sex should be looked at no different than someone who doesn't have a lot of sex, other than the chance of STI's etc. However, this isn't a feminism issue. This isn't even a human right's issue. This is a "people will be jerks" issue. I've been ridiculed for having many sexual partners, asked how many diseases I have, how my AIDS is, how much I pay in child support, if I'm happy not having any worth and looked at as a sex object (lol), and the list goes on. Considering a hell of a lot of this is strictly anecdotal, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say "this happens to women way more than men." Although the term "slut," "whore," etc. is thrown around, this doesn't mean the male equivalent isn't happening just as much. In fact, with the SlutWalk and other events to stop female "shaming," this goes to show that bad stuff happening to women is taken more seriously than bad stuff happening to men. There isn't a "player walk" or organizations trying to put a halt on the word "gigolo" or "manwhore" or "player" etc. More often than not, women are the primary ones who receive support for negative stuff that happens to both men and women. Same goes for abuse. There are a thousand women's shelters for every man's. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm saying feminists need to realize this - the only people who treat women poorly are bad people to begin with, and will most likely treat everyone poorly.And a side note; anyone in the porn industry is usually dismissed instantly. The reason it happens "more" to women than men is because nobody gives a damn about the men in porn. They're there for the attractive women. I can guarantee you if an equally well-known male pornstar and female pornstar were talking with their audience, they'd get ridiculed equally.MasculinitySo like I said earlier, the definition of feminism has little to no effect on this argument, however I would like to bring up that it is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." So the original idea (and current idea) isn't to help men; it's to help women achieve equality to men - something they already have. Keep in mind that what you *want* to happen, or what your *idea* is, isn't going to dictate the movement as a whole. It's nice to say "feminism wants equal treatment for men too," but it's even nicer when it actually happens. Feminists aren't outside prisons chanting "end prison rape," they aren't outside women's shelters chanting "what about men," etc. Allowing boys to dress like girls and play with dolls is arguably detrimental to the growth of those boys, as they have a larger chance of growing up confused about their sexuality, and an even larger chance of getting bullied or picked on. Turning men into women and women into men (eliminating gender norms is your goal, I assume) is detrimental. Men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. If everyone acted like the same gender, it would be annoying and deter people from reproducing. Of course this isn't going to stick though, so I'm not concerned. And just out of curiosity, do you have a link or source to a feminist website about a feminist actually doing something about negative things that effect men? Not just writing a blog, I mean protesting or something along those lines. Because what I see are feminists addressing the very few issues that primarily effect women.Men are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, robbed, homeless, commit suicide, get injured at work, and many more. Men and women are equally victims of rape (if you take prison rape into account), almost equally victims of domestic violence [3], yet feminists focus solely on the issues that primarily effect women, or the female victims of bad things that affect men and women. When less bad stuff happens to women than men, yet feminists claim women are at a disadvantage, it says something.Oh and just for added pleasure, Bustle, a known feminist website, claims men cannot be the victims of sexism [4]. A feminist website claims sexual discrimination against men does not exist. This is not equality, this is actually detrimental to the whole of society. It pisses off men, and it turns every woman on Earth into an innocent, weak victim. I'm on women's sides, I'm not on feminist's sides.I also see you didn't argue against my points about Victim Blaming and that Feminism spreads lies. I urge you to argue against those, as those are kind of important points.Thanks! Talk to you soon.Sources[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://reason.com... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.bustle.com... |
8dc2f83-2019-04-18T13:49:36Z-00006-000 | Modern Feminism is Necessary | i actually agree with my opponent on the word objectification but for lack of a better word this is what i'm using and yes i'm quite aware that men can and are sexually objectified my issue isn't that women are dressed in bikini's to sell a burger it is that woman are in so many instances made to dress like that to sell things. Women by far are used more often then men for advertisements and more often then not there is some kind of sexual innuendo involved well to a young boy growing up seeing this bombardment of women in a sexual nature he is going to develop an attitude about women rather then seeing them as people he sees them as sexual beings only to better prove my point here is a link describing sexual objectification in the mind http://www.scientificamerican.com... this link will explain it all, As for the slut shaming thing while men are often perceived as players they are never subjected to the ridicule a woman will face for having lots of sex eventually they go on and often marry and forget it while many women especially if they live in a small town find it hard to find a man if they are a perceived "slut" women still by far are looked down upon for having lots of sex something women in the sex industry know too well in many cases and i have witnessed this personally a porn star will give an opinion on something and be immediately shot down with the old attitude of your just a slut so who cares what you think? It is a wrong attitude as "sluts" don't actually exist and as women become more relaxed sexually men will have to get over this attitude. My next argument will actually be one for men and that is the very widespread idea of male masculinity that men are supposed to be tough never show emotion or do anything perceived feminine. Even to the point to where men's sexual assault is taking lightly because "he must have enjoyed it" or he was raped by a man so "he must be gay" The feminism movement is set to combat these attitudes and strict gender roles and little boys are already seeing the advantages of it it is becoming more acceptable to play with dolls dress up as female characters like pink and show emotion. All of these is because of feminism and while i agree that there are some man hating feminazi's real feminists want equal rights for both and women and not just women and this is my conclusion for this round. |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00000-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | Pro:"All I need is to prove an atheist believes in mythological concepts."False. My opponent's presupposition was "Atheists believe in mythological concepts". Grammatically, this implies "all atheists" since he put "Atheists" in plural. If his presupposition was "An atheist believes..." or "Some atheists believe...", I would've conceded that point. Pro:"But it does. To those who believed in these mythological concepts in the past, they were synonymous. They believed the planets were gods. Con believes in these planets that the Greeks and Romans said were literal gods."This might be the case. However, the people my opponent mentioned were not atheists, since they believed in gods. I do not believe in what those people believed. My opponent erroneously comes to the conclusion that if I believe in Jupiter the planet, then I also must believe in the Jupiter god the Romans believed in. This is untrue and my opponent failed to prove otherwise.Finally, I would like to state that I mentioned my own atheism only in response to my opponent using my beliefs for his argument in round 2. I do not pretend to represent the entire atheist community.Pro:"(Bronto scampers off into the weeds)"Thank you for the debate, Brontoraptor. If you find any lilacs while in the weeds, can you bring me some? I love that flower. Thanks. |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00001-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | Con: "My atheism cannot be used as an argument because even if I am an atheist, and let's say I do believe in mythical concepts, doesn't mean all atheists believe in mythical concepts - which is my opponent's claim." I didn't say all Atheists believe in mythological concepts. All I need is to prove an atheist believes in mythological concepts. Con has eluded to the idea that he might. In a debate with Jedd(an Atheist), Jedd admitted he was an Atheist, and he admitted that he believed in the above concepts. Our mythology believing Atheist population is going up. http://www.debate.org... --- Con: "Conclusion: Brontoraptor is a fork This is a fallacy called Faulty generalization." I am a fork. Con drops this point. Prove me wrong Con. -- Con: "Believing in one's existence does not imply the belief in the other." But it does. To those who believed in these mythological concepts in the past, they were synonymous. They believed the planets were gods. Con believes in these planets that the Greeks and Romans said were literal gods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Bronto scampers off into the weeds) |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00002-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | However I don't see any argument proving atheists believe in mythical concepts. My opponent's main burden of proof hasn't been addressed. My atheism cannot be used as an argument because even if I am an atheist, and let's say I do believe in mythical concepts, doesn't mean all atheists believe in mythical concepts - which is my opponent's claim. Example:- Forks have teeth- Brontoraptor has teeth- Conclusion: Brontoraptor is a forkThis is a fallacy called Faulty generalization [1]I would also like to point out to my opponent that two very different things can share the same name. Going back to his example, Jupiter:- Name of a planet- Name of a Roman godThese two very different things share the same name. Believing in one's existence does not imply the belief in the other. [1] = . https://en.wikipedia.org... |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00003-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | Mythological The evidence says that death exists, therefore Jedd believes in death. The evidence says that chaos exists. Therefore Jedd believes Chaos exists. The evidence says that Pluto and Jupiter exist. I will now prove they exist. I will also prove that they are parts of mythology. *Evidence death exists: Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include biological aging (senescence), predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death. Death has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased or affection for the being that has died. Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Evidence chaos exists: -Chaos Chaos may refer to any state of confusion or disorder, it may also refer to: Lawlessness (disambiguation), a lack of laws or law enforcement Anarchy, lawlessness or a stateless society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Proof that Death is mythological -Death Death, also known as the Grim Reaper, The Destroyer, The Hooded One, The Angel of Death, & The "God" of Death, etc. is a common element in human cultures and history. Death is an iconic character throughout the world and is famous for the "Death Touch." As a personified force it has been imagined in many different ways. The popular depiction of Death as a skeletal figure carrying a large scythe and clothed in a black cloak with a hood first arose in 15th century England, while the title "the Grim Reaper" is first attested in 1847. In some mythologies, the Grim Reaper actually causes the victim's death by coming to collect them. In turn, people in some stories try to hold on to life by avoiding Death's visit, or by fending Death off with bribery or tricks. Other beliefs hold that the Spectre of Death is only a psychopomp, serving to sever the last ties between the soul and the body, and to guide the deceased to the afterlife, without having any control over when or how the victim dies. In many mythologies (including Anglo-American), Death is personified in male form, while in others, Death is perceived as female (for instance, Marzanna in Slavic mythology). https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Evidence that chaos is mythological: -Chaos (mythology) In Greek mythology, Chaos (Greek: ]5;^0;_9;`2;), the primeval void, was the first thing which existed. According to Hesiod,[1] "at first Chaos came to be" (or was)[2] "but next" (possibly out of Chaos) came Gaia, Tartarus, and Eros.[3] Unambiguously born "from Chaos" were Erebus (Darkness) and Nyx (Night).[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Evidence that Pluto Exists -Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond Neptune. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... -Evidence that Pluto is mythological Pluto was the ruler of the underworld in classical mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Evidence that Jupiter exists -Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest in the Solar System. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Evidence that Jupiter is mythological Jupiter, also Jove (Latin: Iuppiter, gen. Iovis), is the god of sky and thunder and king of the gods in Ancient Roman religion and mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... -If there is no evidence that something exists, then it doesn't exist until there is evidence that proves otherwise. My first burden of proof is to show that death, chaos, Pluto, and Jupiter do exist. I have given evidence that they do exist. My second burden of proof is to prove that they are mythological. I have given evidence that they are all mythological. There is unsermountable evidence that death, chaos, Pluto, and Jupiter exist. Death happens at the end of everyone's life. Chaos is all around us. Terrorism, natural disasters, wars, and the like cause chaos. Chaos is very real. Pluto and Jupiter are planets in our solar system and are cosmological realities, proven to be real by evidence using a telescope. My next burden of proof is to prove death, chaos, Pluto, and Jupiter are mythological concepts. I have done that. The final burden of proof is proving Malalo is an Atheist. On Malalo's profile, on "Religion", Malalo has claimed to be an Atheist. Malalo believes in mythological concepts, and Jedd is an Atheist. |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00004-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | This will be my first debate on DDO. |
c958fed8-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00005-000 | Atheists believe in mythological concepts | Atheists believe in mythological concepts. Good luck. |
2b8c3114-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00004-000 | In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible) | In the Bible, you more about God than Satan. This makes sense because the Bible is supposed to be about God's Almighty Powers and why he rules our world. But does it truly make sense? In the Old Testament, God ends up killing billions of people, while Satan only kills a few. You may say, well, God killed people who had done wrong, while Satan killed innocents. But that is not true. Who can truly say that, out of all of mankind, only one guy, Noah, was not evil. No one can. Because it is not in the least logical. So God kills a lot of innocent people in this great flood of the Earth just because they weren't true to him. Well, if we are all about equality nowadays, and that you shouldn't judge someone based on their religion, why isn't the Bible told out for being insolent against other religions? Another example of why God isn't better than Satan is this: In Job's story, God ALLOWS Satan to torture and punish his most faithful servant so his pride wouldn't be hurt. God made that decision to protect his hurt pride. I have more examples of why God isn't better than Satan, but I will save them for later. |
2b8c3114-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00000-000 | In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible) | Since no argument has been given, i will just add some of my evidence I had left over. 1. During Noah's time, everyone was actually evil except him and the animals. The Bible enlightens you with details of their sins (won't go into it because of the long list, but one of the sins was cannibalism.). 2. The Devil also corrupted and led many souls to their deaths further on in the Bible, so just one of those events prove that Satan is much eviler than God. 3. Satan tried to corrupt Jesus himself, so that screams many layers. I thank all who read this debate thoroughly, and I hope you will vote to whoever you think won this debate. |
2b8c3114-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00001-000 | In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible) | Wow. This is a lot of stuff to debunk. Ok, since you first started with Eve eating the fruit, let me start with that. Yes, Humans have curiosity. No, she wouldn't have eaten the apple. Here's why; In the Bible, Eve specifically says that she cannot eat it because it will make her die (take away immortality and allow her to sin). She may have been curios, but she listened to what God said. Satan says it will not make her die, but make her more like God, hence causing her to take the fruit and eat of it. So, to reiterate, she would've never taken the fruit if it wasn't for "the serpent" Satan. Secondly, that technological advancement thing isn't so good because of all the problems it has brought. Online stalkers, hackers, terrorism, etc. Technological advancement Plus, wisdom comes at a price, and a VERY high one at that. thousands of people die every day because of war, old age, disease, animal attacks, accidents, suicide, poison, abuse, and many, many more, horrifying, violent reasons. If Eve had just not eaten the fruit, NONE of this would've happened, not even death. We would've been in blissful immortal paradise, and we would've known it, because the bible tells us they were. Also, happiness is a sensation from worldly pleasures. Joy is different, and much, much better than happiness. That is what Adam and Eve were feeling... That is, until Satan came. Finally, of course God can't convert people into Christians. That's our job. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, They were PHYSICALLY with and of God. Now it is a very different story, so it is much harder for God to connect with the people of the earth, especially since instead of listening, people make random accusations of God's actions, and insult the Bible and God's name. |
2b8c3114-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00002-000 | In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible) | So, from what I got from your argument, you say that Satan is eviler than God, because told Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, which caused us to no longer be able to live in bliss. To refute this point, I will give a couple of arguments... First of all, because of human nature, there is no way that we could, for eternity, withstand the curiosity of eating from the tree of knowledge. Before Eve got convinced by the snake to eat from the tree, human beings were immortal, for, as it says on Bible Gateway, after God found out that they disobeyed him, he cursed Adam that he would return to dust at the end of his life (in other words, taking away his immortality). So, if they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge because Satan convinced them to, they would have anyways because of human nature. Second. If Eve hadn't taken the fruit from the tree of knowledge, we would never have gotten to the level of technological advancement that we are at today. In fact, if we didn't have wisdom, we never know that we live in bliss/paradise, because we never would have experienced any other sensation. It is like emotions... If you have never experienced any negative emotions, so you are always, technically, happy, you wouldn't know you are happy because you would think being "happy" is normal, and not a good thing. So, we would think that paradise is normal and that our lives are not actually perfect. Oh, and one more thing. You say that Satan is still at work today. Well, if Satan is corrupting these people, why isn't God there stopping him and making people have faith in him? |
2b8c3114-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00003-000 | In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible) | I accept. I would like to start this debate off with a strong piece of evidence. As you requested, I will only use stories from the bible. The stories will be drawn from this source: https://www.biblegateway.com... In the very beginning of the book of Genesis, God creates the entire universe and everything in it. He also created the earth where we live on. after creating the earth her creates the all the plants and animals you see today. He names the whole place The Garden of Eden. Last but not least, he creates a human. He names him Adam. In Genesis, he says it is not good for a man to be alone and creates a woman for him while he is sleeping. He names her Eve. God tells them they can pick fruit from any tree they want, except the Forbidden Tree. They both are happy together. Until... Satan comes. Disguised as a serpent, He deceives Eve into taking an apple from the Forbidden Tree, which God has warned them not to take of. He uses deceitful lies to make Eve think it will make her like God. She takes it, and even beckons unto Adam to take fruit from this tree. They immediately recognize that they are naked. Later God comes and asks them why they are wearing makeshift clothes. Adam and Eve say that it is a sin to be naked, and God knows they have taken the fruit of the tree. Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames Satan, the serpent. God banishes all of his kind to be slithering on the ground, which is why you see snakes slither instead of walking today. it is one of the very few species land animals that don't have legs. the whole chapter where it happened is as follows; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning"the third day. 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground"everything that has the breath of life in it"I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning"the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. Adam and Eve 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground"trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." 18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."" 4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head, and you will strike his heel." God made all of Satan's kind slither on the ground. Thats why snakes are one of the rarest species of land animals without legs in the world. Satan is still at work even today, corrupting politicians, , lawmakers, and the whole world just like he corrupted Eve. I Therefore declare Satan Eviler than God, because without him, we'd still be eating juicy fruits in the Garden of Eden. |
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00000-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | I am at a loss. Freeman's last round is one of stellar quality. Freeman has brought forth several great positions, but this round is a conclusion, not one for full argumentation. I have always been clear: I am not concerned with the points in judgment as much as I am with learning more from the debate itself. But I respect the position that any point I bring forward in this final round allows no response from my opponent. I generally put forth a statement that "my opponent presented arguments in his last round so I am well within DDO standards to respond." But Freeman's response requires more than that simple statement. My loss is that I must respond; Freeman deserves nothing less. I concede the conduct point by rebutting fully this round instead of concluding. His response is too well done as to deserve anything less; points be damned. Pro's points on my lack of compelling arguments notwithstanding, I find them fully rational. And, as I expected, Pro never wrote the law I asked for in the previous round; so many seem to be unwilling to make their legal principle a law. C1: I have tried for hours to access the article Pro linked but cannot read it as it keeps timing out so I must use other sources http://content.nejm.org... (I do not mean Pro is being deceitful, just that I can't access the article for some reason and I really do want to read it). Other countries: After reading and reviewing the legal procedures for these countries (above reference), I conclude that these laws have no bearing on the US Constitution, which is the point of my contention, so they are irrelevant to this debate. The legal ramifications I predict should not occur in countries without the US Constitution and US legal framework, to suggest otherwise is silly. I see no need to address this further. Pro wrote, "[E]ven tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing". I never said anything about improving their wellbeing. Allowing one to die with no pain is the best that can be offered sometimes; however, if one can be said to "suffer" which is different that just feeling pain then are they not worthy to be at least a "person" under the law meant to protect all US citizens? "It is a matter of the greatest importance that more research be conducted to better determine what it is to live with conditions that cause serious suffering other than pain. In the absence of such research, physicians might succumb to the biases of the able-bodied, who tend to think disability is much worse than disabled people actually find it. That said, the fact remains that on rare occasions, a doctor can find herself in a situation in which she has good reason to believe that her obligation to prevent suffering outweighs her duty to protect her newborn patient's life." http://www.medscape.com... Let us know when you figure it out, until then let doctors do what doctors do; provide the best care they can. Self Defense: My opponent, yet again, offered a legal argument in reference to self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under US law (a state crime so I did not link 50 laws; the MPC will suffice in this matter). The attacker is no less human or a person and has as much of an expectation of life as anyone else. An affirmative defense such as self defense puts the protection of the potential victim's life in higher regard than one committing a crime. Disabled infants have committed no such crime. This analogy is one I do not recommend using again unless Pro is willing to prosecute infants for the crime of imperfection. At this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about law – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. C2: The US Constitution recognizes natural born citizens, and other citizens not born on our soil. A citizen cannot be anything other than a "person" under the law. So, yes, the US Constitution recognizes a person. Pro must remove this from the Constitution to satisfy his position. He has not even recognized the fact that he has to do so. Pro's claim against my stance of arbitrariness is a comparison of a rock to a person. Sadly for Pro, my point was a comparison between an infant that Pro found suitable and one he did not, both are alive; both are citizens. A terminal infant is more than a rock and constitutionally deserves better treatment than to be thrown away. Even animals far better than Pro's rock; as Justice Holmes said, "Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked". You made the comparison of a natural born citizen to a rock, I did not. The learned professor of philosophy, which Pro offers, did not provide the definition with Constitutional restraints in mind, but you, Pro, presented this debate in such a manner. Her definition of personhood does not pass Constitutional muster, as well formulated as it may be. And this debate is about the law in the US. Her point, absent a corollary legal definition applied to citizen/person has no bearing here. Death Panels: Unlike Sarah Palin, I did my research. She did not read the law, but I made it the focus of my position (as you made this debate a legal one). Sarah Palin could not name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v Wade, I can name over twenty. My argument is not one of a distant, unreasonable, slippery slope or ignorant misinterpretations of law from a journalism student who could not handle an interview with anyone other than Sean Hannity without embarrassing herself. Mine is one of the inabilities of proponents of "should" in applying their principles to a reasoned body of law under the US Constitution. Until you, Pro, can do so then your law should be rejected. You have not met your burden. In closing, I have the privilege of loving a person everyday who deals with the infants that others hope to never see. Her job is one of joy and heartache and I admire her for what she does and I do not think I could do it myself. If you see a labor/delivery nurse or doctor out one day, buy them a beer or shake his hand. They all deserve it. In closing, Pro has not met the burden required. No law has been presented and a proponent of a "should" statement needs to recognize and apply the offered principle to the legal framework in such a law is to be applied. "There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes." Very Truly Yours, SherlockMethod. |
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00001-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | Once again, allow me to express my gratitude to sherlockmethod for agreeing to debate with me. Let me begin this round by summarizing his arguments to the best of my ability. My opponent argues that, "Infanticide should not be legal because the changes it necessitates in the law would remove protections from a select group arbitrarily." Further on, he contends that a law regarding infanticide is unnecessary and that under our current legal framework it simply cannot survive a simple cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, Con goes on to argue that such a law would have terrible legal ramifications and it should, therefore, be rejected. While I do not find these arguments to be compelling (or even rational), they certainly have to be met with a serious response. In this context, I will argue that we can navigate through issues regarding infanticide without having to endorse absurd legal or moral positions. Moreover, the objections my antagonist raises simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. Despite Con's claims, my position can be coherently reconciled with valid moral and legal standards. ===================> Why Infanticide Should Be Legal In The United States <=================== C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. To put this entire issue into perspective, it is worth pointing out that some countries (e.g. The Netherlands and Holland) have legalized infanticide. In particular, the Dutch government has a policy on infanticide that is quite sensible. According to The Brussels Journal, "The guideline accepted by the hospital in Groningen last year states that euthanasia is allowed when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best." [1] For all practical purposes, this seems to be a very good model. Moreover, these societies have not faced any of the "massive legal ramifications" Con has tried to pass off as legitimate. Additionally, the fact of the matter is that anencephalic infants are not the entire story in this issue. According to medical professionals and those that deal with these issues, "[there are some] babies that are so ill that their suffering is unbearable and hopeless and that do not die of their own accord". [1] Clearly, some conditions are far worse than anencephaly. Some infants are in such a bad condition that even tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing. Therefore, Con's suggestion that nature and doctors can always ensure that infants have a painless death is palpably false. Ironically, my opponent doesn't seem to have a moral issue with infanticide in the case of infants with terrible medical conditions. Indeed, in his first round he goes so far as to say that, "Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects." Where we seem to differ, however, is on the legal implications of my proposal. Simply put, my opponent argues that infanticide is a door better left shut in the case of terminally ill infants because of the negative legal ramifications infanticide may bring about. So, if I can successfully show that his concerns about legal ramifications are wholly unsubstantiated, then I will have won this argument, and thus the debate. Curiously, my opponent argues that unless we define infants as persons, then psychopaths will be able to torture and kill infants without the reproach of the law. To humor my opponent, I will grant him the proposition that all infants should be considered "persons" in the eyes of the law. Would such a concession be fatal to my position? Not at all – for it is clearly possible for someone to be a person and to not posses a serious right to life. Consider, for example, a situation in which someone charged at you with a machete in an attempt to kill you. In such a situation, it would clearly be legal (and morally justifiable) to kill the other person in self-defense, even though they are a person. So, at this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about ethics – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. And as I have demonstrated earlier, there are valid moral reasons to make a legal exception for some cases of infanticide, in much the same way there are valid moral reasons to create legal differences between murder and killing someone in self defense. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Despite what my opponent may believe, the U.S. Constitution need not be changed in order for my current legal suggestion to be implemented. As I pointed out earlier, at no point in the U.S. Constitution does it specify the qualities that make someone a person. Ergo, the definition of what constitutes a person must be created with the help of practical ethics and legal considerations. Later on, my opponent seems to suggest that the guidelines I have given for infanticide are "arbitrary". But honestly, I fail to see the strength of this unsupported claim. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about the distinction between entities that are conscious and entities that are not conscious. The difference between a rock (an unconscious thing) and a person (a conscious agent) is tremendously consequential, and could hardly be called "arbitrary," in either ethical or legal matters. Furthermore, my opponent says that I haven't given a formal definition for a person. As a matter of fact, I have. I stated that a person is a "rational, autonomous or self-conscious agent". If you want a more formal definition, then I can give you one. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts. [2] As a result, an infant doesn't have a moral right to life in all circumstances since it doesn't have these five capacities. Thus, even if for legal considerations we called all infants persons, this ethical standard makes a strong case that legal exceptions should be made for infanticide, at least in the case of terminally ill infants. ::Conclusion:: The decision of whether or not to implement laws regarding infanticide need not be weighed down by scare tactics or specious reasoning. Con's not so subtle argument that allowing infanticide would lead to the legal torture, kidnapping and indiscriminate killing of infants is no more substantiated than the fatuous rumors that the United States' recent health care bill would have "death panels". [3] These sorts of arguments may convince people without the facts, but they shouldn't convince anyone that cares to look seriously at what I am proposing. Obviously, there is a proper legal and moral distinction between painlessly euthanizing a terminally ill infant in extreme pain and indiscriminately killing infants in a neonatal care unit. Our current legal and ethical framework already provides us with the tools to make these distinctions. Consequently, my opponent's main argument has crumbled and, therefore, I have managed to successfully demonstrate why infanticide should be legal in the United States. Sources: 1. http://www.brusselsjournal.com... 2. Warren, Mary Anne. The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 1973. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Vol. 57. La Salle, Illinois: The Monist, 1973. (pp. 97-105) 3. http://www.nytimes.com... |
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00002-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | Freeman is a stellar debater and I am enjoying our exchange. First, I am aware of the moral underpinning of the law. If I was arguing from the position that laws are moral because they are Constitutional then used the Constitution for support, Pro would be correct in addressing the circularity of the argument, but I am not arguing the morality of the law by using the Constitution. I am not overly concerned with the moral underpinnings in this case. I am concerned that the law Pro suggests would require changes in the Constitution and current US laws (Pro must agree it does require change) and the changes necessary to allow for infanticide negate the "should" aspect of this resolution. In one sentence: Infanticide should not be legal because the changes it necessitates in the law would remove protections from a select group arbitrarily. (Infants in the response are 30 days or younger following Pro's response). To illustrate: If the Constitution and laws changed to allow for the legal definition of "person" to exclude infants then an infant cannot be kidnapped under the law, nor could an infant be murdered. A person could walk into a neonatal care unit and kill all the infants without a single charge of murder being presented as the infants are not "persons", a requirement for murder. Next, an infant could not be assaulted or battered outside of laws addressing animal cruelty as they would be "non persons". If such an issue is bothersome, then a new class of "non person" must be created and I see very little stopping laws from distinguishing between other select groups. If one group can be excluded, others can as well. Lastly, if Pro wishes to distinguish healthy infants from those who are certain to die quickly, then the 14th amendment must be changed and interpretation from the court must somehow allow that only certain disabled infants lose protection all the while keeping some Constitutional protection for the newly defined "persons" under the law and preventing other groups from losing protection. I simply do not see how it can be done. For these reasons, I asked Pro to show us the law and the new definition of person; he did not do so. The bottom line is application of Pro's law would result in a loss of rights for all citizens due to the structure of our current legal framework. If Pro cannot present the law and show how other groups could still be protected (healthy infants, disabled adults, Downs Syndrome citizens, etc) then he has not satisfied his burden as we cannot judge whether we should allow infanticide to be legal without looking at the law and plugging it into the current framework. My request is reasonable. C1: Currently, infanticide is homicide. Pro instigated this debate and must show us how a law could be written to separate the two while still providing protection for his undefined "person" under the law, without the law he cannot do so. At this point infanticide is simply homicide. Pro offered a syllogism, but the construction is not my position. My position is simply that Pro's law has massive legal ramifications for all citizens and due to these ramifications the law should be rejected. Pro refuses to show us a law so we can evaluate all the needed changes in order to initiate a cost/benefit analysis. In absence of the law, we can only evaluate the one specific class Pro addressed, infants with anencephaly, and these infants can be made comfortable for their short lives. The doctors and nurses do not let the baby lay in pain waiting for death. And most feel no pain at all, but for those that do, medication is administered and nature will provide the end result shortly. A painless death comes not by law or personal fiat but by nature itself so we have no need to open this door with all the possible implications that Pro is advocating. A simple cost/benefit analysis is all that is needed to render this proposed law moot. C2: I am in no way begging the question. I am not saying infants have a moral right to life; I could care less for this debate. I am saying that implementation of an unnecessary law with all the changes needed to allow for it under our current legal framework does not survive a simple cost/benefit analysis. The law should be rejected due to its implications on the country as a whole. Those implications are the found in the removal of the 14th Amendment and the allowance of a law segmenting groups by arbitrary distinctions. And without a working definition for "person" from Pro, we cannot evaluate the potential slippery slope. C3: I saw no need to address this argument considering my approach. I concede for the purposes of this debate that "potential" does not necessarily grant one rights. The issue is not whether we can separate Pro's select classes morally, but how we can do so and keep protection for others in the legal framework in the US. But for the term "legal" in the resolution, I would have avoided this debate. I debate pro abortion advocates the same way and ironically they have all refused to write a pro abortion law in the same manner Pro did here. By offering this in legal terms we must examine the legal framework needed to apply the law. The application of the law is the issue considering the resolution, not just the underlying morality of the law. In absence of the law or a legal definition of "person" we can say pro has not satisfied his burden. |
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00003-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | Thank you, sherlockmethod, for taking time out to debate with me. We seem to disagree on some key issues, so I'm sure we will have plenty to argue about. For starters, the laws we create in society are a reflection of the moral standards we've adopted. And I'm arguing that the law "should" be a certain way. Words like "should" or "ought" imply ethical judgments. [1] As such, my opponent and I are arguing about the moral principles that underpin our laws, not the actual constitutional merit of the laws themselves. For example, a law can be constitutional and wrong (morally) or vice versa. Therefore, laws and constitutional standards cannot be used to justify their own validity; that would be circular reasoning. Not to disparage my antagonist in any way, but this is a basic point in logic. I'm not saying anything that isn't universally accepted by logicians. With that out of the way, lets get into the actual debate. =======================> Why Infanticide Can Be Morally Justified <========================= C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. My opponent argues that a child, once born, should have a right to life under the constitution, and thus infanticide is unacceptable. Later on, he suggests that my proposal is equivalent to advocating for "homicide". Unfortunately, he has yet to explain why this is the case. As such, my opponent seems to be appealing to moral principles, which, oddly enough, he has not mentioned at all in the course of his first round. Despite what my antagonist may believe, there are very strong and reasonable grounds to suppose that not every human born in the United Sates has a serious right to life. I will demonstrate this by putting his reasoning into a syllogism and then I will demonstrate why it is unsound. If his arguments were put into a syllogism, then they might take the following form: P1: It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P2: A human infant is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P3: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human infant. (from 1 and 2) (Modus Ponens) C: Therefore, it is legally objectionable to kill an infant. (from 3) If my opponent's argument is constructed like this, strong objections can be raised against the first premise. For example, a devastating counterexample can be raised against the notion that it is always wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. An adult human with complete upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. However, an adult human with complete upper brain death does not possess a serious right to life; they are, for all intensive legal and moral purposes, already dead at that stage. [2] As Bernard Gert - the Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College – points out, simply being alive does not have inherit value in itself. It is, rather, the capacity for conscious experience in a human that is important. [3] So, those who may wish to still believe all humans have a serious right to life should consider how ridiculous the anti-infanticide syllogism would appear in light of the counter example listed above. Clearly, the notion that all innocent members of the species Homo sapiens have a serious right to life if they are already born is deeply erroneous. Unlike an adult, a human infant is lacking attributes in several very important areas. The human infant does not posses the same mental faculties as a full-grown adult and therefore cannot be said to posses the same serious right to life that conscious persons do. As demonstrated earlier, this moral principle can be recognized in the way humans differentiate between fully conscious adults and those that have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness due to disease or some sort of traumatic accident. And it is in this ethical purview that it is possible to recognize that an infant does not have a strong right to life since, like a brain dead adult, it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires. This is why murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing an infant is not (as least some of the time). Furthermore, I don't think my antagonist's attack on my first argument can withhold scrutiny. While trying to refute my central argument in this section, he claims that anencephalic infants will die without pain and, therefore, infanticide is unnecessary. However, according to my opponent's own source, "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain." [4] The key word in that sentence is USUALLY. On some occasions, according to Con's source, anencephalic infants can feel pain. Therefore, risking immense suffering on these infants by letting them die naturally from cardiorespiratory arrest is simply unacceptable since some of them apparently can feel pain. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Before I continue, let me make a few things clear. I do not take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of infanticide. Moreover, I'm not in the mood to draw up a legal document, but I will say that I don't think infanticide should be allowed after the infant has been alive for one month. And lastly, I'm only advocating infanticide for disabled infants insofar as they are so disabled that they will surely die miserably from their conditions. Moving on… In attempting to demonstrate why my proposal is flawed, (Con) wrote the following: "Infants are persons under the law and this debate is about legality so they can be said to be persons, Dr. Singer and utilitarianism aside." Now, this argument simply begs the question. My opponent is essentially claiming that an infant has a moral right to be protected under the constitution without first establishing why constitutional protections should apply to beings that are not rational, autonomous or self-conscious agents. Con simply can't use existing laws to justify the morality of a legal standard; as was stated earlier, that would be circular reasoning. Secondly, at no point in the United States constitution does it specify what qualifies someone as a person. Moreover, even if the constitution explicitly rejected my proposal, that would not demonstrate why my proposal was flawed: it would only demonstrate that my arguments lacked constitutional merit. And since this debate has nothing to do with constitutional standards, this point would be irrelevant at any rate. C3: An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. My opponent has chosen not to address this argument. That's fine with me. Unless he wishes to refute this in his second round, I will have won this specific argument. ::Conclusion:: In order to win this debate, all I need to do is successfully manage to defend my first argument regarding severely disabled infants with terminal ailments. Up until this point, I think it is quite clear that I have done this. As was shown earlier, infants with anencephaly can potentially suffer, and infanticide is, therefore, a valid way to ensure that those infants won't suffer horribly in their last moments on Earth. Additionally, I have also managed to successfully defend my second contention since my opponent hasn't managed to refute the criteria I have given for personhood. As such, the weight of the arguments leans heavily in my favor in the debate so far. Sources: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://spot.colorado.edu... (7.2 The Counterexample Objection) 3. Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. (p. 30) 4. http://www.ninds.nih.gov... Best, Freeman |
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00004-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | The Resolution: As Pro and instigator, Freeman offered this debate in legal terms. He did not write infanticide should just be morally permissible; he made clear the act should be legal in the US; therefore, the Constitution of the United States applies. I negate. Infanticide: Without playing with the definition too much, I will accept the killing of a newborn. . http://research.lawyers.com... Several definitions are available, but this one is fine and appears to be on the subject Pro is addressing. C1: Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects. Parents pretty much decide on operations after getting advice from the doctors. The state is not under obligation to provide certain life saving care over a parent's objection in cases of extreme birth defects and low likelihood of survival. . http://www.law.uconn.edu... In short, infanticide is already legal in the US, if one is willing to consider inaction (forgoing invasive medical treatment where results would be marginal) equivalent to overtly euthanizing the infant. But Pro wishes the law to go one step further and allow the overt act by, presumably, a doctor with a parent's permission. The problem here is that a child, once born, is an American citizen and arbitrarily denying a child the right to remain alive violates the 14th Amendment. In order to satisfy Pro's position, the Constitution must be removed wholesale for a specific group – disabled children. The fact that the child is not a rational agent is irrelevant in the eyes of the Constitution. Some rights are granted to children within limits, I agree, but a child is a citizen of the US and is protected under its laws. I submit that birth defects should not remove an American citizen from Constitutional protections. Secondly, Doctors operate under very important oaths, versions of the Hippocratic Oath in some cases, but not identical in all respects. They cannot change the horrid hands that nature deals people, but they must provide standard care in all cases to allow for what little life nature and modern medicine allow. If a child can live for one fleeting minute, then a doctor is under every obligation to allow for that minute. The assigned providers, parents, can prohibit the doctors from performing risky operations with marginal results, which falls well in line with respecting their wishes and the doctor's oath, but the doctor cannot take upon herself the overt act of killing while maintaining her obligations to the field. Death Penalty doctors are shunned for their practice of lethal injection. Compromising professional ethics for the crime of a major birth defect is not a positive path and is one we should avoid as much as possible to maintain the integrity of the medical field. Pro is offering homicide, plain and simple, for a group that does not live up to his standards. Pro listed several birth defects and I must add that intestines forming on the outside of the body is easily remedied now. The operation is not that big of a deal anymore. The death penalty is not needed for this atrocious crime. Pro's own source provides the same information. Here is a gentleman born with his heart on the outside of his chest. 34 years and counting. . http://abcnews.go.com... He has lived a good life and I see no need to deny such a life to another. Nor can I find it constitutionally permissible. Ryan, a baby born without skin covering all of his body also lived, and enjoys life and constitutionally he is allowed this much. . http://www.10news.com... Tri athlete? Not bad Ryan, not bad at all. Anencephaly is truly terrible. The babies are not aggressively resuscitated; they have no chance of life but they are still persons under the law and this debate is about legality. As much as an overt act of compassion seems appropriate, nature's cruel hand must be left alone for the few days of this infant's life. The lack of many portions of the brain suggests the patient feels no pain. . http://www.ninds.nih.gov... A painless death will come without the aide of a doctor and without opening a door, infanticide, better left shut. Baby K was a famous case of anencephaly, and issues of medical futility were at the heart of the case, not infanticide by overt acts. The latter was never considered by the doctors. . http://www.medscape.com... Lastly, Pro offered that infanticide should be legal within limits; since he offered this debate in legal terms, I ask that he write the law and present it in the second round. My request is fair. Those "technicalities" may be all that is needed to render this debate moot. C2: Infants are persons under the law and this debate is about legality so they can be said to be persons, Dr. Singer and utilitarianism aside. I ask that pro provide a legal, constitutionally permissible definition for person that can exclude those with birth defects of any sort from other infants and still provide for EQUAL protection of the law for all US citizens. Biology is not the proving ground here, rights granted under a legal document, the US Constitution, are the focus. Dr. Singer (in the source Pro provided) avoids full on discussion concerning adoption and admits that it complicates his position somewhat. Under the law, it appears to complicate it greatly. An infant is a US citizen and I agree with current laws allowing for a parent to decide, in cases of medical futility, on operations, but allowing for the overt act of euthanasia brings forth issues concerning the best interest of the disabled US citizen. Adoption renders euthanasia impermissible in light of the US citizen's legally granted rights as a legal person. C3: Dr. Singer's definition of human is not one that allows for Constitutional protections so it must be rejected in the sense of legality; therefore, I see no need to address the "potential" argument he focuses on so dearly. The Constitution is a legal document so the rights granted there must be our focus since the issue is legality. Conclusion: In light of the resolution, this debate's focus is legality, not morality. Pro must show how a naturally born disabled US citizen, natural born being a legal distinction so precious that a citizen must possess it in order to be president, should not be permitted the protection of the US Constitution offered everyone else. He has not done so. |