_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
79ad2d9d-2019-04-18T19:07:06Z-00005-000 | Infanticide should be legal in the United States. | The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified. =======================> 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. There are situations in which painlessly killing an infant could be an act of compassion. Undoubtedly, claims of this sort are bound to raise a few eyebrows, but they shouldn't. There are, in fact, numerous situations where it would be ethically justifiable to painlessly kill infants. For example, there are genetic conditions that can kill infants slowly and cause them unbearable pain in the process. Certain infants, due to genetic defects, can be born with a heart outside of their body [1], without any skin [2], and some infants can even be born with their intestines outside of their body. [3] Worst of all, some infants can be born with a terrible defect known as anencephaly. These anencephalic infants are born without a forebrain and die within a few hours or days after birth, often from cardiorespiratory arrest. [4] In a situation such as this, painless euthanasia will eliminate the possible suffering of the infant much faster and more compassionately than simply waiting for the newborn to go into cardiorespiratory arrest. Ergo, there are cases where euthanizing an infant can be justified given its terrible life prospects. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Given the limited mental qualities that an infant has, they simply cannot be said to posses the same rights that are granted to fully conscious persons. Likewise, the mere fact that infants are humans - in the biological sense - cannot function as a feature that gives them some sort of elevated moral status. Peter Singer — the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne — put it this way, "the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." [5] From this it follows that any infant – disabled or not – cannot have a strong claim to a right to life since infants are not self-conscious beings. In either scenario, infanticide can be reasonably justified. As a result, there are good ethical grounds for legally allowing infanticide under certain parameters since infants lack key mental qualities. C3: An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. An infant's potential to acquire characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness are not a sound basis for granting it a right to life. The potential to gain certain mental qualities – it is sometimes argued – presents a valid basis for giving a fetus and an infant a serious right to life. However, this principle simply cannot be adopted as a rights criterion since masturbation, contraception, and abstinence could all be equally condemned by its own standards. [6] In fact, under this ethical framework, even refusing to be raped could be considered unethical since it denies a potential entity the ability to become a person. These are simply an odious and untenable set of conclusions that could be drawn from the notion that entities can acquire rights through undetermined potentials. Therefore, an infant's potential to become a self-conscious person should be rejected as the foundation for granting it rights. ::Conclusion:: Infanticide may not only be permissible in certain situations, it may actually be morally obligatory. Allowing an infant with a severe defect to die slowly and painfully from its ailments seems perverse given the other options that exist. In summary, infants with terminal ailments that are bound to suffer horribly provide a strong reason as to why infanticide should be allowed under certain parameters. It may seem incomprehensible to some that any person could seriously consider such a proposition. And they may certainly wish to raise objections to the arguments contained in this essay. However, those objections are, in all likelihood, wholly misguided since they often fail to take into account the broad range of concerns that encompass issues of this sort. As was demonstrated earlier, an infant cannot be reasonably counted as a person. Consequently, even if there were no infants with severe medical complications, there is still a strong case that infanticide can be morally justified and thus should be legally permitted. Sources: 1. http://edition.cnn.com... 2. http://www.google.com... 3. http://www.associatedcontent.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1993. p. 182 (http://www.utilitarian.net...) 6. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1993. p. 181 (http://www.utilitarian.net...) |
8b77cc36-2019-04-18T19:28:43Z-00002-000 | Blake Griffen is the best college basketball player this year! | Thank you for posting this debate. Now here are some facts. Blake Griffen is not the best college basketball player. If this were true that would mean he is the best in every area. I shall show you players that are better in each category. Points per game: Stephen Curry with 28.6, where as Blake's is 22.1 Rebounds per game: Blake is actually tied with John Bryant at 14.2 (You cant tie to be the best..) Assists per game: Johnathon Jones with 7.8 While Blake has 2.4 Field goal shooting: Shane Johannsen with 72.7% while blakes shoots 63.4% Steals per game: Chavis Holmes with 3.4 Blake with 1.2 Blocks: Jarvis Varnado with 4.6 Blake has 1.3 Note: Stats are averages for all games this current season. Blake Griffin is not the best in any category. Statistics provided by: http://sports.espn.go.com... Your turn |
8b77cc36-2019-04-18T19:28:43Z-00003-000 | Blake Griffen is the best college basketball player this year! | LOOK at his states if you want to argue! =) |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00000-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | First of all.. "What is the meaning of life?" Can be considered a question of higher thinking. Who are you to say it's not? Higher thinking depends for all individuals. Secondly.. Ignorance is misery. When you are a child, you don't really understand the world. You only understand and know what's directly around you. When you get older, if people retain the same sense, that is ignorance. That is miser, even if a person doesn't know it. Their subconscious is miserable because they don't seek out information. Their human desire to be curious remains unsatisfied because they don't seek out new information. They sit there in a world that they have created in their own minds. So yes it is misery. It's misery because they don't know what they are missing. To an extent, yes I see why you may think ignorance is bliss. It can make a person feel better if they suffered an emotional trauma. But philosophically, they way you insist on discussing it, no. If a person doesn't push themselves to find out their purpose and their own personal meaning in life, then that will give them happiness to know what they are meant to do. And no I don't really care because it is a debate about "philosophical 'ignorance is bliss'" with a person I will never meet. It is a debate that is pretty irrelevant to real life. If you wanted to debate fundamental "ignorance is bliss" then yes I would care a little more because that has something to do with reality a little more than philosophically. Not many people actually ask themselves what they are supposed to do after they find their purpose in life. Stop commenting on my other debates. I did not ask for your input on them. I understand that you see yourself as very intelligent and abstract and profound. I know you see me as someone you need to instruct and show what I'm doing wrong. But you aren't smarter than I am. I just have no interest in philosophy. I don't care if you don't think my response is good enough or profound enough. I don't. Stay off my other debates. |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00001-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | Easy tiger.. this is not a personal attack on you or your opinion. However, you are correct. I do not view your opinion as good enough. I respect that it is yours, and you are entitled to it, but this is not a mutual sharing of opinions. We are debating. It is not a serious or important debate, so I can see why you would view your opinion as valid reason for believing something. But it is a generally accepted rule that when posing an argument, if you wish for your position to be seriously considered, it is crucial to provide evidence. "It's my opinion" does not count as evidence. In fact, the definition of "opinion" is: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. So since this is a debate, and since debates are two-sided by nature, I'm going to continue to counter your argument. First, a person searching for the meaning of life and an individual searching for their own purpose in life are two different things. The meaning of life is not something that is different for each individual. The purpose of life, on the other hand, is specific to each individual. I agree with you. Finding one's purpose in life brings happiness. But I would not classify that question as one of higher thinking. Almost everyone must eventually ask themselves that question in order to progress in life, and the answer is not always hidden or complex. It is the questions that follow the answer to that question that I believe vex the human soul. Questions like, "what happens when I achieve my supposed 'purpose'?" or "what is the significance of living for this happiness?". In addition, the question is not "does knowledge bring happiness?" Obviously multiple bits of information can bring happiness. When creating this debate, I was curious to find if anyone could persuasively argue that ignorance is not bliss. You have provided a form of evidence to support the idea that knowledge can bring happiness, but you still have not given evidence to support your main idea. You argue that "ignorance is NOT bliss".This implies that ignorance is the opposite of bliss (misery). You have not once discussed how this is so.Since this is the last round, your reply will need to be detailed and conclusive. In order to consider your stance valid, I need more evidence that is focused on the true question. I ask for one of the following:1) you provide evidence supporting the idea that ignorance is misery or2) you admit that you can't argue that claim (which would end this debate with my victory based on a fallacy)You will most likely think that I am referring to a fallacy in your argument, but this is not so. I am referring to the false conclusion that would be drawn if you were not able to provide evidence for your argument. The false conclusion is this: because Con could not provide evidence for their claim, Pro's argument is true. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Lastly, I would hope that you would care, considering you entered this debate by free will. I do not want to debate with someone who does not care to refute and be refuted. I will accept any rebuttals you care to make, and I will happily respond to your arguments against my claims. That is what we are both here to do. Did you expect differently? |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00002-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | Well since my opinion is apparently not good enough, here is my response. I still believe ignorance is NOT bliss, in any way whether it be philosophical or fundamental. If someone does ask themselves those questions, I would still say they have a different happiness from those who don't. Say the question was "What is the meaning of life?" Say someone asked themselves this and found the answer. It was an answer that was relevant to them so it made them happier. It's not going to make someone else happier by knowing that information because it doesn't matter to them. So I guess what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is that people who ask themselves questions like that can be happier because they can find the things that will have a big impact on their lives and maybe find what "completes" them. People who search for the meaning in their own lives are happier because they may find the meaning and the importance and worthiness of themselves. I'm sorry if you don't think that's an adequate response. I don't really care. |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00003-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | Very few people can be considered truly ignorant in the manner which you have discussed. You seem to be discribing emotional ignorance, or complete self-engrossment, which would be considered either narcissism or sociopathy. Although it does not pertain to the original debate, I will address your argument. You offered no evidence, or even theory, to support your claim that a lack of knowledge and intelligence constitutes unhappiness. Are you claiming that there is an intelligence threshold that must be reached in order to be happy? You failed to consider individuals with genetic or cognitive disorders such as down syndrome. While considered unintelligent by society, men and women with down syndrome are often characterized by their joy. In regards to the second half of your argument, "A person cannot be truly happy if they can't understand and they don't have knowledge." If a person is truly unable to understand and does not possess knowledge, then they do not know that they lack these things, and are, therefore, unaffected. The only case in which your claim could be true is if the person knows that they are not understanding a concept that they truly desire to understand, and experience distress as a result. The knowledge of not knowing is knowledge in itself, and it is knowledge that causes distress. Knowledge that one does not have cannot affect a person because it has not come into a person's consciousness. It does not exist within that person's world. As I mentioned earlier, I believe you have missed the essence of the debate. Ignorance in this case, as I described in my first argument, is referring to philosophical ignorance, not fundamental ignorance. For example, is one who frequently questions the meaning of life happier than one who does not? My argument is that the one who does not delve into the unanswerable questions of life is happier than the one who does. |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00004-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | Ignorance cannot be considered bliss. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge, absence of intelligence even. People who are ignorant don't understand, they can't feel empathy, they can't even sympathize with other people. Ignorance is not just the blind fold, it is the ropes that bind your mind. A person cannot be truly happy if they can't understand and they don't have knowledge. |
dc8d3d94-2019-04-18T15:35:12Z-00005-000 | Ignorance Is Bliss | A popular term used when referring to apathy, the statement "ignorance is bliss" can also be applied to wider contexts. Ignorance in this debate refers to a general lack of knowledge or a shallowness of thought in regards to complex philosophical questions. Is ignorance truly bliss? In this case, is ignorance to be desired? |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00000-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | For my final round, I will rebuttal my opponents defense and then conclude why the resolution is wrong. First Rebuttal First, my opponent in the last round didn't even defend Deontology, only criticized my position and proposed that my framework be thrown out altogether because philosophical reasoning? Kantian framework also has it's faults; so then the debate would come down to the voters deciding which choice they like more, or whoever is more popular, since both framework's are merely philosophical ideologies. Nonetheless simple reasons why we can't completely use Deontology in this matter either. Universizable actions: Kant doesn't explain what actions to perform as rational actors; he only tells us which maxims to act on. All they are is rules to base any decision you make, not an actual definitive suggestion as to which actions you should take. Therefore you can't disprove Kant's ethics per-say as applicable to the situation. Which is why my opponent used this framework to support the resolution, because the resolution can't be refuted under Kant's categorical imperatives. Therefore my opponents First Rejection is nullified, as the same could be said about their framework as there is no clear decision that their framework proposes. However, under "categorical imperative 1", my framework is also justified and can't be "thrown out" as my opponent presumes, so disregard these statements. Why can't egotism be a universizable action? Or even Christianity? My framework is a unversizable action. [1] Second, society doesn't have to do anything regarding anyone else. Society chooses what to do based of a collective consensus, and even then not all of society agrees. The collective consensus concerning the Rachni as stated, was made clear in the first war by eradicating the Rachni to extinction. Third, a decision has to be made concerning the resolution. Although we cannot know the complete consequences of our actions, we can refer to the past as a precedence for steps we should take. The Rachni were previously thought to be exterminated, and everyone was seemingly content with it. As I said in my third round, there is no guarantee what will happen if the resolution stands. However, given the circumstances it is clear that by killing the queen there is an assurance that the Rachni will not be a problem in the future. Fourth, in the situation we can weigh two individuals interests because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Even if it is regarding life an entire species, the situation calls for an immediate action. Again, society does not have to align itself with any moral absolutism for the sake of moral theory. The galaxy already determined during the Rachni wars, that extinction of the Rachni was acceptable; again there is no reason to determine that this stance has been changed. Fifth, pragmatically speaking a moral ideology does not better suit the situation. Realistically, the Rachni is just an old enemy of the galaxy once thought exterminated and now a survivor remains. Although it's one queen, she can still multiply and produce thousands of her kind and control all of them. Sixth, it does not destroy the value of life using my framework. While Deontology does precede due to it's ambiguous definitions in which decisions must be made, my framework advocates value of life in a more specific way. I argued that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The life of several is more valuable than the life of one. Just because there is no immediate threat in the situation proposing the resolution, the possibly the resolution proposes is very well in the realm of creating a future enemy. (I will refer to this later on explaining the breakdown later on) Seventh, there is no guarantee the Rachni will positively effect the galaxy either. Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that society must be compelled to give that chance. My framework proposes that the galaxy's interest must take precedence in the situation. The galaxy determined the fate of the species already. Substance To rebut the clarification: "THE RACHNI ARE OF ZERO THREAT TO THE GALAXY" This is 100% percent false. The Thorian encountered on the planet Feros was just one species that could control the minds of others. It enslaved an entire colony, in spite because of a deal gone wrong. In the situation, we are witnessing the Rachni taking control of an Asari to communicate. Also, the Queen has the ability to reproduce many from her eggs, with the possibility of spawning another queen. So, from one can spawn many. Rachni are really tough creatures and it took an army of Krogan to fight the Rachni where they were because of their abilities. My premise is not ridiculous. Cars are an inanimate object. They do not gain sentience and roam around destroying other cars. The Rachni are a sentient species capable of advanced logical reasoning. There is a reason to not to believe to the Rachni queens desires. The situation shows that she was undergoing tests and experimentation in a hidden lab. She was a prisoner, who tried to break free by attacking Shepard before the encounter altogether. She learned through fear, that Shepard obviously destroyed her thralls on his march towards the confrontation. As a logic reasoning life form, she is in a life of death situation. Her only defense is a plea to Shepard. Why are we to believe she isn't lying? How do we know she doesn't hold grudge, after all her entire species was pushed to extinction. It's not the war that could push her to be violent towards the galaxy, but being an unwilling test subject to experimentation is a very strong case. The whole reason Saren sent Benezia to Noveria was to oversee the project was to weaponize the Rachni through indoctrination. So to even claim they aren't dangerous is nonsensical and naive. Fact is the Rachni do pose a threat. We cannot accept the queen's word of peace, when Shepard literally defeated her thralls with ease; and now holds her life in the balance. Her only defense is a promise of peace. Yet there is no face value, she was just experimented on and kept prisoner to be turned into a weapon. That sounds like a big reason to hold a grudge on the Galaxy. My Opponent is also neglecting the history of the Rachni, the reason they didn't focus on expansion is because they didn't have the technology. Only once the Salarians stumbled on them did they capture the crew and learn how to rebuild their interstellar ship. So expansion is very well within their parameters. So they do pose a real threat. Conclusion My opponent wanted to dismiss my framework because it isn't applicable to the resolution. To reiterate: 1.) The ends justify the means. Killing the Rachni ensures that they will not pose a threat to the galaxy. done and over with. It is certain, within the scopes of the situation to know that killing the queen ensures no further instance. 2.) Shepard has to act on the interest of everyone. Humans are unfamiliar with the Rachni war. Shepard doesn't know what truly happened during the Rachni wars and how much was lost and sacrificed. He is no qualified to make a decision based on his feelings alone. Therefore the interest of the Galaxy takes precedence. The Galaxy determined that the Rachni needed to be pushed to extinction during the Rachni wars. They knew more of the Rachni then, and it was collective effort of the majority. So it is safe to assume, the galaxy doesn't want the Rachni around. 3.) The right choice, is the one which most people will be satisfied. Since we cannot know the future, satisfaction is left to a value of numbers. The entire Galaxy believes the Rachni extinct and are seemingly content with this resolution. If the Rachni live and sometime later rampage out of nowhere, that doesn't suit the galaxy's interest at all. Summary: The entire purpose of Commander Shepard is to stop a great destruction from hitting the galaxy. Saren had just unleashed a weapon on Eden Prime that could potentially destroy the citadel, and then take over the entire galaxy. Shepard fits into my framework better, because everything he does is for the Galaxy's best interest. Sparing the Rachni isn't in the galaxy's best interests because they already made a decision concerning the Rachni. Furthermore, just because it's all nice and "good" and morally just to save life; it's not a realistic argument in the situation provided. The Rachni could potentially be very dangerous. One species took on the entire galaxy. To rebirth this species only takes 1, check it, 1 queen. She could run off and hide out of sight. Lay thousands of thralls, and possibly another queen or two; then the galaxy will be faced with another catastrophic incident. Yes it is realistically, logically, and morally, to just let her die. The Galaxy already assumes the Rachni are extinct anyways, nothing will change should the queen die; while although any benefits that could be obtained are lost, it is also said that any negative effects are also lost. ___End___ So kinda funny, the voting is ultimately up to what the voters think is the best course of action just like in the game. Thank you to my opponent for this match, and ability to debate. I wish you didn't have to forfeit a previous round; and i look forward to more ME debates. I love this game. http://www.owl232.net... |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00001-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | Apparently I just enjoy waiting for the very last second to do things. I'm refuting his arguments then defending mine, then giving you an overview of why I'm still winning the round. Overview:The debate is effectively a deontology vs. Utilitarianism debate. The vast majority of his contentions rely on us evaluating the round under a utilitarian framework in order to believe that they are true. This means that if I'm giving you plenty of reason to reject utilitiarianism, then you reject his arguments wholesail. This is doubly true because the vast majority of his refutations are predicated on accepting util in the first place. So if I'm giving you reason to reject utilitarianism, he loses virutally all offense in the round. Utilitarianism:His entire argument is predicated around the idea that we ought to be looking for the greatest good for the greatest number of people and looking for the best ends of the situation. There's a lot of reasons you reject this view:First, Util is incoherent since it is impossible to know which end is truly an end, and not merely an internal link to another impact. We can’t certainly know that a nuclear war won’t cause aliens to come give us fantastic technology, bettering everyone’s lives, so acting on perceived ends is insufficient. Further, it paralyzes actions since we can never stop calculating the infinite variables that would determine what ends are good, making it self-effacing since it cannot bring about good ends at all.Second, in util there can never be 0% credence that a proposition is true and if someone makes a promise with unimaginably large benefits, soceity would have to take that action, even though they have no reason to believe that they would follow through. Since utility functions are unbounded, anyone who describes a big enough impact will always have their will carried out, making consequentialism self-effacing. Third, on this resolution specifically, util is impossible. The resolution asks us to make a decision within that moment without knowing what the consequences are. This means that if we're evaluating the resolution under util, the resolution becomes impossible to actually evaluate because we can never know what the impacts of the action would be. Fourth, Aggregation is nonsensical since combining disparate experiences is impossible. Ten headaches don’t become one migraine as there is no actor capable of experiencing the collective pain of ten people. Rather, moral theories must recognize individuals’ subjective claims, which doesn’t require that we minimize suffering since my happiness is only valuable for my sake - we can’t weigh between 2 individuals’ interests.Fifth, we as human being are physically unable to aggregate harms, meaning we are physically unable to use util. Yudkowsky[1]: "'I am deeply moved if I see one man suffering and would risk my life for him. Then I talk impersonally about the possible pulverization of our big cities, with a hundred million dead. I am unable to multiple one man's suffering by a hundred million.' Human emotions take place within an analog brain. The human brain cannot release enough neurotransmitters to feel emotion a thousand times as strong as the grief of one funeral. A prospective risk going from 10,000,000 deaths to 100,000,000 deaths does not multiply by ten the strength of our determination to stop it. It adds one more zero on paper for our eyes to glaze over, an effect so small that one must usually jump several orders of magnitude to detect the difference experimentally." All of these responses are reasons for why utilitarianism is an impossible standard for us to actually use in this debate. This means you prefer deontology as it actually applies and allows us to make decisions in the scope of the resolution, making it the best framework to use to evaluate the round. But sixth, aggregation prevents the moral status of persons. Kamm[2]: "Suppose it was the case that I could kill the one to stop five from being killed ... it would mean that all of us were useable in a certain way ...one measure of people's worth is what we judge is permissible to do tot them. It is true that the five will be mistreated if I don't harm the one in order to stop their mistreatment. But they will be still the kind of beings who are inviolable insofar as it is wrong to harm them in a certain way even in order to realise the greater good of minimising that type of harm. If it were permissible to kill the one to save the others, no one (the one or the five) would have the status of a highly inviolable being." This has two impacts on the round: a) it destroys the value of life and living since using one for the benefit of a majority implicates everyone as useable in some way, which destroys any kind of inherent value that there is in living, and b) it means you prefer deontology over util because even if we can use the Rachni queen to possibly prevent some future war, we still have to respect the fact that by being alive grants us certain inviolable rights (i.e. the right not to be killed), which only deontology does. This means that my framework precedes his framework, meaning we have to fulfill my framework before we can look to his. But seventh, even if we do look to utilitarianism as the framework to follow, affirming meets it. By eliminating a race from having any kind of impact on the calculus of the future at all, you eliminate not only the entire possibility of a Rachni future, which is a potentially infinite amount of suffering you would cause among the Rachni who would've lived but now have no possibility of a chance to live, but you close the door on a chance for them to positively benefit the galaxy, which removes the possibility of an infinite amount of happiness from being experienced. This means that even if we look to util, util would say to spare the Queen. Substance:There's a few things that need to be clarified right here right now.1) I do not advocate for or defend the actions of the Krogan during the Rachni Wars. I view the near destruction of the Rachni race as just as horrible as the negative position is in terms of genocide of a race.2) That, in the context of this decision, THE RACHNI ARE OF ZERO THREAT TO THE GALAXY. One queen is pitiful compared to the entire combined might of a galaxy. There's zero harmful consequences to letting her live as she poses zero threat. 3) The entire premise of Con's case is ridiculous. Eliminating something that could potentially be threatening to our safety before it harms us to prevent that harm from possibly ever occuring is nonsensical. We don't outlaw all cars from being used because we could possibly get into an accident with them and possibly hurt other people.4) There's no reason not to believe the Rachni Queen when she states her desire for peace because a) she wasn't alive during the Rachni Wars. She didn't experience any of the influencing that forced the Rachni to war, nor did she experience any animosity that would push her to possibly avenging her fallen kin. All she literally wants is to not die and to live by herself as her race is inclined to do, and b) she has control of the entire race. As the only queen in existence, she would have direct hive mind control over all Rachni created, meaning her control would guarantee no other Rachni Wars from occuring. And, trust the cultural desire for isolation as it wasn't the Rachni who insigated the Rachni wars, rather the Salarians intruding on Rachni territory that started the Rachni Wars. The Rachni had all of eternity to expand outward, but didn't until the Salarians prodded them to defend themselves. This shows that if we don't prod them, they won't prod us. Conclusion:The entirety of my opponent's responses are predicated on the fact that we accept util as the framework to evaluate the round under. I'm throughoughly rejecting the concept of util, so you look to deontology. Deontology clearly shows that killing the Rachni queen is wrong, as he's made no effort to reject this concept. This means that if you buy my framework, you affirm.Moreover, I'm making arguments that show that even under util, we'd still affirm. This means that regardless of who's framework you buy, you affirm the resolution.Sources:[1] - https://intelligence.org...[2] - http://records.viu.ca... |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00002-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | Because my opponent was tied up with something else, I will continue the debate and use this round to defend my position over my opponents and rebuttal what I can. First, my opponent only uses 1 argument in their premise to justify sparing the Rachni Queen, which they use Kantian Deontology. This is supported by saying that killing the Rachni is only a means to an end and not an end itself. Also, that no one has the right to impose their will onto another being that is equal in rationality. Second, my opponent says that my argument is a flawed premise. Stating that the Rachni living wouldn't technically constitute another galactic war because it is not how they work culturally. Secondly, that the Queen that is in the situation has no relation to the war of it's ancestors and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions (ie: punishing a child for the crimes of the father). Rebuttal and Defense 1: The problem with using Kantian Deontology to support sparring the Rachni Queens life, is the fact that Kant's Ethics argue there is a moral absolutism involving rational actors. That a good will must be pursued, for the sake of good to happen. In this instance, as my opponent argues, Shepard must not commit genocide of an entire species because that is morally negligible and the Rachni are a species that can act rationally. This situation however isn't black and white. There is a very good reason for Shepard to act on a bad will for the sake of a good outcome, or a neutral outcome altogether. By the Rachni Queen dying, there is an absolute guarantee there will be no further incidents from this species. Only by allowing the species to live, is the possibility of a very bad outcome, come into question. A hypothetical I'd like to add to the defense, aside from all the speculation of time travel and all the theories that come with it. If you were alive and had a choice to kill Adolf Hitler before the formation of 3rd Reich knowing what would happen if he does. Would you still kill him? Kantian Ethics would argue that you cannot kill him. So through inaction and pursuing a good will, you would have allowed a terrible man to commit terrible deeds. Now to relate this to the argument at hand. Yes, there is no guarantee that the Rachni will cause further harm should they be allowed to live, however there is no certainty of the opposite being true either. Disposing of the Rachni ensures no negative actions will come from the decision. Also, the Rachni Queen states that she will not harm or cause war against the galaxy and that she only wants peace. My opponent naively believes that this is all the validation required to ensure that a peaceful outcome will come from the Rachni should you let them escape. Except, given the situation, The Rachni Queen literally is in a life or death situation made abundantly more important as she is the last of her species; any rational actor in her position would say anything to ensure their survival. She plays to the commander's sympathies, and "assures" that she wants is peace. Yeah, realistically this cannot be taken at face value for any reason. Especially given the Rachni's history. Defense and Rebuttal 2: It cannot be said for certain, that the Rachni being released from captivity would cause another great war in the future. However, as stated in my opening argument; there is no certainty that a peaceful situation would occur. My opponent argues that annihilating the Rachni species is immoral, but on whose authority I ask? The Galaxy has already determined the fate of the Rachni when they fought them to extinction then used techniques to ensure they would remain extinct. As stated in my opening argument, the Galaxy already assumes the Rachni to be no more. Allowing the Rachni to live is certainly going against what the Galaxy would want. Despite the chance that the Rachni may resolve to peace, the Rachni war was devastating in it's time. Also, commander Shepard has the duty to act on the Galaxy's best interest. Whether the Galaxy's stance is immoral or not, is irrelevant. The needs of the few never outweigh the needs of the many in a society. Therefore, killing the Rachni Queen is not only in the Galaxy's best interest, it is already believed they are extinct anyways. To argue a moral duty in this situation doesn't stack up to Shpeard's role in the situation. Since there is no time to convene a council on the fate of the Rachni and a decision must be made between life or death; the only logical and clear choice is to maintain the status quo of ensuring the Rachni remain extinct. Conclusion: There can be no assurance that letting the RQ live will ensure a peaceful outcome. Arguing that the RQ promises this, cannot for any reason be taken at face value given the circumstances. Letting the RQ live, and given their history, very well could go either way. Destruction or peace. There is no certainty of either one. Arguing that it is the morally right thing to do cannot be taken into account, when the society that Shepard represents has already determined the fate of the Rachni long ago. Shepard has a duty to act in the Galaxy's best interest, and the Galaxy's interest is clear that the Rachni should b extinct. Plus, ensuring the Rachni are extinct already maintains the Galaxy's presumption on the matter. Only by allowing the Rachni to live, do you present uncertainty. Benefit of the doubt, is not a logical choice to go against what society already expects in this situation, because ethics come into play. It may be wrong to commit murder or genocide, but if it guarantees another galactic war with the Rachni will happen, then the decision cannot be undermined due to ethical conundrums. Despite Shepard's moral compass, the Galaxy's interest is the most important in this situation. |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00003-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | Thanks to my opponent for their opening argument. I am going to evaluate the situation under an opposing framework, and the arguments why killing the Rachni Queen is the better outcome rather than sparring. Framework I am arguing the resolution, under the premises of: Consequentialism, Moral Altruism, and Unilateralism. What these premises argue is that 1.) An ethical decision is judged by it's consequence, there for the "right" decision is based upon whichever decision produces the best outcome (ends justify the means). 2.) That Shepard has a moral responsibility to act in the Galaxy's best interest and not his own; Shepard must consider the outcome in the interest of the entire council and non council species. 3.) That the decision is ultimately right, if the most people will be satisfied with the result. Premise 1: Ends justify the means I argue this, as my opponent correctly assumed, that it is not a flawed premise. Shepard only knows the circumstances given and the weight of the outcome can only be interpreted through what he knows for certain. We know for certain that the Rachni put the Galaxy on the brink of annihilation when "accidentally" stumbled upon by the Salarians. The Council wanted to initiate negotiations, but were futile as the queens were unavailable for negotiation. (1) If they were not truly hostile, why did they need to expand themselves and fight back instead of facilitate a peaceful negotiation? Shepard only knows for certain the history of the Rachni, and knows the galaxy was put in great danger when they were encountered. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the Rachni have the ability to take this course of action again. By exterminating the Rachni, Shepard can be for certain that the queen will not lay more eggs and expand into a sizable force and take "revenge" for what had happened to her or her people. By allowing the Rachni to live, there is the very real possibility that the Rachni could be another force upon the galaxy again with hostile intentions. Premise 2: Shepard cannot take his own feelings into consideration given his situation Shepard must be objective in this situation. As he is dealing with another alien species, he must consider the galaxy's interest above his own. The Humans have no quarrel with the Rachni so therefore it creates a biased opinion. Wrex points out that "bugs writing songs about you" has no real value (1). Despite what the Rachni might think, the commander's decision must face the galaxy's expectations as well. As stated above, and to prevent redundancy, the galaxy only knows the horror the Rachni have caused. If the galaxy as a whole were represented in Shepard's situation, they would only know for certain that by eliminating the Rachni would prevent a future incident. To argue the moral responsibility of the galaxy in this situation IS a flawed premise, because the actual opinion of the galaxy is that the Rachni should be exterminated. By allowing the Rachni to live, presents the very justifiable reason they intend to cause another war which is not in the galaxy's best interest and there is no evidence to believe that war is not within the realm of possibility concerning the Rachni. Premise 3: The Rachni's extermination presents no further negative consequences to the galaxy By allowing the Rachni to live, presents the whole debate as it currently is presented. Exterminating the Rachni has no negative consequence on the galaxy, because up to this point the galaxy assumed the Rachni were extinct anyways. By eliminating the Rachni, the galaxy will still continue without the presence of the Rachni which they determined previously was to cause extinction. During the Rachni wars, the galaxy not only fought them back, but used every method possible to ensure extinction (1). If you allow the Rachni to live, there could be the possibility they may still be irrelevant to the galaxy but there is no way possible to guarantee this premise for certainty. Given the situation, the only real certainty is to continue along the presumed approach of the galaxy in the past, and that is to make sure the Rachni are extinct. This situation will cause the most happiness, because it can be assumed the galaxy is happy with their current situation considering the Rachni species altogether. Conclusion: Altogether, given the situation, Shepard has a responsibility to act on the galaxy's best interest. It is with no certainty that allowing the Rachni to live will produce a better outcome; it can only be speculated. The galaxy's intent on the Rachni was made clear during the Rachni Wars that the species altogether must be eradicated and there is no real evidence (prior to the encounter) to prove that the intention has changed. It is absolutely certain, that by eliminating the Rachni the galaxy will function as it has, under the presumption the Rachni were extinct; only when you allow the queen to be set free do you present the possibility that things will change; and it is no guarantee that the Rachni will assuredly act on the galaxy's best interest. Source: (1) http://masseffect.wikia.com... |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00004-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | I'm going to propose a framework for evaluating the round under, and then extrapolate two arguments for sparing the Rachni Queen rather than killing the Rachni Queen. Framework:I propose a framework of evaluating the resolution under the guise of Kantian deontology. What Kant argues, among other things, is that we ought to act in two ways: the first in that we can will our action to be taken by every other rational actor, and that we treat others as ends in themselves and not as means to a different end. What do I mean by these? To act in a way that you can will your action to every other rational actor means that your action must be universizable. And what I mean by universizable is that in the grand context of every other situation of similar context, were any other rational actor in your place, that they would rationally make the same decision that you made. And to treat others as ends in themselves rather than as a means to another end is to respect the individual worth of everyone to not be treated as tools for other people's use. To use someone as a means to another end is to say that they aren't valuable in themselves, but rather that they are only valuable to achieve some other sort of end, which demeans their individual worth. So it's my job to show that sparing the Rachni Queen better meets Kant's views of morality than killing the queen does. Argument One: Right to Self-Determination:I argue that all forms of intelligent life, human or otherwise, have a right to self-determination of themselves and their race. By self-determination I don't mean that I make decisions for all the white people in existence (i. e. I don't say that all white people have to wear red shirts and blue jeans). What I mean is that I ought to be in charge of all the decisions directly responsible to my own person, and humanity ought to be responsible for all the decisions directily responsible to their own persons. No other person should make decisions about what happens to me, and no other race should make decisions about what happens to humanity. Two reasons this is true:1. To determine someone else's decisions is to treat them not as an end within themselves, but as a mean to some other kind of end. To say that my opponent only should wear red shirts is to say that "my opponent is only useful/relevant/moral when he's wearing red shirts", which uses my opponent for the ultimate end of red shirt wearing, not as an end in himself. Only through self-determination can we say that I have the right to act as I'm an end within myself and not someone else using me for some different end.2. To determine someone else's decisions isn't something that we can will upon all other rational actors. I may decide that my opponent should only wear red shirts, but another person might think that red looks bad on him and that he should only wear blue shirts. A third person might think we're both wrong and that he should wear black shirts. Making decisions for others can never be truly universalized, meaning that we ought not make decisions about the fate of others. This has two implications on the round as it pertains to the Rachni Queen. First, killing the Rachi Queen violates both of these principles. It violates the principle of treating others as ends in themselves as we're killing the Rachni to secure future safety for us and to prevent another Rachni Wars from occuring. This uses the death of the Rachni for the end of our safety, which uses the Rachni as a means to another end rather than as an end in itself. And it violates the principle of universizability because not everyone else can be willed to make the same decision. Even members of Shepard's own party don't come to the conclusion of killing, ranging from various degrees of unwillingness. To quote from the wikia[1]: "Liara T'Soni and Tali'Zorah nar Rayya favor releasing the rachni, claiming the krogan went too far while Garrus Vakarian advocates alerting the Council and is against committing wholesale genocide, and Kaidan Alenko favors releasing the rachni only because he thinks killing a whole race is counterproductive to humans staying out of old galactic grudges. " Killing the queen isn't an action that can be universalized upon all other rational actors, and, therefore, violates Kant's vision of ethics. Second, Garrus is correct in that killing the queen constitutes the genocide of the Rachni species. If genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a particular ethic group of people, then by killing off the last survivng Rachni, we're commiting genocide of an entire species and creating the extinction of an entire race. I shouldn't have to explain why these are in violation of both of Kant's principles, but genocide is most certainly not using the Rachni as a end in themselves, nor is genocide a universizable option. So, to summarize, not only is killing this individual Rachni Queen in violation of Kant's principles, but killing the Rachni as a race is in violation of Kant's principles, which is two reasons why the Rachni Queen ought to be spared. Argument Two: Con's Flawed Premise:I expect Con to make the argument that the killing of the Queen is justified to prevent the possibility of another Rachni Wars. The Rachni Wars were particularly bloody and brutal and almsot lead to the extinction of all other Council Races before the introduction of the Krogan, and seemlingly the only solution then was to "kill or be killed". Letting the Rachni Queen live opens the possibility of her creating another army of Rachni and coming back to finish the job. To prevent future extermination of all life, rather than just the Rachni, the killing of the last Queen would seem justified. There's a few problems with this premise though. The first is that this isn't how Rachni work culturally. To quote from the wikia[1]: "The rachni are a territorial race, determined to remain isolated from the rest of the galaxy. They normally inhabit extremely hazardous worlds, able to survive environments that would kill most sentient species. Should their territory be invaded on purpose or even by accident, they respond with swift and brutal force. " This shows that by nature of thought, the Rachni aren't inherently expansionistic and looking for conflict. They prefer to stay isolated and out of the way of other races and forms of life, and only retaliate if they feel their land and homes have been invaded. This should tell us that if we let them go, and leave them alone, that there's no reason they'll ever come picking a fight against us again. The second is that this queen is innocent of the atrocities of the war. We can tell from the dialogue of the situation at hand from conversing with the Queen that this Queen in particular was still in her egg, yet to be birthed into existence, while the Rachni Wars were being waged. And the Queen promises to "not attack other races again but find somewhere to live in peace, and teach her children about Shepard's forgiveness. " should she be spared from death. This means we have a verbal guarantee that the Rachni Wars won't be replicated. And, we should trust this verbal guarantee because a) of the cultural reasons why the Rachni don't like looking for fights, and b) because among the Rachni, the Queens are responsible for controlling the thinking of all other Rachni. The Rachni as a race operate under a form of hive-mind intelligence, meaning that the leaders control the thralls. And the Queens are the ones responsible for controlling the thoughts and actions of their thralls. With Queens having complete control over the thoughts and actions of the warriros under them, and this Queen in particular pledging to stay the hell away from everyone else, there's no reason not to believe that the Rachni will stay gone for good. Conclusion:Through looking at Kant and his principles of moral decision making, we can see that killing the Rachni Queen isn't a universizable action and it uses not only the queen as a means to an end, but the race as a whole as a means to an end. Sparing the queen is the only option that is consistent with Kant's principles. Source:[1] - . http://masseffect.wikia.com...; |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00005-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | I am eager to see how this goes down. I accept! Also since it wasn't stated, just to clarify any knowledge that could have been gained before the encounter is usable within the Mass Effect 1 game and lore |
84629e8b-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00006-000 | Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni | I decided to start this, much in the same line of bsh1's Star Trek debates, to start a series of debates about Mass Effect. I love Mass Effect not only because of the rich storyline but also because of the tough ethical questions and dilemmas that the game forces you to face down and confront. This debate series is intended to replicate those questions and debate about the proper course of action between the two options that the game presents to you. Background Information:In Mass Effect 1, the story takes Shepard to the planet of Noveria to track down an asari matriarch known as Lady Benezia. She had known ties to Saren, the rogue Spectre who was working for the Reapers, and Lady Benezia likely knew where Saren was or what he was up to. After you defeat Lady Benezia, you discover that Saren and Lady Benezia's work on Noveria was to produce a rachni army.The racni were a previously believed to be extinct race of bug-like creatures. In the past they were the cause of the Rachni Wars, a bloody war that claimed millions of lives and forced the Salarians to uplift an entire race to galactic power specifically to fight the Rachni and force them beyond the edges of known space, known as the Krogan. The Krogan were believed to have eliminated the Rachni, extinguishing the species entirely. But, as the game reveals to us, a single egg remained on a derelict ship in deep space. It was the egg of a Rachni queen, and Saren's plan was to use that queen to replicate a Rachni army to use for his deeds.After defeating Lady Benezia, Shepard comes face to face with the Rachni queen and must decide whether to release the Rachni queen from imprisonment, or to kill the Rachni queen. Leaving the queen there wasn't an option: the facility was in ruins and leaving the Rachni there for Saren to return and get was a bad idea. The Resolution: Shepard ought to release the Rachni queen from captivity rather than kill the Rachni queen.A few rules:1. The debate is a comparative debate between the two positions of release and kill. The burden of proof is split between both positions. Both sides must advocate for why their position is the correct ethical choice. 2. The debate will center within the confines of the information you have available within that game. For example, knowing that if you release the Rachni queen, you will later run into the Rachni queen again in Mass Effect 3 cannot be used as it is outside the scope of the information known within that game and within that decision specifically. 3. As much as I'm known for being one, kritiking the topic is against the rules. I want this to be an honest, earnest discussion of ethics in relation to Mass Effect, and would prefer to stay on track if at all possible. The debate should be impossible to accept. If you would like to take this debate, leave a note in the comments section and I will choose someone in a few days. |
a49a567c-2019-04-18T16:36:39Z-00000-000 | Christianity Is Stupid | I shall begin and will be of the assumption that my opponent is arguing all christian believers are stupid. Reasons why Christianity is not stupid----------------------------------------1. Many Christians are not blindless followersa. Many christians go through a vigorous journey of questioning and study before they take the commitment to be baptized. Contrary to beliefs, true christians are taking a life long commitment. http://www.bethinking.org... 2. Christian Scientistsa. There have been many christian scientists. These include- Isaac Newton (Rules of Gravity)- Nicholas Copernicus (Astronomer)- Sir Francis Bacon ( Scientific Method)http://www.godandscience.org... b. Just because some Christians are stupid, does not mean all of them fall into the same category. Examples....- Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.- Not all Christians believe abortion is wrong.- Not all Christians believe that god hates homosexuality.http://notalllikethat.org... Rebuttals------------ Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire? Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life. I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something.A. Maybe it is because The lord no longer has any need to use his powers. We have learned what he has desired to give us, and we can not claim to understand someone as wise and all knowing as god ( Under the assumption that god exists).B. The lord does not hate anybody. It is very clear in the bible. http://biblethumpingliberal.com... This one is simple: the Bible is easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true. Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it! A. Sources.B. Not all Christians are young earth "quacks". Only a very small minority.C. Not all Christians deny evolution. Believe me, this is a common misconception. Just not in the exact same way.D. Not all Christians believe the bible should be taken litterally. http://www.rationalskepticism.org... Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses, they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism. A. This does not actually happen. Most churches just have you go up and drink a cup of grape juice and bite on a styrofoam cracker. We do not actually cannibalize church goers. At least not that I know of. Reasons Why I should Win-----------------------------1. Sources 2. I proved that not all followers of Christ are stupid.3. I proved that sometimes mainstream Christianity is not always right. As Isaac Newton and Copernicus have proven. 4. I proved that not all christians are homophobic, anti abortion, young earth, or cannibalists. 5. I proved that most TRUE christians are not blindless followers, and study and research extensively before commiting to baptism. |
a49a567c-2019-04-18T16:36:39Z-00001-000 | Christianity Is Stupid | Christianity is stupid because it is based on the Bible, which is nothing more than a fairy-tale. 1. Prophecies The Bible is like your neighborhood tarot card reader; it makes a bunch of predictions that fail, then brags about the one that didn't. For example, in 2 Peter 3, Peter claims “scoffers” will come and deny Noah's Flood and the Creation story. Obviously, nobody is “scoffing” at Noah's Flood, so this is bunk. Then in Ezekiel 11:17 & 28:25, and Jeremiah 30:3, “God” makes the absurd prediction that the Jews will one day return to Israel and reclaim it as their own: another bust. 2. Acts of God Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire? Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life. I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something. 3. Science This one is simple: the Bible is easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true. Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it! 4. Cannibalism Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses, they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism. Good luck to my opponent. He'll need it! |
a49a567c-2019-04-18T16:36:39Z-00002-000 | Christianity Is Stupid | I accept |
a49a567c-2019-04-18T16:36:39Z-00003-000 | Christianity Is Stupid | I cautiously welcome my opponent to this debate and warn him not to be offended. |
7126af05-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00000-000 | Prisons Should Segregate by Race | hope for a civil debate. Now what is the main idea of this debate? This is whether we should have segregated prisons based on race. Now the segregation is not based on race but more of gang violence. Look at the Aryan Brotherhood. Being the nations first major white supremacist prison gang. I am not assuming there white supremacist ideology." It's criminal organization. We need to be clear on that. Is there racism? You bet there is racism. Is it dominant? No."Ex-AB leader Michael Thompson. Following from this quote a former Aryan Brotherhood leader admitted the Aryan Brotherhood being a white supremacist and criminal organization. Now how is this relevant? The Segregation prison will reduce race wars. Gang violence will reduce since they have less gangs to attack. Look at what happened. There has been multiple times where a northern Mexican meets a southern Mexican in the mess hall. Let's say things were unpleasant. This is less about race and more of gang violence and racism. A inmate is more likely to share his cell with a person with the same race and ethnic group than there is with one without it. "In instances where the matter was pushed by staff, they would have to physically force the inmates into the cells. This resulted in a massive administrative hassle as the situation is considered to be a "calculated use of force." This required notifications to people in high places who didn"t want to be irritated, a video record of the incident, sometimes delays in count and significant impact to prison operations, including overtime costs." says by Bob Walsh. It's pretty clear. The segregation of races and ethnic groups is less about race and more about the safety of the guards,inmates,and race relations. Sources and Cites: https://www.splcenter.org...... https://www.correctionsone.com...... |
7126af05-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00001-000 | Prisons Should Segregate by Race | racist mofo |
7126af05-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00002-000 | Prisons Should Segregate by Race | I believe that prisons should segregate by race. |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00000-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | No |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00001-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | Con, your last argument is 100% wrong. If you are a vegetarian you must be an animal abuser. Did you not see the graph I posted in the comments? Animal cruelty as defined by wikipedia: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Wikipedia There is no kind way to make the statement I'm about to make. You sir or madam are an animal abuser. You have indirectly caused suffering and harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival. If you eaten eggs, milk, cheese, or any other animal product within your lifetime you have endorsed animal cruelty. Do you think those egg laying chickens and dairy cows simply appeared out of thin air? No, they were born. Born from parents who were mistreated and spent their entire life in captivity. What happens when the chicken or cow is spent? It is slaughtered. You don't need to eat eggs, milk, or cheese to survive. There are plenty of healthy vegans. As I see it anyone who eats eggs or milk has caused more animal cruelty than Cecil the lion's killer. What is the difference between a cow, chicken, and lion's suffering anyways? Can you honestly look at the humanemyth.org pages and tell me you haven't endorsed animal cruelty? The parents of the egg laying chickens and dairy cows. The field animals killed in harvesting the livestock's feed. I see it as hypocritical to be against animal cruelty when you openly admit you are a vegetarian and thus help cause animal cruelty. You might as well slaughter the egg laying hens yourself. On the other hand, I'm alright with animal cruelty. I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan. Yes, there is animal blood on my hands. Yet, you haven't answered the question. What makes animal cruelty wrong or unjust? I say might makes right. Humans got nuclear weapons and lots of other weapons. Also humans' ability to cooperate. " But in addition, we are intensely interested in what other people are doing and thinking, and this is something the cognitive psychologists have come out with pretty clearly in recent years, that people are superb, all of us geniuses, at reading the intentions of others in order to get cooperation, to develop dominance, bonding and so on. And that is what is called social intelligence." NPR.org http://freefromharm.org... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://humanemyth.org... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.npr.org... |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00002-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | You are overthinking it. what you are talking about with trees does not mean anything in this case. i am a vegetarian even though i wear a dog suit, i also eat organic food. you cannot tell me that i accept animal cruelty, because i do not in any form. |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00003-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | "I like animals, so it is not morally sound." Con I like trees. What gives you right to infringe upon my freedom and seek justice against me while still upholding your freedom and right to mistreat trees? What gives you the right to go to the store and purchase paper products which endorses the paper industry? An industry which cuts down, kills, and then turns the tree's corpse into paper for you to use at your convince. What right do you have to plant, raise, nurture, kill, process, sell, buy, use, own, and neglect living trees generation after generation? What gives you the power of life and death over plants? To genetically modify plants' DNA. Overriding my preference for you not to mistreat trees. Simultaneously reinforcing your preference for me not to inflict animal cruelty upon non-homo sapien animals. Overriding my preference to abuse animals. I state it is not morally sound to genetically modify trees. "Monsanto and its spinoff ArborGen have also set their sights on genetically modified trees and grasses." Friday, April 27, 2012 by: Tony Isaacs http://www.tappi.org... http://www.naturalnews.com... |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00004-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | I like animals, so it is not morally sound. |
d37a3269-2019-04-18T14:16:59Z-00005-000 | Animal Cruelty is morally sound | I, pro will argue that animal cruelty is perfectly acceptable in all forms. Clarification, I'm debating about homo sapiens being responsible directly or indirectly for cruelty to non-homo sapiens within the animal kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org... |
f6dfad3c-2019-04-18T11:53:29Z-00000-000 | 31 states deny adoption rights for rape victims. | rape is sexy also do you play roblox |
f6dfad3c-2019-04-18T11:53:29Z-00001-000 | 31 states deny adoption rights for rape victims. | What I mean by adoption rights is the right of a rape victim to place a child for adoption without her rapist's consent. I was raped when I was 22, and this fear stabbed my heart. Pro will go first. |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00000-000 | gay marriage should be legal | Thanks to pro for the debate. As regards pro's argument, he hasn't changed it and, as such, it still remains invalid. Even given that there is no reason to restrict the liberty of homosexuals (which I haven't challenged in this debate), and given that marriage of any kind is cultural, it does not logically follow that the state should hand out gay marriages. Pro would have to have added some other sort of premise to make it work deductively. Either way, by not handing out marriages to homosexuals the state isn't prohibiting our limiting people's liberty at all. Being unmarried isn't a restriction, so his first premise doesn't support his case. The second premise (marriage's being "cutural") without some sort of additional premise doesn't support the argument that same-sex marriage should be handed out by the state. As for my argument, pro hasn't successfully challenged it. Pro appears to be denying that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, as such, have any intrinsic value or good. If that's really the case, then it's hard to see why the state has any duty or obligation to give marriage to anybody, let alone homosexuals. The state doesn't have to give value to something without any value. Pro also continues with the claim that my argument counts as being in discrimination. I'm happy to call it discrimination, so long as we go with the first definition found on his website (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) which is "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things. " I've given an argument to show why my discrimination doesn't count as unjust discrimination. Pro even admits, "No one is saying that the two marriages are the same. " But that's just to grant my premise 3, that the two are not equivalent in nature. Given that premise, and 4-8, which he has left unchallenged, the concusion logically follows, meaning that my argument is sound. |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00001-000 | gay marriage should be legal | Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms. |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00002-000 | gay marriage should be legal | Thanks to pro for the reply.Pro's ArgumentUnfortunately, the argument that pro is putting forward is still unclear to me. It's not shown how the notions of "nature" and "culture" as defined help his case. Even if I grant that we should not place restrictions on practices without good reason, and that marriage of any kind is unnatural, how does it follow that the state should hand out gay marriages? First off, the argument isn't even valid, and pro still has not fixed this fact. Secondly, if anything, pro's case supports the view that the state shouldn't be giving out marriages at all. If pro is trying to argue that the state is limiting freedom by not giving gay marriage, it's not. By not giving gay marriages the state isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. So I still cannot see pro's line of argument. I'm still waiting for a valid argument where the conclusion follows from the premises.Con's ArgumentI don't think pro quite understood my argument, so I'll try to explain. What I am arguing is that the state ought to make relevant distinctions between relationships which are inherently different. We can understand whether a relationship X is different from a relationship Y if X and Y, by their very nature, have different goods which are intrinsic to them. So just as the relatonship of close friendship can be distinguished from the relationship of a business partnership by the different goods which are intrinsic to each type of relationship, so can we distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual union by the different goods which are intrinsic to each. This isn't to deny that one or more of these relationships might obtain between two people (though in some cases they may incompossible); a wife can also be a business partner. It's just to say that they can be distinguished.As for the second point pro brings up, I should note first of all that my contention, that the state should support hetersexual marriage, is prima facie quite plausible. In order to accept this you need not explicitly deny that, therefore, the state should deny same-sex marriage. It only follows given my other premises. I'd still support my claim that the state's most vital interest is in supporting heterosexual union, given that the vast majority of sexual unions take place between heterosexuals, that heterosexual couples are the most common way that children are produced, as well as the fact that heterosexual couples can engage in the type of union which is intrinsically ordered toward reproduction (though female homosexual can reproduce artificially, by a sperm donation of a third party, it's still not intrinsically ordered toward reproduction). Either way, pro has to either say that heterosexual union should be enshrined as marriage, or heterosexual union should not be enshrined as marriage. So which is it, pro? Do you or do you not think that the state should support heterosexual union as marriage.Pro also makes the point that my argument could be used just as well against inter-racial unions. That's not true. There is nothing intrinsic an qua heterosexual union that could be used to separate inter-racial couples from non-inter-racial couples. All the goods available by marriage are available in the same way to a white-black couple and white-white couple. Finally, pro calls my arguments discriminatory. So be it. To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things, and the state should do this; indeed, the state has to do this if it's to carry out any functions at all, which is what my sixth premise states. The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in this sense. What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00003-000 | gay marriage should be legal | Ill make this as brief as possible. My opponent claims my first contention is "trivially true" and that "We all know not to place restrictions on things for no reason." Yes, I know that "we all know." That does not make it trivial or nonobjective. This is not a refutation of my first contention. His dispute with my second contention is mostly unwarranted other than it is true that I did not define what I meant by culture and nature. I will do so. First, however, Con's analogy with beans is incorrect. Beans would be something I consider natural. How we use beans is something I consider cultural. For instance, we could use beans as money, or we could cook them in several different foods. I hope that puts culture and nature into some context. Culture I would define as the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action (http://dictionary.reference.com...). This is extremely broad, but it will suffice for this debate. Nature, on the other hand, is the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Again, this is broad, but is socially acceptable. Culture is simply what humans do and nature is what humans do not do, but what we use. Contention one works perfectly with the conclusion. Contention two works if we incorporate it in the correct way insofar as we may imagine one to argue that a reason for banning gay marriage is because it defies "nature," or that heterosexual marriages have some sort of innate benefit towards society that same-sex marriage cannot provide. This is a common argument I have heard, so that is why I included contention two. In short, the argument works if we accept the premises, which Con has failed to refute. I will now deal with Con's argument as briefly as possible. Con's argument pretty much breaks down to two contentions: 1) the two unions are not equivalent, or the same; and 2) the state has more interest in heterosexual unions. 1) Con claims that the two unions are not equivalent in nature, analogizing the two relationships with friends and business partners. First, Con is conflating "sameness" with "equality." In some instances, the two are the same. In this instance, the two are not because we are not talking about the relationships by definition, which are not the same, we are talking about the legal rights of both groups. Second, Con's analogy is not valid. The government does not recognize friends and it only recognizes businesses insofar as requiring individuals to obtain a business license. Business partners can still be friends as well as a married couple. The only difference between these group is by definition within social context. The government does not dole out rights based on differences. 2) Con argues that the state has more interest in the heterosexual union because it is "directly relevant to whether or not the society continues to grow or not." This is completely untrue. First, the government does not require that people have children in a marriage; therefore, it is completely irrelevant to distinguish a marriage on whether or not it can bear children. Second, homosexuals can have children. Obviously, through different means such as artificial insemination and adoption, both of which heterosexual couples can use if they are infertile. In short, Con's argument by definition is discriminatory. We could replace each variant of homosexual union with a variant of interracial couple, and one could not distinguish this argument from ones made by white supremacists to keep interracial marriage illegal. This is a civil rights issue! |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00004-000 | gay marriage should be legal | First off, thanks to pro for the debate. In this round I will do two things. First, I'll reply to my opponent's points. I will follow this with an argument against same sex marriage (SSM for short).Pro's ArgumentI think that pro's argument simply does not work. The first premise states, "Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it." In other words, if there are not good reasons for banning a practice, then it should be legal. This is unobjectionable as far as it goes, though it isn't particularly informative as well. We all know not to place restrictions on things for no reason.The second premise says that, "Marriage of any kind is cultural and, therefore, unnatural." But how does it follow from the fact that something is cultural that it is unnatural? Though beans are a part of some cultures, it doesn't follow that they are unnatural. Maybe pro can elucidate more on what he means by terms such as "cultural" and "natural", and show the mutual exclusivity of the two.A final problem is that the argument is just not valid. Even re-formulating it in the most charitable way I could think of:(1) If there are not good reasons for banning a practice, then it should be legal.(2) Marriage of any kind is un-natural.(3) Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.it simply doesn't work. In terms of logic, this is not a valid form at all. Maybe given the premise "If something is unnatural, then there is no good reason to ban it," we could turn this into an argument which is formally valid, though this premise seems definitely wrong. Either way, we don't really know what pro means by "natural" and "un-natural", so it's impossible to assess whether it's true or not.In summary:- The first premise is only trivially true.- Something's being cultural doesn't imply that it's unnatural.- The terms "cultural" and "unnatural" aren't well-defined.- Something's being unnatural doesn't mean there are no good reasons to ban it.- The argument isn't valid. Hopefuly pro will be able to fix these problems up so we can have a better debate.The Law Should Distinguish Heterosexual and Homosexual Unions:(1) There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. (2) If relationships of type X and type Y do not share the same goods, then X and Y are not equivalent. (3) Therefore, heterosexual union and non-heterosexual union are not equivalent. (4) Therefore, heterosexual union and homosexual union are not equivalent. (5) If the law treats both heterosexual union and homosexual union as marriage, then the law is not distinguishing between things which are not equivalent.(6) The law should distinguish between relationships which are not equivalent.(7) Therefore, the law should not treat both heterosexual union and homosexual union as marriage.(8) The law should treat heterosexual union as marriage.(9) Therefore, the law should not treat homosexual union as marriage.The basic idea of the argument is this. Heterosexual union has emotional, sexual and parental goods which aren't found in other types of relationships. These include the specific types of bonds a mother and father can jointly share with a child, the ability to engage in sexual relations which are inherently ordered toward reproduction, and others. Because of this they are not equivalent in nature to non-heterosexual unions, just as the fact that platonic friendships or business relationships have certain exclusive goods sufficiently establishes that they are not equivalent. But if these goods are exclusive to heterosexual union, this also establishes that heterosexual union and homosexual union are not equal. And just as the law distinguishes between friendship and business relationships due to their non-equivalence, it should do the same for heterosexual and homosexal relationships. Yet, if the law were to treat heterosexual and homosexual relationships as both being marriage in the exact same sense, it would not be distinguishing between relationships which are not equivalent. Hence, the state should only treat one of these as marriage. Now, most same-sex marriage proponents do not deny that the law should grant marriage to heterosexual couples. The state has a much more vital interest in upholding heterosexual union, as it is directly relevant to whether or not the society continues to grow or not. Hence,the law should treat heterosexual union as marriage and, in the spirit of making relevant distinctions, not do the same for homosexual unions.Counter-sources: http://www.penang-traveltips.com... |
f036929f-2019-04-18T18:45:43Z-00005-000 | gay marriage should be legal | My argument will be based on two contentions: 1) liberty is a default position and 2) marriage is not natural. 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. I would conclude, therefore, that these contentions affirm the resolution. If we accept 1, then we must have ample reason to limit freedom, and if we accept 2, we must acknowledge that there is no biological, or natural, basis for marriage. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00000-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | That concludes the debate, with this particular fate, in such a way it has ended. I hope a time will be realized, in a world idealized, where all hostility is suspended, I hope you enjoyed this rap, now I'll go take a nap, and hope no one was offended. Have a nice day, I've got nothing left to say, aside from all arguments extended. |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00001-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | One isn't simply right, whenever they win a fight, they have just simply won, You can continue to ignore, that situation for more, but then it will never be done. Am I intended to refrain, because you want me to abstain, should I turn now and run? In a world that's unfair, it will always be there, for a perfect solution, there always is none. To believe your dichotomy, I would need a lobotomy, it's not simply aggressor versus defender, Conflict can always create, all the excuses needed for hate, and be the catalyst for the situation to render, There was no state, that was forced to abate, no country uprooted, replaced with a pretender, But that's what you see, when you are looking at me, and you philosophically will ask for surrender. The sovereign defines the border, and it's like any other order, determined by the appropriate side, But you'd have us believe, in any way that one can deceive, that nature should be the one to decide. Any group can create that illusion, that it has a reasonable delusion, even if is just foolish pride, But that's not reality, and in that there's no morality, and this is the nonsense that I have defied. And yet you invoke history, within that there is no mystery, you have no possible ground, Throughout all of existence, it has forever maintained persistence, in claims that are sound. Ownership is historically defined in victory, not by something contradictory, and so it's been bound. But you'd like to conceive, something else to believe, that second place is whom should be crowned. So don't invoke the past, as something that we should contrast, since it will always favor my position, Unless you want to uproot, every other place of former dispute, though perhaps that is in fact your real mission. But it is ironic to be clear, because every other place you hold dear, would certainly then need new partition. Though I understand, this is just you showing your hand, Its just your particular hypocrisy - the Jewish edition. I dismiss your fight because it just isn't right, I should take flight because I might feel your bite? I should consider your plight because I withhold the light? Restore your sight or endure the long night. At the risk of a slight, I mock your position in delight, your claim is greater because I might be more white? Sit tight with the shite you are always forthright to incite, and I'll continue to mock that which will always be trite. You are only barred as long as that simple fact you discard, you will never celebrate the day we are defeated, Our will is unbending, it's establishment unending, it's foolish that this could ever need to be repeated. The instigators are pathetic, to those you subjugate I'm sympathetic, as they are the ones who are cheated. The issue has been settled, regardless of who here has meddled, the establishment has already been completed. Your demands are a non starter, so find a better way to be a martyr, because I will not concede to my demise, The reprimands are reasonable, to demands that are unfeasible, because I will not die for anyone that tries. I'll concede to many mistakes, this is true of all life and death stakes, so there are plenty of reasons to chastise. But to sacrifice any and every women, child or man, within your perpetuated refugee plan, is clearly unwise. No one is seeking your destruction, there's no basis for that deduction, do you think that's something I couldn't achieve? The world says so hyperbolic, regardless of how false and vitriolic, it's not something anyone reasonable could really believe. You have your equal determination, you have chosen endless battle as vocation, and that is why you will always grieve. You can choose to be productive, but will lose this plan to be destructive, regardless of whom you've been able to deceive. For fifty years you have lost, and that is the ultimate cost, of this plan that only ends with the lack of my nation, Subjugate to perpetuate, infuriate while you propagate, the means to an end that only leads to all your frustration. You can tend to genuine need, while the innocent are ignored while they plead, cast to poverty and starvation. But 1 percent is too much, and so it will continue as such, no peace and no future for you that has declared this damnation. |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00002-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | My opponent's finesse deserves applause,but the ultimate justification is flawed:Why is he in the right when he displacesin a world filled with uprooted races?By what criteria is the permissibility weighed?When the conflict arises, who receives aid?The aggressors, or the defenders in every case?If so, then any borders can be erased.So, where does the right arise?Is this land just a tournament prize?And, if it's an adornment for the strong,Then there's no question of right or wrong.History does not justify this occupation,There's nothing at the root, no ultimate causation.When the naked truth is that might makes right,Why debase and dismiss our fight?So long as our people remain barred from their landsas we are faced with bigotted reprimands,so long this state is based on ethnic majority,there will never be peace, healing, and amity.Peace can be accomplished through the destruction of a regime,which relies on ethnic identity as a central theme.Destruction of a people is not a goal.We seek the shattering of that people's control.We fight for an equal share of determination,in what ought to be a unified nation. |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00003-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | My man sets the stage, for this battle we wage, with the typical narrative tale, My people fleeing, your people being, good luck, we will see who will prevail. Either narrative extreme, is just a false dream, no truth from one or the others, Neither the emply land, nor the welcoming hand, as though we were welcome like brothers. Yes it was preffered, to the outright deterred, but it was far from anything sufficient, Take what you allow, to survive and just bow, anyone wants something a bit less deficient. Let me be clear, for any confusion I fear, you are correct about the nature of then, But you can't expect, with all due respect, for us just to worry about the inevitable when. Europe has significant guilt, but it is not uniquely built, for opression knows no nation, It should be apparent, as it never is errant, to seek out and find ones salvation. Again I realize, since it's needless to theorize, this factual notion of how it once was, But it wasn't all great, and let's keep that straight, but does it matter? Yes it does. Freedom of self-determination, of non-discrimination, should be everyones dream, Free to improve ones station, to build a new foundation, however unlikely it may seem. The world is flawed, often built on silent lies and overt fraud, but it is where we are, Controlled by the corrupt, truth tranished as abrupt, so can salvation really be going too far? Not where we belong? Don't get me wrong, but this is how you presented this for viewing, I know it's not nice, but the world just rolls the dice, and we know when it is worth pursuing. A world divided by whoever inevitably will, fight against it and still, this is how this will be, Everyone given their piece, but only I should cease, since I'm just unlucky enough to be me? You can take your ideals, your uniquely oppressive appeals, apply them to everyone remaining, Because I am not fooled, to being the last one who is ruled, while you insist that I keep abstaining. Poor choices are made, by countries who have certainly betrayed, but I am not the one you envision, An opportunity for safety, still not built then too hasty, how could I possibly regret my decision? No longer a victim, by this simple dictum, declared by a world of guilt that finally understands, Yes there are those lost, but this is no unique cost, unless you lement your perpetuated demands. Obfuscate to perpetuate, complicate just to propagate, the status quo will just remain, Don't hesitate to decimate, relegate to segregate, If that is your agenda to maintain. Elevate hate just to detonate, celebrate why you devestate, should I be conceding? Dedicate to renovate, educate and regulate, because it wont be succeeding. An established country stolen and taken, that is just as mistaken, as any narrative lie, My people just rolling through, like it's the thing to do, and lies lacking an explanation for why. I don't mean to strawman the story, I'm not in this for the glory, just to set the record straight, Coexistance is no illusion, unless you maintain your delusion, but know that it's already too late. Yes I agree, for we can all see, the simple falsehood of that basic and wrong explanation, It's oversimple you are right, it ignores two sides of the plight, in the building of a nation, But that can't ever absolve, or give any answer to solve, what is the past, present, and future of we, No it wasn't void of people here, that much is clear, but neither is it yours, from the river to the sea. |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00004-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | A land without a people for a people without a landA wartorn, weary nation sought a home in barren sand.They made the desert bloomPeace denied by Khartoum,Assailed on all fronts; threats always loom.A brave little nation, caught against the sea,Fighting for a people fleeing inhumanityAt least that's how the story goes:Noble spirits versus implacable foes.The joyous homecoming of a people cast asideBeating back an inhuman, hostile tide.But willful blindness can hide so many facts:When the Jews were without a home, how did my people act?Jerusalem in ruin, it's people expelled.Umar marvelled at the ruin he beheld.He called this city's people to its freshly broken gatesthrowing them open, he invited these expatriatesfor the first time in centuries to walk their city's ways,denied to them for generations, for their refusal to obey.Ever a safe haven for the abused,Our empires have nurtured the oppressed, the diffused.It was on our shores that Judaism flourishedEven as, in Europe, it struggled, malnourishedSo in our darkest hour, how were we repaid?Our people are expelled, our, leaders betrayed.Western powers who divided Arab landDrew an all too hasty line in the sand.A Jewish state was founded, out of their 'charity'Which meant the exile of our people for their majority.They war is portrayed as offensive,Our aims as expansive.But war is never avoided, just postponed to our disadvantage.In our fight to have an oppressor disbanded,We are cast as assailants of a heritage.This narrative is prevalent,Omnipresent, yet fraudulent.The land was not without a people:The explanation's oversimple. |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00005-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | Accepted |
31914736-2019-04-18T14:42:22Z-00006-000 | Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle | This will be a rap battle in which each debater argues from the PoV of one of the players in this conflict. I will be arguing for the Arab side, while my opponent will be arguing for the Israeli side. Judges are to take into account both aesthetics and the merit of any points raised when making their decisions. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00000-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) Monogamous relationships still stands true and dominant in society over polygamy and is more accepted in most religions. 2.) Monogamy still builds a stronger bond of trust over those in polyamorous relationships. 3.) Because my opponent has failed to prove their point on how the trust is better in a polyamorous relationship, my point stating how a relational trust is undermined by sharing that trust with a third person still stands. Simply stating that polygamy has a better trust bond than monogamy without proof doesn't necessarily means that it's true. 4.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. This point still stands because simply stating that monogamous relationships have these negative feelings as well without backing it up with reasons doesn't make my opponent correct. 5.) In response to the reasons mentioned by my opponent in premise 5 in the 4th round, people in polygamous relationships don't automatically stay happy and won't be open to change. It's the same thing. It can go both ways. People in polygamous relationships can be unhappy and have a fading love while monogamous relationships can be romantic and plentiful. Also, there is no proof or facts that people in polygamous relationships are less likely to grow out of their lifestyle. Which is another reason why my original premise 6 still stands. 6.) Therefore, it's impossible to romantically love more than one person at once. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00001-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) Romantic love is defined in this case, as expressing mutual feelings of intimacy through unique connection and non-physical attraction, it is built on respect, and driven by honesty. 2.) Lust nor having sexual relations are involved in this case of romantically loving people, based upon what is defined as romantic love. This is understood and accepted by my opposer. 3.) Connecting on a deeper level with a person and having a more emotional, mental, or spiritual attraction is defined as having a mutual perception of intimacy. Intimacy may evolve and claim dominant over the other factors of romantic love, respect and honesty. 4.) There is no real restriction on how people approach love, there is no law. If one chooses to have multiple partners, it may be frowned upon, but at the end of the day it only concerns the people involved. This statement still stands, because it claims the fact that just because something is frowned upon by others, doesn"t mean that romantic love for people just stops due to the opinion of outsiders. 5.) To explain what was requested from my opponent"s Premise 6 in round 3, when compared to a monogamous relationship, a polygamous relationship doesn't have the higher consequence of cheating or losing interest/getting tired of one another, because of the fact that in a polygamous relationship, those involved are completely open about romantically sharing each other, and they are fine by it. If there"s an agreement and acceptance of how romantic love is being spent, there is less of a chance that there will be cheating. Also, those in a polygamous relationship may be less likely to grow out of their life style, because they are enjoying how they choose to love. On the other hand, in a monogamous relationship, there"s a possibility that one partner may be fading, getting less attracted to their romantic partner, testing commitment. 6.) My argument that it is possible for a person to romantically love more than one person simultaneously still stands. Premises that I have outlined in the first round, remain true even when my opponent tried to contradict them. To prove my point with what my opponent said about crushes in her round 3 response (premise 7), if having a crush on multiple people is possible, then it is indeed possible to have the potential of romantically loving more than one person at once. A crush leads to a potential for romantic love. 7.) To correct my opponent on her defense in round 3 (premise 10) , if romantic feelings are contained by self-control, then there will never be a potential for romantic love. Since this argument is based entirely on the subject of romantic love, having absolutely no potential for romantic love is bad. Other positive consequences of containing feelings of romantic love by self-control, such as never exposing oneself truthfully to another, such as attaining the quality of patience, are unacceptable in light of the negative consequences of containing feelings of romantic love by self-control. Thus, one should not let romantic feelings be contained by self-control. To prove myself even further, this act allows one to surrender to romance, letting an admirer fall straight into the arms of another. 8.) Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00002-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) You've missed what I've been trying to point out completely. I understand the definition of platonic love, and I know that platonic love and romantic love are two different things, but that's the point. They are two completely different things. If platonic love is self-expression in an emotional and spiritual way amongst friends yet romantic love is technically the same thing in this case then how are you completely sure that a person is not just platonically loving more than one person rather than romantically loving them all? Either way, regardless whether the definitions in this case are the same or not, it does not properly support your argument on how romantically loving more than one person is possible. 4.) You're not making sense in this argument at all. You also missed my point. People change, you have also stated and agreed to that, but just because one person in the relationship changes, does not also mean that the other person will change as well. Lots of people change, you're absolutely correct but not everyone can change the same way at the same time. Your first sentence also doesn't match with your whole statement in this paragraph. Just because some people practice monogamy and others practice polygamy doesn't support your argument on how people change or how romantically loving more than one person is possible. 5.) That's actually the opposite. Because polygamy is more than two people, the risk of cheating is increased because of the fact that there is more people involved. Just because the risk of cheating exists in monogamous relationship doesn't necessarily mean that it's more of a fear in it. 6.) Can you please explain why polygamous relationship doesn't have a higher consequence of getting tired or cheating because it doesn't support the argument. 7.) That's wrong, you stated in the previous round that loving more than one person means to spread love to as many people as possible. Therefore, would make it seem that finding a lot of people is the goal. Also, I didn't associate a crush with infatuation. As mentioned in our agreed definition, infatuation is derived from obsessive and fanatic thoughts which is not the same thing as a crush. A crush is just a bit of interest of possibly loving a new person romantically, which in my case makes sense if I'm explaining how having crushes on a bunch of people isn't what romantic love is. Actually, in this case, love can be a controllable thing since people choose to be in a monogamous and polygamous relationship. It can also be controllable when it comes to choosing who to love, the thing that is actually uncontrollable is crushes. Maybe having crushes on multiple people is a possible thing but loving more than one person is not possible. 8.) You don't have enough reasons to support this argument. You can't just say it's possible without explaining why it is. Intimacy is essential in a relationship but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's able to happen in a polygamous relationship. 9.) This statement makes absolutely no sense so I choose not to retaliate against it. 10.) Feelings are uncontainable yes, but there is such thing as self-control. There's also such thing as morals. Just because people develop feelings (crushes) on a bunch of people doesn't mean the person has to act upon every single feeling for every single person. Polygamous relationships are morally wrong and just because feelings are uncontrollable doesn't mean we have to comply with them. It also doesn't support your point on how romantically loving more than one person is possible. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00003-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) Romantic love is much more than self-expression, but it begins with personality and self-expression, attracting certain others. Platonic love is having an emotional and spiritual relationship between persons, not involving sexual desire, specifically. As mentioned before, romantic love in this case does not involve driven lust or sexual relations, and it is possible to have romantic love for more than one person. You are thinking of a platonic relationship, which involves friends, but platonic love is different, and we are discussing how self-expressing leads to romantic love, not platonic interest. 4.) There are people who practice monogamy and there are people who practice polygamy, that"s just how reality is. People are equal and unequal in certain senses, people are compatible with some but not with others, romantic love is changing and unchanging just as people who express their love are constantly changing as well. Agreements, like trust and loyalty break, all the time, and what is broken down can be rebuilt by another romantic love who was involved before, during, or after a current romantic relationship. All of these scenarios are true and possible. Correct, relationships usually don"t end where a third person is involved, but because people change, it wouldn"t matter how a relationship ends, under whatever circumstances or issues, it just does because people constantly change and figure out how to eventually recover and adapt to other things. 5.) In premise 5, this may be true, but this can also be true in a monogamous relationship. In a monogamous relationship, there"s more of a fear of cheating on one another, which these feelings invoke, whereas in a polygamous relationship cheating is not much of an issue. 6.) Again, these feelings (jealousy, etc) can occur in a monogamous relationship as well. Both parties of a monogamous relationship don"t have to stick out to the end even if the terms seem clear at first. There are higher consequences for cheating, getting tired of one another, etc in a mono relationship rather than a poly relationship. 7.) This is my claim of possibility, stating that in fact people do live by this understanding of romantic love, whether it is acceptable or not, it is possible and true. One can indeed put their love "out there" and in return receive many admirers who share the same feelings and ideas, equally. I never mentioned that the goal of a polygamous relationship is to "find" or search for as many people possible to love, other people will show mutual interest for the romantic love being expressed; Love is not sought, it just happens and it is uncontrollable. A crush carries the same meaning as infatuation, and as mentioned before, infatuation is not apart of our agreed definition of what romantic love is in this case. Also, it does not imply that not being romantically involved with more than one person means one isn"t living life, it means to have the freedom and allow oneself to romantically love people who connect on the same level with the person who believes love means such, in the moment. 8.) Intimacy is essential in a romantic love relationship, it can be something shared with more than one person. Someone can have an intimate connection with more than one person at a time, it"s possible. Romantic love is easy to develop on feelings and emotions that are uncontrollable. 9.) In a romantic relationship, if the case may be that one looses love for one person, it does not mean love is lost for the other. It is honest to experience the factors of romantic love with more than one person at the same time. 10.) Feelings of love may still remain for any ignited romance between partners, no matter how much someone denies it or tries to escape what is the truth. One can love more than one person simultaneously, because feelings are uncontainable. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00004-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) Self-expression, romantic love, and polygamy are three different entities. A person can express themselves without the aspect of romantic love. Romantic love is much more than just self-expression, and it doesn't always have to include more than two people. This new definition of romantic love that you mentioned is a bit odd to me. Anyone can expose their feelings and personality to anyone; that's a common social tendency as human beings in modern society. I can express my personality and feelings to my friends but that doesn't mean I want to have a romantic relationship with any of them. This definition sounds a lot like a platonic love, which is possible to have with more than one person; romantic love however, is not. 4.) Just because one person can change their views from monogamy to polygamy doesn't always mean that the other partner will also. As I mentioned before, a relationship builds on trust, but it also builds on understanding and agreement. If someone agrees to be in a monogamous relationship they agree to be with that other person only. I agree that it is possible for someone to change their minds in the future, but everyone has a different outlook on their preferences and it doesn't always have to end with including a third person. Relationships don't work that way. If a person really cared for their partner, they wouldn't completely change the relationship just because of their own selfishness. 5.) I disagree. Polygamous relationships always comes with a feeling of jealousy and anger regardless of their trust or what they've agreed to in the beginning. People participating in polyamorous practice are sharing each other and it's not possible for all partners to be loved equally. Trust is stronger in a monogamous relationship because there is no sharing involved; Partner A has Partner B and Partner B has Partner A. All the love and affection is split evenly between the two partners. 6.) These feelings actually can ruin relationships because of the fact that we're human. Although people can agree to be in a polygamous relationship doesn't mean that the feelings will just go away. Anyone can get jealous of another person, anyone can feel danger in a relationship and anyone can be betrayed by others. Just because a polygamous relationship and it's terms may seem clear at first, doesn't mean the person will actually go through with it to the end. 7.) You can't give feelings of romantic love and call that a relationship, it needs to be reciprocated. Otherwise, that's just a crush. The goal of a polyamorous relationship isn't to just find as many people as possible and love them, there's way more to it. This other definition of polygamy is also weird. Does that imply that if you are not romantically involved with more than one person then you aren't living life? Sure, some people actually live that life, but that doesn't make polygamy acceptable or possible. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00005-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) I disagree. It is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. Romantic love is when a person exposes his/her feelings through self-expression and personality, attracting more than one person. This person can attract and accept more than one person in his/her love life. 4.) I agree with the fact that trust is built on a monogamous relationship, but there could always be a situation in which one partner simply changes their views on their partner or what love really means to them, and they involve another person in their lives at that point. Monogamy can turn into polygamy, it is possible. 5.) Polygamy reflects on openness; Trust is stronger in a polygamous relationship because all romantic partners are aware of how their love is being spent, and they are fine by it. 6.) Love partners are understanding of each other, although feelings and emotions get the best of us because we are human after all, these feelings will not ruin relationships that are open and clear on what everyone gets out from it. 7.) To romantically love more than one person means to live life in the moment and give as much feelings of love to as many people as possible. This is actually how some people live and what some people actually do believe. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00006-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1.) It is not possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. 2.) I agree with your first premise because I believe that is the definition of what romantic love is. 3.) Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at once. Most religions and cultures accept this type of relationship. 4.) Being monogamous builds a strong trust between the two parties involved in the relationship. 5.) Because more than two people are involved in a polygamous relationship, the trust is now undermined by sharing that trust with a third party. 6.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. 7.) Therefore, it is only possible for an individual to be in love with one person at a time. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not debatable. Premise 1 is just a statement I am introducing. Premise 2 is an agreement that both parties share on what the definition of romantic love is. Premise 3 is my definition of monogamy. Premise 4 is a fact based the definition of monogamy that I'm defending and cannot be refuted. Controversial: Premises 5 and 6 are considered debatable. 5.) Although the trust can be undermined, it is still possible that it won't be. 6.) Feelings of jealousy and betrayal does occur when a monogamous relationship adds a third party at any capacity, but as long as the two original partners agree to accept the third person in the relationship, those feelings should concede. |
872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00007-000 | Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time | 1. The definition of romantic love is to be understood and agreed upon by both parties. Love is defined in this case, as expressing mutual feelings of intimacy through unique connection and non-physical attraction, it is built on respect, and driven by honesty. 2. Infatuation is not the case. By definition, infatuation is an intense but short-lived passion/admiration for someone or something, which can be determined on fantasy and obsessive thought. 3. The love is not driven by lust nor does it in this case involve sexual relations, based upon what is confirmed as romantic love. 4. Connecting on a deeper level with a person and having a more emotional, mental, or spiritual attraction is defined as having a mutual perception of intimacy. Intimacy may evolve and claim dominant over the other factors of romantic love, respect and honesty. 5. There is no real restriction on how people approach love, there is no law. If one chooses to be with one partner or have multiple partners, it may be frowned upon, but at the end of the day it only concerns the person who's involved with the person who can treat love like this. 6. Developing feelings of any sort is uncontrollable, love is an expression that is uncontrollable and considered to be universal. If it is suppressed, it is not honest and true, which is unfair to both oneself and the partner. 7. Polygamy, by definition, is the practice/custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. It is a natural/open term which has been used in practice by many people in most societies, for many years. This form of relationship is honest and not considered to be cheating. 8. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-controversial: Premise 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is the statement claiming ground on what is agreed upon to be defined as romantic love. Premise 2 is the definition of infatuation and premise 7 is the definition of polygamy, both related to my debating side. Premise 3 a clarity, stating that lust is not a factor in this case, and sexual relations are not necessary in all romantic love relationships. Premise 5 is a fact, simply understood. Controversial: Premises 4 and 6 are considered debatable. 4. Intimacy claims dominant over the other factors (respect and honesty), having a greater effect on any relationship. It may also clarify where romantic love lies, with which partner, through how high the level of intimacy is with one partner opposing with the other(s). 6. This is based on how people may interpret this in a certain situation. Suppressing certain feelings may or may not be fair to oneself and the partner, given the situation. Controlling one"s feelings is possible to an extent, but it may not be in the beginning, and self-control needs practice. |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00005-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | In this deebate you may argue for any pistol of your choosing. The pistol can have different specifications than the one I have chose to argue for. As you know you may not vote for yourself, if you do then I should get the conduct vote. |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00000-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | And like always, i refute your arguments. 1. The colt .45 has a bigger round therefore it is more powerful weapon than the G18 This argument is weak as nearly all pistol rounds size are around the same. The power of nearly all pistols are equally around the same. 2. I know an individual who has an M1911 colt .45 and he has no problem concealing or weilding it You are neglecting my point. The G18 is almost 2 times lighter then the m1911 and maybe your individual has no problem concealing it or wielding it, but that doesnt mean that the m1911 is better in term of weight. 3. I would rather have 7 more powerful bullets than 33 less powerful This is your opinion and we dont opinions here. You say that you prefer 7 strong bullets over 33 less powerful ones, but others might think diffrently. If you claim that people preferred power over capacity, then it could stand as argument. Sadly you didnt brought source with you. This argument is nullified. "Think of this if for some reason you could only use the semi-auto on a G18 and there was a more powerful colt .45 would you pick the less powerful round with more rounds in a clip or less rounds and a more powerful clip? There are also variations of the colt .45 that is more compact, but it still has the power of the .45 round." This is opinion, i wouldve taken the G18 since you like to have your opinion over the M1911. This argument is nullified. "The colt .45 is still in use on and off the battle field, its simple design and powerful round make it an effective weapon. Its weight would make it an effective gun to pistol whip with. I ask that you vote PRO because the colt .45 is simple and more powerful than a G18." Sadly, you are wrong. Yes, the M1911 is effective, but as time goes on, it became less and less effective. Eventually it has been replaced by the Beretta 92FS. Now as we all know, the Beretta 92FS is weaker in term of power (your logic anyway) but holds more rounds. Now you see what people truly prefer. Also, pistol whipping can be useful for a heavy arm, but no one could even whip someone with a pistol in a firefight. In firefight situation, we all would prefer lighter arms. I ask you to vote CON as the effectiveness of M1911 has already been outdated. The new generation of guns like Beretta 92SF, Desert Eagle and even the G18 are defeating the M1911. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00001-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | The colt .45 is a semi-automatic pistol so I ask that my opponent only argue on semi-automatic for I feel that is an unfair advantage in this debate. The colt .45 is a bigger round therefore it is more powerful than the 9mm round. 1. The colt .45 has a bigger round therefore it is more powerful weapon than the G18 2. I know an individual who has an M1911 colt .45 and he has no problem concealing or weilding it 3. I would rather have 7 more powerful bullets than 33 less powerful Think of this if for some reason you could only use the semi-auto on a G18 and there was a more powerful colt .45 would you pick the less powerful round with more rounds in a clip or less rounds and a more powerful clip? There are also variations of the colt .45 that is more compact, but it still has the power of the .45 round. The colt .45 is still in use on and off the battle field, its simple design and powerful round make it an effective weapon. Its weight would make it an effective gun to pistol whip with. |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00002-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | G18 specifications: Weight: 620 Gram (empty) length: 185 mm (7.28 in) barrel length: 114 mm (4.49 in) cartridge: 9x19 mm action: short recoil operation muzzle velocity: 375 m/s (1.230 f/s) feed system: 33-round detachable box magazine Most the effectiveness range next time, ok? The G18 is a machine pistol (fully automatic) developed at request of the Austrian Counter-terrorist unit EKO Cobra. The G18 is a selective fire variant so it can switch from Fully automatic to semi-automatic. Because of it being fully automatic machine pistol, it is unavaible for civilians. My arguments: 1. The G18 holds 33 rounds and is fully automatic, making it a deadly and lethal weapon, even more powerful then the M1911. The M1911 only holds 7 rounds. 2. As the G18 is lighter and smaller, its easier to carry and to wield. Your arguments xD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00003-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | M1911 colt .45 specifications weight:2.44 lb (1,105 g) empty length:8.25 in (210 mm) barrel length:5.03 in (127 mm) cartridge:.45 action:Short recoil operation Muzzle velocity:830 ft/s feed system:7-round standard detachable box magazine The colt .45 was the main pistol from 1911 to 1985 and then was later replaced by the lighter and less powerful Italian Breta. The colt .45 is still seeing service on non-standard uses on todays modern battle field. I will argue my points after my opponent post his argument |
bda48355-2019-04-18T18:59:59Z-00004-000 | The M 1911 colt .45 is better than ------- | And so i signs the contract* NO VOTING FOR YOURSELF Btw, my choice of gun is the G18C (or G18) Your arguments please, XD |
aaf6a6a1-2019-04-18T19:49:51Z-00002-000 | The Air Force should be disbanded. | ........The "I" word. I hate when people jsut throw that around. It means "not knowing" in some references but it can also be translated into our English word of "ignore". Good for you for having a meal with this "Colonel Otero". Yes the Special Forces are made up of most services.....but...... okay. See your things on "air cover" and "transportation" are rarely MOST of the USAF. The majority of Air Support on the battleground does not come from the Air Force. Here is an example, Say a convoy is ambushed far outside of base. They need air support. Here is what they do. "WE need support at these coordinates (45.)(78.0)etc... so they call in the nearest Blackhawk (ARMY) or the nearest gunship.plane with support capapbilities mostly attack choppers or A10 Warthogs flown by the USMC. The nearest Air Force bases are usually too far away to get there in time for support quick enough during an ambush. Yeah the Air Force sends over supplies from this country and others but, it mine as well be the ARMY. Once they arrive in Iraq guess who is in charge of getting the supplies? hahahah not the Air Force. The NG usually gets stuck with that or the ARMY. The Air Force was created in 1947. It used to be the Army Air Force who flew. The NAVY flew in the Pacific. That right there shows that we dont need a whole longer department taht costs the most when it can just join up with the army and cut costs tremendously since everyone complains about our "National Debt" Ahhhh im glad you mentioned the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or the UAV. The Army can do it. Thats all that needs to be said. They can handle it. They have the time. They have the training and technology. Anyways the Air Force wants more funding to make base more "homie" yeah well tough it out like everyone else. You don't need M4 Rifles. They suck anyways. Sure there may be some on Special Missions but there are not going to be any right on the frontlines. Thats what Marines,Seals, and the Green Berets are for. It's not liek there are going to be that many people using those weapons anyways,they can just use the leftover ones. Wow. hmmm how is this not a war on terror? What Iraqi battleforce is in Iraq? There certainly is an Iraqi Army but they are on our side. I think there are a group of terrorists called Al-Qaeda dont you? Yeah. So yes these are counterterrorism operations. There will be more...alot more in the future. Maybe you should enlist in the AF? Thankyou for going to look at my views and telling me what a war is. i know what a war is. Yeah i know what a war with Iran is and i know that air SUPERIORITY would be an effective role. Okay, we already know that by the recent facts show that the AF isnt going to do the majority of the Air Work anyways. Oh yeah who funds the Air Force? The Government. Oh and i would like to throw in there that i already knew i was going to lose thsi debate in the first place because people just vote on what they already think. For example if there is a debate between whethere the Red Sox or the Yankees are better...well people are just going to vote for their favorite team no matter what the debate says.The debate could say the Red sox suck and a red sox fan wont even read it because he just vote for the Red sox.....anyways its going to be like that here....if somebody likes the AF there jsut going to vote for them anyways. Cheers. |
aaf6a6a1-2019-04-18T19:49:51Z-00003-000 | The Air Force should be disbanded. | While I admire that your argument is based off of funding, I think your criticism of the Air Force come from ignorance as to what the tens of billions of dollars pays for. To start with, I had dinner with a Colonel Otero in the fall of 2006. Colonel Otero, a member of the Air Force, graduate of Iowa State University's ROTC program, and student of the Air War College, was the commander of the Special Forces under Tommy Franks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Forces is made up of all kinds of personnel, and many of them come from the air force. Given the nature of many Special Forces, or black op missions, much of the funding for them comes from the air force as they often find themselves supplying air cover, air transportation, and supply while also supporting in a recon capacity. When we went into Afghanistan, the entire United States Armed forces had exactly two unmanned aerial vehicles. The Air Force, in part because of the recognized value of a UAV, and in part because an overall strategic understanding provided by leadership which must be concerned by both logistics and a complete strategic understanding of the entire theater, the Air Force was the only service interested in developing the UAV. To date, every UAV produced is funded by the Air Force, and operated by the Air Force, yet serves every trooper that is on the ground, whether they are soldiers, marines, sailors or airmen. Our Military's mission is not solely counter terrorism. And to reduce our military to that capacity would be a huge mistake, especially when just about every mission carried out by the military has little or nothing to do with "counter terrorism", but I suppose since people have consented to call this the "war on terror", its easy to believe that every mission is counter terrorism. According to your profile, you support a "war with Iran", however seldom do people define what they mean by war. In every plan for Iran, the Air Force represents a tremendously important role. Especially given the fact that those plans rely on air sport, and pulling off at least a couple thousand sorties in the first three days. Many of which will have to be conducted by heavy bombs which other branches do not maintain. For the record, though, the United States Air Force has many individuals on the ground in Iraq serving in both advance supply capacities, and direct support capacities. The entire armed forces has been so thinly stressed by this war, and the fact that the number of active duty divisions was reduced by George Bush in the early days of his presidency, that every branch is contributing beyond their original mission statements in an effort to try to make up for the short comings of poor planning by the executive branch. The command of the Iraq Theater actually belongs to a Navy Admiral, and there has been a spirit of cooperation from all the military branches, which the commander of the United States Army who is new to the theater keeps attempting to ignore, which is partially why said Admiral referred to him as a Kiss A$$. http://ipsnews.net... While the Marine Corps might have their own wing of fighters, I can promise you that when the Navy talks about how many fighters that they have, they're including the numbers of Marine fighters. The Marine Corps receives a majority of its funding from the Department of the Navy, and not from a specific congressional allocation. The Marine Corps and Navy also do not invest in heavy bombing capacities, nor do they invest in the military's space program. Yes, the Military has a space program that is almost completely funded by the United States Air Force. The Air Force must be prepared for missions that the United States Army and Navy are not. Also, a majority of the Army's aircraft are support vehicles, and it is a fallacious statement to claim that they have more "Planes", when the United States Army speaks of their total numbers of air craft, they are including non-fixed wing vehicles, such as helicopters. The navy also operates a large share of helicopters that the United States Air Force usually has nothing to do with. So, part of the discrepancy you see is because the Air Force has much fewer stealth fighters and stealth bombers because their mission statement requires it, and the Air Force needs fewer stealth fighters than the Army and Navy needs helicopters to maintain their operations. The Air Force has also provided a brunt of the research behind both the F-22, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 representing the future air craft of all branches, even the ones who did not share the expense of the design. If you want to promise success in our theaters of operation, fund the air force. |
aaf6a6a1-2019-04-18T19:49:51Z-00004-000 | The Air Force should be disbanded. | I think that the United States Air Force is unnecessary. In the post 9/11 days counterterrorism missions are more effectively done on ground then on air. Sure you have piolts that can take down buildings and such as that, but that kind of operation would be better handled by the NAVY or ARMY. The Marine Corps has more planes in it's air wing than the whole U.S. Air Force, the NAVY has more planes, and so does the ARMY. Should'nt it be that the Air Force has more planes than any branch seeing that they are the "Air Force"? But the Air Force wants more than a few new aircraft. The Service is asking for $116 million, to pay for 100,000 new handguns with improved ergonomic design and higher caliber effectiveness; $13 million in "dorm furnishings"; $367 million, to buy M-4 rifles; and $276 million for "critical base services," like "base shuttle service, dining hall service hours, fitness/recreation programs, etc. Lack of funding impacts the entire base community and, specifically, junior Airmen." The Marine corps only makes up 3% of our national budget and the Airforce wants another 18 billion added on to their $144,000,000,000. If you want to fly, join the Navy or the Marines. |
aaf6a6a1-2019-04-18T19:49:51Z-00000-000 | The Air Force should be disbanded. | I usually use it in the terms of not knowing, or uneducated. I typically don't ignore much. Air support is applied by all branches, in one way or another. In many cases this is done so that the operation can be coordinated by one branch, one division, one battalion, et cetera. This is why we call it the "Airborne Cavalry." Depending on the chief of operations in the mission in which support is being called down, it is just as likely that the gunship, whether fix winged or rotor my respond, or an air force or navy craft in the area may respond. They aren't always scrambled from the hanger or the flight deck, often air support is always in the air, such as when the Air Force was responsible for patrolling the no fly zone in Iraq for more than a decade without the support of the Army. The Air Force actually has been manning convoys on the ground in Iraq. Update your facts. The Bush Administration reduced the number of standing divisions in the Army before the Iraq episode happened. A lot of the slack has been absorbed by the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. This is done by necessity, so it doesn't help my argument much, but the airmen are on the ground driving around in trucks just like the soldiers and marines. The Air Force was created in 1947. It used to be the Army Air Force who flew. The NAVY flew in the Pacific. That right there shows that we dont need a whole longer department taht costs the most when it can just join up with the army and cut costs tremendously since everyone complains about our "National Debt" The Army Air Force was split off from the Army largely due to the fact that there were massive funding battles. Generals are not all united, and often have their own unique ideas or goals. Recombining the Air Force with the Army, to create an Army Air Corps would likely result in money intended to provide fighter air craft, or joint strike air craft being diverted to fit immediate needs in the Army. Such as tiny little details like the fact that nothing destroys a HUMVEE faster than up armoring it, or making it put on tens of thousands of miles a month. So, those will likely need to be replaced very soon, as well as the needed increase in mine resistant up armored vehicles. The Air Corps will be forced to compete with other needs, in a military that is being over funded, yet drastically underfunded in the areas where they actually need to maintain an operational capacity. Senator Biden's plan for a total reform and overhaul of the U.S. military would save about a trillion dollars over the next decade, while strengthening the military, but amazingly he won't be the president thanks to a massive misunderstanding of the U.S. Military. UAV's should stay with the air force. Period. Sticking them to the army will cause them to be deployed where the Army is deployed. The Air Force strategic operations focus on a wider lens, and it will be easier to send Air Force UAVs to other regions, such as our massive borders that might need to be patrolled over the next several decades. Also, the UAV needs to be concerned with more than just recon, seeing as in the future it will be likely that there will be hunter seeker UAVs. The Air Force needs weapons. They're trying to replace combat arms that they've maintained for the last two or three decades, the attempt to buy M4s is part of an effort to standardized the ammunition used by the united states military, and I'll be honest, I'm opposed to it. So I agree with you, they don't need M4s, but everyone is going to have M4s, and those weapons do get used. It's also better to have them for when they're needed, lest it will be incredibly bad to discover, "Oh yeah, maybe we should have given them guns and training. That might have helped with that battle." Al-Qaeda came to Iraq when we did, but they're not the only fighting force that is in the Iraq that is opposed to us. To call this the "war on terror" is a very immature way to describe the battle. Raiding houses, running convoys, and hunting down a local insurgency is not counter terrorism, it's counter revolutionary, and is simply a military operation. Counter terrorism cannot and should not be broadly applied to an entire region or battle field. That attitude will cause a lot of the rules of war to be violated as every civilian becomes a potential terrorist. To be honest, I'd have to go into the Navy. My personality might work as a navy officer. I'm not enough of a "Kiss A$$" to make it very far in the other branches. However, my attitudes might make me a decent potentate of a ship. I actually kind of wouldn't mind if you won the debate. My schedule has been totally messed up this weekend, including the fact that I'm sitting next to a slender blond girl who is waiting for me to take her to dinner and a movie, and thus I can't really invest any more time in making this argument =-) To close, the Air Force is needed simply because to attempt to organize both the goals and priorities of the Air Force and the Army would not be handled very well as people responsible for different goals and priorities go at it behind the scenes for priorities in funding and operational preferences. |
aaf6a6a1-2019-04-18T19:49:51Z-00001-000 | The Air Force should be disbanded. | From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of tripoli. We will fight our countries battles on the land and air on sea. Firt to fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean we are proud to take the title of united states marines. |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00000-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | If a battle between these Pokemon happened as con stated, and charizard kept using fly this would happen; Turn 1: charizard flies up and dragonite misses Turn 2: charizard hits dragonite and dragonite takes minimal damage due to good defensive stats. Dragonite then attacks with strong attacks due to good offensive stats and charizards bad defense Or dragonite could just dragon dance over and over until it has +6 attack and +6 speed, while roosting to restore health when neccesary and 1hit KO him |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00001-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | Charizard has speed on it's side. If you were using dragonite and I had charizard, if i use fly continuously i will win due to the speed. And anyway dragonite is one of the worst dragon types out there, Haxorus is actually good. It doesn't need wings because it is an axe! |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00002-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | Let us compare the two statwise then: Dragonite: hp91 att134 def 95 sp att100 sp def 100 sp80 Charizard:hp78 att84 def78 sp att109 sp def85 sp100 Dragonite has weaknesses to ice, rock and dragon, all uncommon, and resistances to water, fight, fire (all common) and bug (uncommon). CHarizard as weaknesses to rock, electric and water(two common) and resistances to fire, fight and steel(one common, two uncommon). both have immunity to ground. Dnite=better Also, being cute is part of being good! |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00003-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | If our reasoning for good pokemon is the "cuteness" factor, i believe that you are mistaken. A good pokemon is shown by stats and different moves. I think that if you are concluding that cute pokemon are good, shouldn't the most powerful pokemon be spoink? And the reasoning behind charizard being a challenge is that until it evolves it takes chance and skill to defeat Brock in the first gym, which is the excitement of the game. |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00004-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | Let us have a look at our opponents reasons for dragonite being bad. Lance=awesome one of best trainers. Therefore, as half of his team is dragonite, dragonite=awesome. It is fat, and in that way it is cute, and it has hilarious little wings that make it look like it shouldnt be able to fly. My opponent stated that 'it was the challenge of the game', it referring to charizard. This is due to the fact charizard is a bad pokemon. Beating the game with a lvl 1 zubat is also a challenge. |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00005-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | First of all, really dragonite? That pokemon got old when we all saw Lance have like 3 of them. Even though it is a dragon and has the ability to learn a variety of different typed move, it doesn't make it good. It is really just an fat barney with wings. The best fully evolved pokemon is charizard as it buildt to be the best. In the anime and the games. The anime had a captivating storyline which kept people watching, and in the game, people chose it because it was the challenge of the game. |
4ed75432-2019-04-18T18:22:28Z-00006-000 | Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever! | I beleive that Dragonite is the best fully evolved pokemon ever. First round, state your beleif on the best pokemonz and accept. Then we shall begin. Yes, this is rather nerdy :P |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00000-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | I wish him well. I am sure he is busy with his studies. |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00001-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | [round] |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00002-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | [Simple] |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00003-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | I will proceed to argue on three points as examined in the opening statements. "I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect", expounding upon this first I would like to explain what "Sound Limitation" is. I posit that the term refers to those who are mentally, physically, and emotionally stable as shown through a screening process which is imperative to firearm ownership. The person is also not at risk or in any particularly dangerous circumstances which would necessitate what may be considered "hasty use" of the firearm. With that covered I would like to explain what constitutes maintaining the peace with the use of firearms. I would posit that maintenance of peace can be argued to the prevention of crime, the education of proper management of weapons, the explicit knowledge that citizens are indeed armed which would deter wrongful acts of violence, and that the knowledge that a neighbor can intercept a problematic situation armed and trained is a boon to society. A properly educated, properly weaponized, properly capable set of persons would know not only how to operate a firearm, how to treat firearm wounds, how to manage and diffuse situations to prevent fired shots, and also how to tell who is and is not armed and what signs to look for in violent individuals. No different than a neighborhood watch these individuals would be able to fundamentally act on their own should the police not be available however it is acknowledged that the official force, if capable to intercede, should be called upon. Next I would like to define "Well Regulated"; I am arguing that the term refers not only to the proper management firearms and their safety but also the proper management of criminal situations (citizen's arrest) and the laws contained therein as well as proper protocol for confrontation if it needs to come to pass in order to minimize casualties caused by both crime and misunderstandings. Furthermore I would propose that additional boons be granted to those who choose to pursue further training in crisis management and in turn increase the value of the militia. In times of crisis (such as natural disasters) a well-trained force of citizens involves not only a set who can adequately defend themselves but also help one another. Finally I would insist that any law which would inhibit the right to self-defense through any effective means including weapons threatens the individual. I would insist that the removal of firearms is one such inhibition. I would say that if the government and Constitution are for the people there is no logical way for this to occur without being a direct infringement and threat against the people. |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00004-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | Opening Statement: I deny that all laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors necessarily infringe the Constitution. Moreover, the Militia referred to in the 2nd amendment has little to nothing to do with gun laws and regulations today (particularly, from a constitutional analysis). |
5abeee99-2019-04-18T15:45:41Z-00005-000 | The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today | R1: Acceptance, Opening Position* R2: Argumentation R3: Rebuttal, Argumentation R4: Rebuttal, Argumentation R5: Closing Statements, No Rebuttals, Summary of your Argument** *Opening Position: This is a short explanation as to why people should want to take your view. It is not your main argument but think of it like a thesis statement. **Summary of your Argument: This is an encompassing view of your argument. Basically if a person didn't want to read the rounds your argument should be clearly stated and easily grasped in this statement. It will make it easier for the readers as it's comprehensive and ignores the verbal jousting. -------------------- If one accepts this debate they agree to use this rendition of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", and while this may be interpreted no other form of this particular passage can be used in this debate. Opening Statement: I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect. I affirm that "well regulated" should be interpreted as community oriented and not governmental no different than a neighborhood watch. I affirm that any laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors is an infringement against the Constitution. |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00000-000 | Should we be vaccinated | Unfortunately, once again my opponent hasn't refuted any of my points. Again, my opponent copied and pasted his arguments from this citation. [1] In fact, Round Three is technically plagiarism, as they didn't cite any source, unlike last time. Because of this, I'm afraid that I refuse to refute Con's third round because of plagiarism. When voting, keep in mind that I actually made an original argument, while Con hastily copy/pasted his arguments without adding in any insight or original content. Also, remember Con's blatant plagiarism in Round Three. Thank you. So long and goodnight!Citation[1]http://vaccines.procon.org... |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00001-000 | Should we be vaccinated | Con 3 The government should not intervene in personal medical choices. Medical decisions for children should be left to the parents or caregivers. Barbara Low Fisher, Co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center, stated, "If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow." [89] Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX), in an Oct. 19, 2011 article, "Government Vaccines " Bad Policy, Bad Medicine," stated, "intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government" Freedom over one"s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies." [90] |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00002-000 | Should we be vaccinated | As my opponent hasn't rebuted any of my arguments, I'll respond to both of the arguments my opponent has given so far. I'd like to point out that it appears that my opponent has no original arguments. He copied and pasted them from the following citation. [1] All he did cite a source and he was done. Because of this, he may not even take the time to respond to my arguments, as he clearly can't come up with any original content. Anyway, first I'll go through my opponent's first round. "According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year, which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 732,000 American children were saved from death and 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented between 1994 and 2014 due to vaccination." [1]The amount of lives saved trumps minor adverse effects. Let's look at the rates of the allergic reaction anaphylaxis that my opponent discusses. In the sources words, it describes it as a"...life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) [that effects] about one per million children." This is in every vaccine, mind you. While that happens in one per million children, 2.5 million children are saved by vaccines every year, as well as there being 322 million cases of childhood illness prevented between 1994 and 2014, according to the quotation used above.With those statistics in mind, we can assume that, for every 2.5 million children saved by vaccines, 2.5 children are affected by anaphylaxis. For the 322 million cases of childhood illness prevented in the twenty year period described above, 322 were affected by anaphylaxis. Again, it's rare."Anaphylaxis may occur following exposure to allergens from a variety of sources including food, aeroallergens, venom, drugs, and immunisations." [2] Oh yes, not just vaccines are guilty of this."More than half of all cases of food-related anaphylaxis are caused by peanuts."Other foods known to trigger anaphylaxis include:"nuts– such as walnuts, cashew nuts, almonds, brazil nuts and hazelnuts"milk"fish and shellfish"eggs"some types of fruit– such as bananas, kiwi fruit, grapes and strawberries" [3]This is the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Does that mean we shouldn't let anyone eat peanuts because of the effects it may have on some people? In the case of vaccines, it saves more lives than it harms, as shown by the statistics provided earlier.Again, like I said in my arguments, these effects and all the others proposed are incredibly rare, if not non-existent. We shouldn't risk the lives of many when we're trying to potentially save the lives of some.Now on to my opponent's next round about harmful ingredients in vaccines."It’s true that these chemicals are toxic to the human body in certain levels, but only trace amounts of these chemicals are used in FDA approved vaccines. In fact, according to the FDA and the CDC,formaldehydeis produced at higher rates by our own metabolic systems and there isno scientific evidencethat the low levels of this chemical, mercury or aluminum in vaccines can be harmful." [4]"Children are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk and infant formula than they are exposed to in vaccines.Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines." [1]In fact, all of the components proposed are used in trace amounts, so it does no harm to the vaccinated children.Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals, if he has any.Citations[1]http://vaccines.procon.org...[2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3]http://www.nhs.uk...[4]http://www.publichealth.org... |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00003-000 | Should we be vaccinated | Vaccines contain harmful ingredients. Some physicians believe thimerosal, an organic mercury compound found in trace amounts in one flu vaccine for children and other vaccines for adults, is linked to autism. [84] Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. [85] Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, "changes in higher cognitive functions," coma, convulsions, and death. [86] Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccinations and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues. [86] Some flu vaccines contain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), a compound used as an antiseptic, which can be a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial that is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death. [86] Some vaccines for the flu contain chicken egg protein, which can be harmful to children who are allergic to eggs. [87] Some vaccines for PCV, HPV, DTaP, Hep A, Hep B, and Hib contain yeast proteins which, according to VaxTruth and Joseph Mercola, MD, an alternative medicine proponent, contain MSG that can cause migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer"s, Lou Gehrig"s disease, ADD, seizure, and stroke. [86] [88] http://vaccines.procon.org... |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00004-000 | Should we be vaccinated | I. The Lives Saved The lives of 2.5 million children are saved by vaccinations every year, yet each year, 1.5 million children die from diseases that vaccines can prevent. [1] Not only that, but vaccines save you for your entire life. "Vaccines teach your body's immune system to recognize infections so it can fight them off in the future." [2] But which diseases do vaccines prevent?"Vaccines protect you by preparing your immune system to recognize and fight serious, and sometimes deadly, diseases including:"Diphtheria"Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib)"Hepatitis A"Hepatitis B"Human Papillomavirus(HPV)"Influenza(Flu)"Measles"Meningococcal"Mumps"Pertussis (Whooping Cough)"Pneumococcal Disease"Polio"Rotavirus"Rubella"Shingles (Herpes Zoster)"Tetanus"Varicella(Chickenpox)" [2]Every one of these diseases can be fatal. In fact, in the case of Diphtheria, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HPV, Measles, Mumps, Polio, and Rubella, there is no cure. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] Every one of these has an effective vaccine. If we look at the Rotavirus vaccine, we see that it has prevented between 85% to 98% instances of the disease. [11] But what else happened when the Rotavirus finally got a vaccine?"Millions of U.S. infants have received the rotavirus vaccine since it became available in 2006. Rotavirus disease among infants and young children has since decreased significantly in the United States. Each year, the vaccine prevents an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 hospitalizations among U.S. infants and young children. Rotavirus illness has also decreased among older children and adults that are not vaccinated; they are likely gaining indirect protection from rotavirus disease as vaccinated children are less likely to get the disease and spread it to others." [12]Not only is your life in danger of you don't receive one, but many people around you are at risk too. All of the diseases previously listed are highly contagious, hence the reason for a vaccine.II. The Rarity of Adverse Effects"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in most cases vaccines effects are minor and go away within a few days. Side effects vary according to vaccine type, but generally mild side effects may include:"Pain, redness, tenderness or swelling at injection site"Fatigue"Headache"Itching at injection site"Nausea"Dizziness or fainting (most common in adolescents)"Fever"Mild rash" [13]Now, let me compare this to the symptoms of, arguably, the least severe of the diseases listed previously, this being influenza. "Fever or feeling feverish/chills."Cough"Sore throat"Runny or stuffy nose"Muscle or body aches"Headache"Tiredness"Some people may have vomiting or diarrhea; this is more common in children." [14] Not to mention that in extreme cases, the flu can lead to pneumonia, ear infections, dehydration, and possibly death. [14] The difference is that the flu is quite common, [15] While adverse effects from vaccines are quite rare. [16]“'There are no surprises here; vaccines are being shown over and over again to be quite safe,' said Cornelia Dekker, MD, medical director of the vaccine program at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, who chatted with me about the study earlier today. 'The safety record for our U.S.-licensed vaccines is excellent. There are a few vaccines for which they document that there are indeed adverse events, but the frequency is quite rare, and in almost all cases they are very easy to manage and self-limited.'" [16] III. Recommendations From Major Health Organizations The CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) all recommend vaccines. [17] In fact, it's said to be one of the safest medical practices ever, despite its risks. [18]To add to this, the FDA and CDC are very strict when it comes to vaccinations. "The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history. Years of testing are required by law to ensure that vaccines are safe before they are made available in the United States. This process can take 10 years or longer. Once a vaccine is in use, the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitor any possible side effects reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other vaccine safety systems. Any hint of a problem with a vaccine prompts the CDC and FDA to carry out further investigations. If researchers find that a vaccine might be causing a problem, CDC and/or FDA can:"Change vaccine labels or packaging"Issue safety alerts"Inspect manufacturers' facilities and records"Withdraw recommendations for the use of the vaccine"Revoke the vaccine's license" [19]In conclusion, vaccines do move harm than good, as they save many lives, have few side effects, and are recommended by many major health organizations. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals.Citations[1]http://www.action.org......[2]http://www.health.ny.gov......[3]http://www.health.ny.gov......[4]http://www.health.ny.gov......[5]http://www.health.ny.gov......[6]http://www.health.ny.gov......[7]http://www.health.ny.gov......[8]http://www.health.ny.gov......[9]http://www.health.ny.gov......[10]http://www.health.ny.gov......[11]http://www.cdc.gov......[12]http://www.cdc.gov......[13]http://www.immunizeforgood.com......[14]http://www.health.ny.gov......[15]http://m.kidshealth.org......=[16]http://scopeblog.stanford.edu......[17]http://vaccines.procon.org......[18]http://www.vaccines.gov......[19]http://www.cdc.gov... |
9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00005-000 | Should we be vaccinated | Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org... |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00000-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | Con forfeit 2 rounds so far. |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00001-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | con has forfeit a round. I will wait to see if he will take the opportunity to catch up and explain the reason for which he has forfeited, and possibly continue the debate. -Dennis |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00002-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | I thank Con for replying to this Debate, though I would like to advise you to Add arguments of your own. For why the policy should not be abolished. This offers a second opinion for me to consider and refute. It is what helps you win debates. Counter Rebbutals "Boy Scouts is not about Sexuality" If the BSA is not about sexuality at all they should not have any problems with gay scouts joining. This is exactly why boy scouts has a problem with it, It is homosexuals who originally fought for this policy, and people who are blindly support gay rights. And I have nothing against supporting gay rights, in many cases I do too. However this was done in a completely inappropriate way, Again building the case that Gays are being oppressed by society and need to have a special pass.Why do Gay Boy scouts need to be openly gay about their sexuality? Why is it important for gay scouts to be able to say I AM GAY! I WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW. bringing this into boy scouts only implies sexual activity and therefor makes everyone reluctant.I believe a policy should be approved in which people of all sexual orientations should be allowed to join boy scouts, however made clear that Boy Scouts is highly against immoral sexual behavior. And that it is not encouraged to talk about your sexuality whether You're Heterosexual, Homosexual or Asexual it shouldn't matter. and It should not be made into a big deal. "At its core Boy Scouts is Christian"Con has stated that Homosexual Christians accept that they are sinning, however Still desire to be openly Homosexual? If this is the case it would be like someone Who constantly lies and believes that they are sinning according to their faith, however still desire to be open to everyone about their lying. And before Con jumps on my back and is offended by me comparing Liars to Gays. Personally I do not believe 90% of things the bible says. Including that Homosexuality is a sin. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...As stated in the link above, the bible supports the idea of ALL SINS BEING THE SAME. which is why I make the comparison. I want to know Cons opinion about this. because his argument did not make sense to meDo not think that I am conceding to Con because I support Homosexual scouts. I am opposed to the Policy which was put in place. Troops are disbandingIf two gay kids were scouts and wanted to do things together in their tents they would already be doing it. Just because there is a new policy does not mean that people are going to start engaging in gay activities. This is exactly why Troops are disbanding, because they are run by scouts parents who are hard-headed christians who do not believe in pre-marital sexual conduct, and with this Openly Gay policy being added, it is encouraging Gay scouts to express their sexuality. And it is encouraging Scouts to join boy scouts. A lot of people simply just dont want to deal with this, which forces a lot of regulations and rules to be put into place. Which can be a real hastle for A predominantly heterosexual scout troop. So either they stick it out, and enforce these rules. Or they pack up camp and decide to go home. and unfortunately a lot of troops have chosen the latter. Which this policy is to blame for majorly. NotesCon has failed to add arguments of his own, which leads me to assume that he has no opinions about this issue himself and simply plans on refuting. I ask that he would add arguments of his own in the next round, giving me a chance to refute my opinion against his.Second Contentions!The openly gay policy encourages Sexual behaviorWith this new Policy it is encouraging sexual behavior in a predominantly heterosexual orginization. With scouts being allowed and encouraged to be open about their sexuality it is creating an enviroment for Gay scouts to have sexual conduct while in boy scouts. With the Christian Morals and Ethics this defeats the purpose of scouting. Because it isnt about meeting other gay scouts and possibly having relationships with them. It is purely based on young men growing up with a strong sense of whats morally right. To learn about responsibilites and caring for a family and other people. It does not discuss Homosexuality and is a program molded for Heterosexuals. There are MANY MANY MANY lessons which can be learned for all sexual orientations. Do not get me wrong and think that I am stating that Gay scouts would not learn nothing. This is not true. But scouting is Moulded for Heterosexual Boys and this can not be denied. |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00003-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | This is my first debate so if I mess up I am sincerely sorry and will try to follow the rules better new time."Boy Scouts is not about Sexuality""So why do Gay scouts need to have the right to say I AM GAY LET ME IN" I take issue with this because it implies that gay scouts will openly advertise that they are gay because of the policy. They will not be anymore open about it than they were before. The policy is needed because before no gay scouts could join unless they hid it from everyone. This lets them join without having to be in the closet. Leaders should not be anymore nervous then they used to be. Just because this is enacted does not mean that there will be a giant jump in gay scouts. If the BSA is not about sexuality at all they should not have any problems with gay scouts joining. "At its core Boy Scouts is Christian"Here you again return to the argument that gay scouts will advertise openly that they are gay just because of this policy. A lot of homosexuals are Christian and accept that according to their beliefs they are sinning. Should you make homosexual boys who want to be in the scouts hide it just because they are going against one rule in your religion? I am by no means saying that gay boy scouts should advertise they are gay but they should not have to hide it completely no matter what. Does the fact that you are openly straight mean you are advertising your sexuality? No it doesn't. "Troops are disbanding"It saddens me to here that troops are breaking up but should we throw out the entire policy just because a few troops are overreacting? No! We should teach the troops to learn to accept the new policy. If two gay kids were scouts and wanted to do things together in their tents they would already be doing it. Just because there is a new policy does not mean that people are going to start engaging in gay activities. |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00004-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | Con has failed to comply to the first rule I presented: Arguments should be made in round 1. Not acceptance.However due to this being his first debate, I ask that you would all not deduct points in conduct for this, and that round 5 will be open for him to make final rebutalls. But I ask that he would not add any new points in round 5. Opening + ArgumentsBefore I begin and state my arguments, I'd like to say that I am not against Gay Boy Scouts, I am not against Homosexuality, I am simply against the The recent policy which enabled openly gay scouts to join boy scouts. I will ask Con to not misinterpret my arguments and think that I am arguing whether or not gay scouts should be able to join.Boy Scouts is not about Sexuality The BSA program enables young boys, and provides them with strong morals and turns them into confident reliable men. There are no merit badges for Homosexuality or Heterosexuality, And Heterosexual scouts do not openly need to advertise that they are straight. So why do Gay scouts need to have the right to say I AM GAY LET ME IN, when the program itself has zip to do with sexuality. With this new policy it is encouraging Homosexual scouts to advertise that they are gay, which in turn makes the leaders nervous. Not becuase they are Homosexual but because scouts is not sexual at all, and should not be marketed as Gay friendly when it doesnt relate to sexuality. At its core Boy Scouts is ChristianBsa is predominantly christian, It is not required to be christian and all religions are welcome in BSA however, people often associate boy scouts with christianity, and for unsurprising reasons. Most troops in the united states often go on Religious trips, and do Church related work. They teach the scouts about pre-marital sexual conduct. And essentially do not support Homosexuality. With boy scouts being predominantly christian I think that it's asking for trouble when Homosexual scouts need to advertise their sexuality, making something completely unrelated to sexuality, Gay friendly. Troops are disbandingUnfortunately due to this policy, there are many scout troops which have disbanded and also many which have added new regulations to their troop. http://www.chron.com...https://www.facebook.com... Above I have lsited two links to sources which tell of scout troops who have disbanded in order to prove my statement. First of all this is quite stubborn of the troops to do but I can see where they're coming from. However if this Open Gay Policy was done in a different way, and less subtle. Not just screaming that a certain sexuality is being opressed. I think that a lot of troops would have viewed it differently by now. Also to extend on to this, the quality of troops are declining due to this. I will explain how my troop personally has been affected by this. -No longer allowed to share tents.-Buddy system requires 3 people-Constant Suspection From scout leaders-More talks about sexual moralityThe above listed are all things which came into my troop personally and I'm sure many others as these regulations are worldwide. The policy has reduced the quality of boy scouts not because Gay scouts are allowed to join. But because it turned something completely unrelated to sexuality into something sexual. Closing StatementI'd like to thank con for accepting this debate and look farward to his arguments. I would like to remind everybody that I am for Gay Scouts being in BSA but I disagree that it should be turned into a huge deal. Promoting everybodies sexuality. It only causes more restrictions on the scouts who are just looking to go on adventures and have fun! Including GAY scouts and STRAIGHT scouts! we all want to be bros together however I dont think its right that gay scouts should have the right to openly advertise they sexually desire other guys. It just makes everyone uncomfortable and with it already being a touchy subject in Christian programs it becomes a big hastle for everyone involved. |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00005-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | I see absolutely no reason why openly gay scouts should not be able to join the BSA. The policy that was in place originally was causing more harm than this policy could. I hope you present some of the reasons you believe this policy is a problem. |
c82983ec-2019-04-18T16:30:25Z-00006-000 | The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked. | I will be arguing that we should revoke the gay scouts policy allowing openly gay scouts to join BSA. Because it causes more harm than good. |
934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000 | There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! | Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com... |
934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000 | There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! | There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com... |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00000-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | Assault rifle: I actually chose to use that definition because it's more accurate to the assault rifles we have now, and it's a little more definitive. Because according to your definition, a Ruger Mini-14 is an assault weapon. It has high-capacity magazines and is based off the M14, which is a military rifle, now the military has never touched the Mini-14, but by your definition, it's an assault rifle, which simply isn't true. My definition is more definitive in the matter that it matches the modern assault rifles we have today. The very first assault rifle ever, the StG 44, was capable of semi-auto or full-auto fire, effective up to 600meters and utilised an intermediate cartridge(1). And wiki just so happens to share the thought on my previous definition . "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine typically firing ammunition with muzzle energies and sizes intermediate between those of handgun and more traditional high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armed forces, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are generally not considered assault rifles. Semi-automatic rifles are not always classified as assault rifles as they are not fully automatic and some are not designed for military use. However, in media firearms reporting the term "assault rifle" usually refers to visual appearance rather than internal functionality. Similar full sized weapons, with full-auto capabilities chambered in full-sized rifle rounds, are known as Battle rifles. Examples of Battle Rifles are the FN FAL, H&K G3 and M14 rifle. "(2) So, in other words, there's no way a stricly semi-automatic firearms can be considered an assault rifle. I could list the next 50 assault rifles created after the StG 44, and they would all be capable of selective fire. The definition you stated for assault rifle simply doesn't match with what history has forged. High-powered: Your previous comparison of the bow and arrow was with kinetic energy, not accuracy and reload speed, in which case, muskets still prevail. The ability to kill cannot be grounds for the definition of high-power, because all bullets fired from all types of firearms can kill you. You have yet to show how the AR15 is high-powered relative to another rifle of it's category (semi-automatics, but you can compare it to an assault rifle I guess.). It isn't high-powered because it doesn't fire a full powered rifle cartridge. Weapon of war: First off, I highly doubt they have been used in third world conflicts for 2 reasons. 1, they're not sought out as the primary, go-to, overthrow the government rifle. That would be the AK-47, because they're cheaper and there are plenty available on the black market.(3) If a government were going to arm it's troops, it would buy they M16, because it can. And semi-auto saving ammo sounds like a good theory until people start shooting you wiht a fully automatic. Then it makes you reconsider. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org... 2.https://en.wikipedia.org.... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00001-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | "First off, I specifically stated that I only wanted to go over 1 term per round, but that's ok. " Sorry, I missed that part, but at least this way we can debate topics more thoroughly "Because if you compared every firearm in existence, they would all outperform a bow and arrow" False, a composite bow or long bow does outperform entry level muskets in terms of reload speed as well as range and accuracy. That's besides the point though--the AR15 can be considered high powered compared to many weapons including assault rifles. Some assault rifles make the AR15 look low powered. Anyways, pro still hasn't shown how high power is in fact a misnomer. The AR15 is high powered enough to do hunting as well kill; thus the AR15 is high powered in some situations. "The real AR15 has never set foot on the battlefield, therefore, it is not a "weapon of war"." I highly doubt that pro can prove that an AR15 was never seen on a battlefield since its creation in 1959. For the millions of units sold of AR15s, it is highly likely that at least one AR15 was used in some battle between nations; perhaps in third world countries that aren't documented well. Pro makes the assertion that the AR15 has never set food in the battlefield without providing proof that this has always been the case. "Also, the AR15 we have today, which is practically the same AR15 that's been around for the past 50 years, is not used by any military in the world. Why? Because it is semi-automatic. Semi-automatic rifles are not the preferred choice of soldiers going into combat." Again, how can you make the claim that AR15 has not been used by any military in the world, even one unit? Provide some proof that AR15s have not been used by any military; millions of units have been sold and pro doesn't think that at least one was used in a military conflict. I see no issues with semi automatic rifles, since they help to conserve ammunition, which can be helpful in certain circumstances. Provide proof that all militaries think that semi automatic weapons are inferior to automatic weapons. I'd also like to mention that con's definition of assault rifle is from a concise encyclopedia, which he choose because it fits his argument well; however, according to the first definition that is actually from Merriam Webster, it can be defined as "Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use " They keyword here is "or", which means that assault rifles don't have to be fully automatic to be considered assault rifles. This is the first definition given by merriam webster, which contradicts the concise encyclopedia definition provided by pro in the comments. Source- http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00002-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | First off, I specifically stated that I only wanted to go over 1 term per round, but that's ok. Also, interesting that you would compare the AR15 to a bow and arrow. Because if you compared every firearm in existence, they would all outperform a bow and arrow, but still being weaker than a nuke, thereby fitting the category of high-powered as explained by con. So in order for it to be considered high-powered, it would have to be compared to another firearm. I would also like to state that the M4/M16 and the AR15 are not the same thing. The M4/M16 have different internal mechanics that allow it to go full auto, whereas the AR15 is only semi-automatic. Thereby it fails the definition of assault rifle. Also, the AR15 we have today, which is practically the same AR15 that's been around for the past 50 years, is not used by any military in the world. Why? Because it is semi-automatic. Semi-automatic rifles are not the preferred choice of soldiers going into combat. Yes I suppose you could go to war with it, but no one has. The real AR15 has never set foot on the battlefield, therefore, it is not a "weapon of war" |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00003-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | Thanks pro for starting off this discussion. According to wikipedia the AR-15 is defined as "The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as an assault rifle for the United States armed forces. [8] Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire version of the AR-15 entered the U.S. military system as the M16 rifle." http://en.wikipedia.org... By my definition of AR-15, the AR-15 is indeed an assault riffle similar to the m16. In addition, "The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire" This fits my opponents definition of ""Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." Therefore, the AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle according to my opponents definitions as well as the ones I have provided. Next, I will prove that the AR-15 is high powered. Relative to a bow and arrow, the AR-15 has substantially higher kinetic energy in each bullet than an arrow from a bow would have. Thus, the AR-15 can be considered high powered in various situations. Compared to a nuclear weapon, no assault rifle would be considered "high powered." My point is that high powered depends on the relative context it is being compared to. From merriam webster a war can be defined as- a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : A weapon can be defined as any object which can cause harm, including a club, a rock, or a bow and arrow. Therefore, since the AR15 was used by the US military, and is also an object that can cause harm, which can be used in a hostile armed conflict between nations, the AR-15 is definitely a weapon of war by definition. Pro has cited various facts about the AR15, but hasn't proved how the various terms in the debate proposition are in fact misnomers. My definitions show that neither of the terms used above are misnomers. |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00004-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | Sorry, I just posted them in the comments. First off, the AR15 is chambered in the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO cartridge. The average bullet weight of this cartridge is between 55 and 62 grains.Since the dimensions of the cartridge are so close that the difference is negligible, I will simply refer to both as the .223. The .223 is an intermediate cartridge, which means that it is not as powerful as a true rifle cartridge, but not as weak as a handgun cartridge (1). The .223 is a common round among hunters because it is cheap and a good round for varmint. When compared side by side to a true rifle cartridge like a .30-06(which has an average weight of 150 grains) for example, the difference is force is apparent (2) At 100yards the .223 has 0.0017 of drop, with a speed of 2759 feet per second and 929 foot pounds of energy. At 100 yards the 30-06 has 0.0014 of drop, with a speed of 2597 feet per seconds and 2471 foot pounds of energy. 1.http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk... 2.http://gundata.org... |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00005-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | Thanks pro for making this debate. I accept this debate and the definition of a misnomer. However, pro hasn't defined the terms high power, assault rifle, or weapon of war, and so I assume we will be arguing about their corresponding semantics. |
d37c8311-2019-04-18T17:29:48Z-00006-000 | "High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15 | Misnomer- noun a wrong or inaccurate name or designation: "king crab" is a misnomer"these creatures are not crustaceans at all. " a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term: to call this "neighborhood policing" would be a misnomer. Taken from the New Oxford American Dictionary. First round is acceptance(no opening statements) . Each subsequent round is for one of the above labels |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00000-000 | This is not a debate. | con |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00001-000 | This is not a debate. | v |