argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone). You do make some good points, however, I am going to talk about maturity now and bring in some of the other points at a later time. On maturity, while there are many 18 y.o who join the military there are many more who don't, because they are not fully mature. I have read that the brain does not fully mature until about 25. That being said, there is definitely alot of maturing still needed within that time period of 18 to 25 and adding things like alcohol can impair that maturing. I also think it would be a bad influence on teens around 15-17 year olds, being that many 18 year olds "hang out" with younger teens. There are also alot of teens who are 18 still in high school, which makes it even more possible to influence the younger teens. In the article that I have posted below, it also states that teens become more aggressive around the age of 16 and with drinking this can cause a rise in violence. If you would like to elaborate some of your other points more, I will respond to them ion the following rounds. :) http://www.foxnews.com...... | CON | 3f867421-2019-04-18T18:19:00Z-00005-000 |
Facebook is useful for students aged between 14-16 years. Age group of students-14-16 years Topic-Facebook is useful for students aged between 14-16 years. Rules-Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 2 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 6 months. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 72 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. Voting Comments:Members voting on this debate are required to provide comments for their vote. Request-I request my opponent to use easy to understand English as I am not a native English speaker. Also my age is 15 so please post your arguments according to my age and fluency in English. My English is neither very good nor very bad. Everyone is welcome to join the debate. Argument- I agree with this statement. 1.Facebook brings people closer by increasing interaction between them. More people mean more views more views mean more knowledge and knowledge is what a student needs. 2.Facebook is Always "On" Sometimes your BFF isn't around and just want human interaction of some kind. Maybe you want to sneak in a moment to see what everyone is up to in between clients at work, or when you're up at 4 a.m. and can't sleep. Regardless of when you want to log in, Facebook is there waiting for you. This can give a sense of comfort and make you feel connected to the world. 3.You can chat with teachers and your friends. We can ask questions or simply answer questions of others. Debates , essay-writing contests and story writing ,etc require a student to have a vast treasure of knowledge and wide range of views. Facebook helps students to increase their knowledge and also help them to see things from different viewpoint. example-A simple example of how facebook helps users to see things from a different viewpoint is this debate itself. In the comments,people from different parts of world can give their views about this topic and thus widening the scope of this debate. 3.It helps to find Those Who Share Your Causes and Hobbies Maybe you're interested in environmental issues. Maybe you want to find someone to swap woodworking tips with. Whatever your special interest, there's likely to be a Facebook page--or a dozen--dedicated to it. These fellow enthusiasts can be a great source of information, advice and support. 4.You can meet different people and learn from their experiences. 5.Facebook can keep your brain fit. Play Online Games As millions can testify, games offered on Facebook can be addictive. They can also be stimulating and fun. Online games, especially those with a time factor, are excellent for brain fitness. I request the opponent to post his views. | PRO | 85671f5d-2019-04-18T18:10:28Z-00003-000 |
Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children. I agree that everyone should be educated to the point they know that every action has consequences. However, many are stubborn and refuse to listen. There are still a large portion of those who don't care for intervention and would rather to live their life their way even if it negatively affects the life of another. Unfortuantely, unplanned pregnancies are making the quality of life worse for everyone. In the last forty years the population has more than doubled. This planet is overpopulated with no means to control it. Something has to be done even if it means taking some freedom away from people. Parents and kids would benefit much more living comfortably without stress as opposed to the many families that do because they take on too much by caring for more life as they spread themselves too thin. It's like catch 22, people take advantage of the freedom they have but have to realize what kind of effect it has on everyone besides themselves. If China can have a one child policy, other countries can find a way to control their increasing population. http://www.forbes.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 462052d7-2019-04-18T14:33:10Z-00001-000 |
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does. Your very much right on the definition of racism. I understand it is just not black people who are discriminated against. But it is black people who face the most discrimination. Although the Black Lives matter party have become slightly violent in their methods of awareness. The movement was started with good intentions of bringing awareness to the police brutality of black men. We live in a world right now, whereby discrimination against whites is close to non-existent. In fact when discussing racism in this present day and world, I find it quite ignorant for people as a defense to state in response to racism against blacks "well white people get discriminated against as well". It focuse the attention away from the real problem we have. | CON | e85c089a-2019-04-18T11:57:30Z-00004-000 |
Short Story Challenge. Simple. We give each other two topic choices for a 3,000 character (SHORT indeed, bwaahaha) story. First round is for accepting and assigning each other topics, second, third and fourth rounds will be the three stories and the final round we post why we think our stories were better. I'll assign my opponent his/her two topics at the end of my first story. Please, if you aren't going to see this through, don't accept. I can't write raps at the moment, but I could write a story. | PRO | 2c8db6bf-2019-04-18T18:59:48Z-00006-000 |
Is Left 4 Dead better then Resident Evil. I do agree with you, it has more than one game type but it needs one more thing. Deathmatch. Left 4 Dead doesnt have it but Resident evil does. Not to mention you can choose a costume with diffrent weapons. And as for the replayability thing, its not that much replayable as you probably think. The zombies spawn generaly in the same area as they normaly do. And the witches have like what, 4 or 5 possible spawn points (not including hard rain). And the tanks, they have like 3 or 4 possible spawn per map, just like the witches. And some of the guns actualy spawn IN THE SAME PLACE (not including beggining of first mission of an episode). I mean sure Left 4 dead got mutation and some wierd game types and modded maps on the computer, but Resident evil got modded maps too (also on the computer). And to finalize, Resident evil has secrets, collectables, and boss fights. And who doesnt love boss fights. And dont cal the tank a boss. It's a mini boss at most. This is why I think Resident Evil is better ( or just as good) than Left for Dead. | CON | f47f620d-2019-04-18T18:52:47Z-00000-000 |
moral. This is my first debate and I'm going to start kicking the door. What is your opinion about abortion in the case of an anencephalic fetus. A pseudo-human creature can be considered a real human, not only has a human body, but a mind, which has complex feelings, that can modify the world around it, which has high purposes. Can you even consider a human anencephalon as a real human? For me these anencephalons are simply aberrations. | PRO | cf025b61-2019-04-18T12:00:21Z-00001-000 |
Every action we do is in the pursuit of happiness. Thought experiment: Suppose I could guarantee you happiness by connecting you to a machine that looks like something out of the matrix. You would be totally unaware of your current life in this experience machine. Your greatest fantasies would be fulfilled while you would suck yeast paste through a tube. In your mind you would be the president, a rocker star, or both. But to other people looking on the outside, you look like a vegetable. Do you hop in the machine? Most people say no. This is Robert Nozick's experience machine argument and it is meant to show that we seem to care more about just happiness. Happiness is an evolutionary mechanism for our genetic puppet masters to get us to pass on our genes. Our brain rewards us for doing certain things (pleasure) and punishes us for others (pain). The problem is that our reward system evolved in a time while our species was a group of nomadic hunter gatherers. But since then, we have changed our environment considerably. There is a difference between "we do stuff to be happy," and "we are happy when we do the stuff our genes want us to." I think there is a greater driving force then happiness, and that is reproduction. We live to breed. But the two are confused because one is used to reenforce the other. I think that also explains why people don't get in the experience machine. Getting the machine essentially means giving up all control of your reproductive successes. | CON | 1b8eb1cf-2019-04-18T20:03:02Z-00004-000 |
TUF is a wimp. First of all, TUF stands for "The Ultimate Fighter" A TV show on spike hosted by Dana White, where MMA fighters get a shot at 16 figure contract in the UFC through an elimination process of fights and extensive training.http://www.ultimatefighter.com...Anyways, it would have been spelled "Tough" if I was actually claiming to be tough.However, I will accept and defend the fact that I am not a cowardly "lacky" of Imabench.The word Lacky, in the urban disctionary, means;Lacky: a person's bitch.http://www.urbandictionary.com... I have not done anything that would indicate I am his "bitch". | CON | eeff5a00-2019-04-18T18:19:38Z-00002-000 |
Apples or Oranges? I pick apples.. You are right apples have many uses and are known as the forbidden fruit which is exactly what they should be forbidden... but an orange is one of the best fruits for eating raw and juicing...It has a great range of uses, from an ingredient in salads and frozen desserts to marmalade, pastry making, and cooking, including using the peel to extract essential oil...Orange flower water is distilled from the tree blossoms, and is used in Indian cooking...The fruit and its grated zest can be added to punch and cakes as a garnish, and segments are also served with seafood... Bitter oranges are used to make marmalade, jam, jelly, syrup, and sauce... Their bitter zest lends the hint of orange to the alcoholic liqueurs Cura�ao, Cointreau, and Grand Marnier. Oranges are available year-round, even though they are traditionally a winter fruit...Oranges keep well in the refrigerator for two weeks, and the zest from oranges can be frozen. Sweet oranges are used chiefly for juicing or eating...They include the Valencia, Navel, and Temple oranges...The Navel orange, which is grown in California, is considered an eating orange, since its sweet pulp tends to turn a little bitter when the juice is exposed to air...Valencia oranges are enjoyed for both eating and juicing, although commercially the Valencia is considered the best juicing orange...An orange hybrid bearing an orange and red rind with red flesh is called blood orange...The Temple orange, named after the man who created it, is a flavorful orange-tangerine hybrid...Bitter oranges, also known as Seville oranges, are named after the Spanish city of the same name. They are seldom seen in markets and are used chiefly for marmalade or for their peel (in liqueurs). ORANGES -Strengthen the immune system -Lower cholesterol -Prevent inflammation -May lower risk of heart disease and stroke -May help prevent cancer http://thirdage.com... Also I just wanted to add that eating apples are annoying because you have to eat around the core. Whereas with oranges you just peel it and eat it. Oranges are more sanitary too because as you said earlier apples are homes for worms well sorry but I don't want worms in my fruit.. You can also eat oranges without washing them off because of the protective skin they have. When you eat an apple you also have to worry about all of the things that have touched it before you decided to eat it because you eat the outside skin of an apple... The End sorry to drag on so long but I cannot stand apples...... | CON | db59ad99-2019-04-18T19:50:42Z-00000-000 |
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live. It would be a beautiful world if LIVE TO EAT really meant to sit down with family and friends to enjoy good quality, healthy foods, however, it has been brought to my attention that most people that live to eat are not reasonable about it and put themselves and others at great risk in order to maintain an unhealthy live to eat lifestyle. Many Americans have picked up some very unhealthy eating habits, but it is not just Americans, it is spreading across the globe at an alarming rate. I say eat to live a happy healthy life. You can still eat amazing food with family and friends, just be responsible and eat in moderation. | PRO | 1b4638e1-2019-04-18T16:05:43Z-00003-000 |
Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench. Nice quick round from my opponent and I thank you for that. Now it is time for me to start my arguments. My opponent divided Berra's and Bench's stats by amount of years played. That is a terrible idea. While it is true that Berra played 19 seasons and Bench only 17, Bench played his entire career after 1961, which is the first major league expansion. Bench had a chance to play 162 games every season, while Berra could only play 154 games a season except for his last 3 seasons. As a result, Bench actually played more games (2158-2120), had more plate appearances (8674-8359), and more at bats (7658-7555). So, if we average it out for 162 games played per season, the results would be a little bit different. Stat, Berra, Bench Home runs, 27, 29 Rbis, 109, 103 Runs, 90, 82 Batting Average, .285, .267 On base percentage, .348, .342 Slugging Percentage, .482, .476 So, in fact Berra is a better batter than Bench. My opponent was correct when he/she stated that Bench won the Gold Glove Award 10 times while Berra ended up with a fantastic result of zero. However, Berra is at an artificial disadvantage. The Gold Glove was started in 1957, with the AL getting its own award rather than the whole major league in 1958. By 1957, Yogi Berra was already 32 years old. Being a catcher is a hard job. It is the most grueling position on the field. Hall of Fame Catcher, Bill Dickey said it best when he wondered, "why would anyone put on a faceguard, chest protector and shin guards in the middle of the summer?" Gary Carter, another Hall of Fame Catcher tells reporters how tough being a catcher is. Carter had reportedly 9 surgeries to the knees. The point being, playing as a catcher is hard. Very hard. By the time the Gold Glove started, Berra was too old. Yes, he was "only" 32, but to put that in perspective, Johnny Bench didn't win a SINGLE Gold Glove after the age of 32. I'm not saying that it is impossible to win the Gold Glove Award at and after the age of 32, I'm simply saying that it is very difficult to do so. Berra was a fine catcher. He was a team leader, great when working with pitchers and an insanely clutch hitter. He put more runs on the board than Bench and his defense is underrated because he does not have a Gold Glove. He is the best catcher of all time and better than Johnny Bench. Sources: 1) http://m.bbref.com... 2) http://m.bbref.com... 3) "Home Plate Don't Move-Baseball's best quips and quotes" | PRO | 1ab35277-2019-04-18T17:24:39Z-00005-000 |
Assault Weapons Ban. Regarding your statement, "The ban does NOT apply to machine guns, which are already essentially banned for purchase and are never used in crime." First, I would like for you to tell me, which source justifies this definition you asserted because I have my source but I do not see yours. Second, I was not saying that assault weapons are frequently used in crimes. I was making the point that the overall safety of the pistol is higher than the overall safety of the assault weapon. Since the pistol is the better option of a gun, there is no reason to want an assault weapon because it not only decreases your own personal safety but also the safety of those around you and people are entitled to their own personal safety within reason. In addition, I understand that the assault weapons are heavily regulated but there still is no reason that a larger and more dangerous assault rifle should be used instead of the smaller and less dangerous pistol. This would be interfering with the safety of others. The final issue that I would like to discuss would be that the ban would be not unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. If we ban assault weapons, then people will still have the right to bear arms. That right is no being changed. The outcome of that ban would be limiting the choices of guns that can be used. However, the 2nd amendment would still be in place. The main issue that I would like for you to discuss in the next round is the reasons that there needs to be assault weapons instead of just the standard pistol. I do not understand or see the reason that is preventing people from agreeing to sacrifice a specific set of guns. | PRO | d8fcca31-2019-04-18T15:36:19Z-00003-000 |
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever. First debate as well as my opponents. It's certainly a toss up if your going on Team Jordan don't think of him as a brand look at it statistically. As I pointed out how many records Wilt holds til this day. I also said the art of competition is always growing so think about that for one. Wilt and Jordan are both legends in their own right. My basic thing in the debate his who has dominated their era more efficiently. Wilt or Jordan? My money's on Wilt. The PER is a great tool in today's basketball but not all statistics could be traced for the people that paved the way for basketball is what I initiated last round. Nevertheless this is a great battle my opponent has researched a great deal of stuff. So have I. So I ask in the debate who is more dominant. Let's reach for big dreams, Vote for the Big Dipper. Kudos to my opponent in his efforts in this debate. Let the best person win. | CON | 59a87bea-2019-04-18T17:47:34Z-00000-000 |
uniform is a waste of time. What is the use of launching a debate if one is not going argue his/her point. A one sided statement cannot continue a debate. However, since I have agreed to debate I will post my views which of course is not an argument since I have no statement to argue against. One would have to wear clothes in whatever 'form' and if that is not a waste of time then 'uniform' too is not a waste of time. | CON | 610216c4-2019-04-18T17:07:45Z-00000-000 |
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming. 1. Hardt and Negri write in their book Empire in 2000 that Technologies of control and social production are the means by which Empire legitimizes itself The source of imperial normativity is born of a globalized biopolitical machine. In the genesis of Empire there is a rationality at work that can be recognized. This is a rationality that situates us at the heart of biopolitics and biopolitical technologies. 2. Hardt and Negri write in their book assembly in 2017 that the Empire uses the fog of war to make impacts like oppression and violence inevitable An ideological fog that clouds myriad forms of violence, Making them all but invisible to external observers, And even sometimes to those who suffer them. Some extreme forms of violence, Spectacular acts of brutality. 3. You should resist all forms of the Empire 1. A NGO should produce and rear humans in a controlled environment 2. Solves all of the Pro's claims while avoiding the Empire | CON | 97a62bd6-2019-04-18T11:14:08Z-00004-000 |
Death Penalty. I appreciate my opponent's politeness, but I also fear that he has ceded the debate to myself. My opponent has not refuted any points here. Yes, it is the voice of a person who was tried in a criminal court. That does not make them any less human. Once more, we should not resort to killing people simply because our legal system may have flaws. My opponent cedes the point that death is "not necessarily a deterrent" to crimes that might involve the death penalty. This is true. The debate here obviously should go to Con. | CON | ed875bea-2019-04-18T16:07:09Z-00004-000 |
Global Warming. "I want to prove to you that you're wrong." The first step in proving that the global warming exists is by proving there is a notable temperature increase in the earth's average temperature. If global warming exists the global average temperature should show an increase outside the margin of error when calculating an average global temperature. There has been no warming for seventeen years. And since 1880 the average global temp has only risen 1.53 degrees fahrenheit. But this average includes data that can be completely false or inaccurate as the vast majority of the data is derived from arcane and severely inaccurate measuring instruments and measuring methods. It was only until the advent of satellites and infrared measuring devices that accurate measurements even became possible which was only a paltry 30 or 40 years ago. 17 of those years show no increase. | CON | 4aed911b-2019-04-18T15:35:56Z-00003-000 |
Original Sin Never Happened. The Bible provides more answers. The idea that Adam was the first created human is under attack within evangelical circles. Dr. John MacArthur warned about this issue in the introduction to his book, The Battle for the Beginning in 2001. We decided to hold a conference on this topic as the theme for our annual creation conference now called the Creation Summit. Much of what we will cover in the Summit is based on the book What Happened in the Garden, Written by the faculty of The Master"s University and Dr. MacArthur. 1. In what way is the historical Adam under attack? Theistic evolution and old age creationism groups are becoming more influential in evangelical churches and some Christian colleges and universities. In these views, In order to accommodate long ages of evolution Genesis 1-11 is viewed as partially historical or not historical at all. Also, Aspects of modern evolutionary biology involving genetics and paleontology (the study of fossils) are largely accepted as part of these views. It is now widely accepted that many Adam and Eves evolved from pre-human ancestors and therefore there was not one unique created couple. 2. Did pre-human creatures exist before Adam and Eve? Our starting point and foundation for all our disciplines at TMU is the Bible. There is no indication biblically that there were pre-human creatures in God"s creation. In fact, The making of Eve from Adam would have been unnecessary if there were many evolving Eves. 3. How do we know there were only one Adam and one Eve? The Bible discusses a single creation event involving Adam and Eve. God walked with Adam in the garden without mention of others. Adam is often referred to as the first Adam and not the second or third Adam. The Bible discusses the fact that all sin derived from a single first Adam. Jesus is referred to as the second Adam, Supporting the fact that there was a single first Adam. 4. Does science show multiple first Adams and pre-humans that existed before Adam? Can God create the planets with science? Mass extinctions have multiple chain reactions within 7 days. They also found out how Life was formed. Level 100 Meteor with magical space ingredients. The Garden Of Eden fits many descriptions of the earth today. This is my first debate with Religion so I was unprepared. Thank You | CON | ed3721a9-2019-04-18T11:12:13Z-00002-000 |
Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word. All due respect to my opponent, but I have already answered the question. Christianity is weakening, or becoming ignored as you say, because it isn't providing incentives to follow it. It used to be, you followed the religion or were punished in Europe. That's a pretty compelling reason to follow it. However, now, there is only the nebulous concepts of burning in hell, or being rewarded through heaven, neither of which can be proven outside of christian teachings. Even ignoring that, multiple religions offer a heaven/hell dichotomy. Christianity offers nothing to compete with these religions. I would remind my opponent that this debate was stated as a "Christianity Is/Isn't becoming weaker/ignored". If you want to change it to WHY is it doing so, and argue as such, we can do so. But yes, the statement the Christian Church is becoming ignored is explicitly tied to it becoming weaker, as I have argued. The less reason people have to go to something, the less likely they are to go. | PRO | 2792f3ae-2019-04-18T14:19:31Z-00002-000 |
The Limits of Omnipotence. To say omnipotence has limits is a logical contradiction, if one wants to speak of that. Definition of omnipotent: Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Definition of unlimited: Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent. Unlimited & Anything include things that contradict. If an omnipotent being cannot do something that logically contradicts itself, then that only being that the being isn't actually omnipotent. God created logic, therefore he is not under the laws of logic, therefore he can do things that logic wouldn't allow. Here's an example: An 80's computer couldn't possibly run everything a modern computer could. Here's another example: If there are people that live in a 2D World, they are under the rules of that world. They could not comprehend anything outside of a 2D world, and some would even say that 3D (A thing not bound by the laws of the 2D world) doesn't exist, and give their reasoning based upon the established laws of the 2D world (Some people do this with 4D)[1]. But, there is a bigger picture, in which both 2D and 3D exist, even though the people in the 2D world couldn't wrap their heads around it. We live in a logical world, and we are under the rules of logic. We cannot comprehend anything that does not fit within logic, and some people use logic to show that omnipotence (something not bound by logic) is impossible. There is a bigger picture, in which a logic world and something not bound by logic (An omnipotent being) both exist. | CON | 1206afb2-2019-04-18T15:20:52Z-00004-000 |
This is Impossible (Troll Debate). Ok. Hi everyone. My name is Jayden, and ummm I'm here to prove something to you. So there is this triangle right? And MAN LET ME TELL YOU! It's freaking impossible to make. It's that simple. Now let me tell you why.1. It doesn't make senseLadies and gentlemen, ask yourself. Does this triangle make sense. No. Of course not. Why do we park in driveways, and drive on parkways? Doesn't matter really. What's important is that you realize that this triangle makes no sense, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE POSSIBLE. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? I don't know. Probably not.2. You can't disagree with me Why do people ask you, "Can I ask you a question?" It's not like you have a choice, they already did. That's exactly what this is. You THINK you can believe that the triangle is possible, but in reality, you don't have a choice. Whether you now know it or not, you deep down believe that the triangle is impossible to make.Also, what's the point of thongs? It's like buying a wedgie.Anyhow......."This triangle is beyond belief. It's physical complexity is unable to be comprehended. This triangle IS, without a doubt, impossible to make. I don't believe even Einstein could have made it." -- Just Stein. B. Bear (The great philosopher) Visit this website for more info: http://bit.ly...3. Why do people make rubber duckies yellow, when real ducks are green, or brown? It's kind of dumb.This contention is so incredibly off topic, that I will just stop typing for a while. Ok I'm back now. But still, there really is no where to go from here soooo...If you can't drink and drive, why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor?Makes noooooooooo fvcking sense.VOTEPRO | PRO | 102e73ca-2019-04-18T17:27:21Z-00003-000 |
Society has a very narrow view of gay and straight. We tend to assume that gay people are the ones who sleep with members of their own sex exclusively. We make no account for people who fantasise about gay sex, have one gay experience, or who enter into a short-term relationship with a member of the same sex. If we broaden the definition to include them then we can see that a great many people, maybe even most, flirt with the idea of same-sex sex even if they subsequently return to sleeping with the opposite sex. | PRO | ae0d65af-2019-04-19T12:44:48Z-00003-000 |
Does God Exist. Pro didn't provide any evidence for God. He just said we can't see atoms therefore we can't see God so God could exist and be unseen like atoms. There is a problem here. First of all everyone knows god could exist. The question is, is there any evidence? I argued there isn't. Try praying it never works. There is no logical way or scientific way to prove God exists. The layman can believe in unicorns or fairies that doesn't make them real. So we need to look at physical evidence. Since there is no physical evidence God exists he is no more real than Santa Claus. I was hoping pro would offer more rich arguments such as Kalam Cosmological Argument but since he didn't use it I have no need to address it. I have argued good points why God doesn't exist. I look forward to pro addressing them in the next round. Thanks good luck Pro. | CON | 15f7970c-2019-04-18T13:34:46Z-00005-000 |
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science. As far as we are aware everything has cubic dimensionality and this would seem to be a given law relative to spatial potential. Unless we have pre-creation knowledge then it would be difficult to oppose this observation. it would also seem that non-dimensionality is not consistent with creation anyway. As for time: Does time actually require dimensionality? Isn't time simply an accurate and obvious assumption relative to existence and events. I would suggest that attempting to apply dimensionality to time is simply another manifestation of human over-think. | CON | 938dac07-2019-04-18T11:06:44Z-00006-000 |
Unborn human beings should have a legal right to live. This is open to anyone who can intellectually argue the con to this statement. Definitions"unborn human beings"-The human being from conception to birth."legal right to live"- This is a prohibition against the initiation of homicide against another human being, except in the case of immediate self defense (which would include life of the mother.)The first round will be for acceptance purposes.The second round will be for stating our case.The third round will be for rebuttals.The fourth round will be for second rebuttals as well as closing statements.One last rule, I know this can be a touchy subject but both sides should be mature enough to argue his or her case without resorting to any name calling.For whoever wishes to argue con, good luck. | PRO | 8c0f7064-2019-04-18T18:44:38Z-00006-000 |
WW3 Happening. Thanks for having Q & A with the president, anyone got questions?"But what about the Middle East and Syria?"Syria isn't a war...uhhh(impersonating obama) ....uhhh it's just a...civil war that happen to be under the... uhhh... international spotlight. =I was just playing around with Q and A haha, I hope you don't mind lol.=I wouldn't classify terorrism as a world war, as it basically revolves around guerilla warfare. World war involves huge scale battles, the one in the middle east is just small scale harassment day by day.Thank you. | CON | 8a69c656-2019-04-18T16:15:47Z-00004-000 |
Feminism. Hi everyone I'm Ilan and I am not a feminist. Immediately alarm bells may be ringing in your mind that maybe this guy is a "sexist" or "a rape apologist" or anything of the such so just to clarify I am none of these things. I firmly believe that in the idea that everyone should be equal no if ands and or buts. And now you might be thinking why is this guy not a feminist then? Well, the answer to that question is that feminism does not have a monopoly on equality; if you believe in equality you are not automatically a feminist as many feminists like to state. I am in fact an egalitarian. The difference between the two is that feminism is merely about getting equality for women whereas egalitarianism is equality for absolutely everybody. The dictionary definition of egalitarian is "believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." and that for feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.". Now that we have established some ground I can really start to get into why I am not a feminist. First of all, I am a man. And I am not trying to say that men cannot be feminists, be whatever the hell that you want, but as a man, I feel that I should campaign for my sex and as we have already established feminism is not about gaining equality for all but helping just Women to achieve equality. Even feminists that say that men and other groups are included in feminist issues still do not really campaign for our problems. One major issue that men face is prostate cancer. Prostate cancer kills just as many people as breast cancer does but receives merely half the funding towards research and cures. I have never in my life met a feminist that has agreed with the statement "Prostate cancer is a feminist issue" because quite frankly it is not. Many feminists also like to say that MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) are the ones that should be campaigning for male problems but if it really is for everyone then why does feminism not cover everybody's problems. Here I have merely scratched the surface of male problems that feminism does not address such as the fact that 4 times more men commit suicide than women or that 70% of homeless people are estimated to be men or the significantly less jail time for female rapists than men. I could go on but I want to hear what everyone else has to say about this! I thank you for hearing out what I had to say if you made it this far and hope you all have a wonderful day. Ilan | CON | a57448db-2019-04-18T11:49:01Z-00001-000 |
Did Alex Rodriguez take steroids. Primobolan, also known as methenolone, is an injected or orally administered drug. It improves strength and maintains lean muscle with minimal bulk development and few side effects. It is not an approved prescription drug in the United States. Testosterone can be taken legally with a prescription. In a December 2007 interview with "60 Minutes," however, three days after George Mitchell's report on drugs in the sport was released, Rodriguez denied using performance-enhancing drugs. "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field. ... I felt that if I did my, my work as I've done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level," he said on "60 Minutes." Mitchell said his report included names of players who he "had received credible evidence of their illegal purchase, possession, or use of performance enhancing substances." Rodriguez's name was included. | PRO | 5cb32e8d-2019-04-18T19:30:57Z-00001-000 |
Liberal or Conservative. What is libertarianism? To me this political philosophy rests upon an axiom : that it is immoral to initiate force. That it is wrong to use violence or coercion to get other people to do what you want. In short, libertarians believe in the voluntary interaction of individuals. We can then take this axiom and apply some logical rules to it to deduce a political philosophy. An important moral principle is universality. If it is wrong for me to go out and attack someone, it is wrong for all individuals to go out and attack someone. Another important point here is that only individuals can attack. A group cannot do anything, only the individuals in that group can do something. It is wrong for me to rob; it is wrong for everyone to rob. But robbing is exactly what the taxman does. The taxman says, give me your money, or we will initiate legal proceedings against you and throw you in jail. Jailing someone is an act of aggression. That's not to say that no one can ever be jailed. Sometimes it's okay to use violence or force. Doesn't this contradict what I said above? No. It's wrong to initiate force. But if someone attacks you, then you can use force to defend yourself. You can also use force to bring criminals to justice, so long as you are authorized by the victim. But not paying taxes is not an act of aggression and it's not an act of theft because the claim that money is owed is invalid. No organization can unilaterally form a contract. The only time I can owe someone money is if I make a contract with them, or borrow money. So, if I do not pay the taxes the taxman claims I owe, and I refuse to pay after their sham legal proceedings (sham because no organization should be able to preside over a dispute which they themselves are a part of) then eventually I will be locked in a cage. This is an act of aggression, one which if I defend myself from, I will be murdered. It is now apparent that the state is in contradiction with the non aggression axiom. Either we are to throw out the non aggression axiom, we are to throw out the moral principle of universality, or we are to throw out the state and since I do not want to live in a world where it is survival of the fittest and dog eat dog, and I cannot abide by hypocrites, then I am left with no conclusion other than that we should live in a truly voluntary society, i.e. a world without government. Not a world without police, roads, and courts but instead a society where these services and goods are provided by the market and funded voluntarily instead of through a coerced levy. | PRO | e686ffb5-2019-04-18T17:42:42Z-00002-000 |
Joke Competition. An 18 year old Italian girl tells her Mom that she has missed her period for 2 months. Very worried, the mother goes to the drug store and buys a pregnancy kit. The test result shows that the girl is pregnant! Shouting, cursing, crying, the mother says, "Who was the pig that did this to you? I want to know!" The girl picks up the phone and makes a call. Half an hour later, a Ferrari stops in front of their house. A mature and distinguished man with gray hair and impeccably dressed in an Armani suit steps out of the of the Ferrari and enters the house. He sits in the living room with the father, mother, and the girl and tells them: "Good morning; your daughter has informed me of the problem. I can't marry her because of my personal family situation but I'll take charge. I will pay all costs and provide for your daughter for the rest of her life. Additionally, if a girl is born, I will bequeath a Ferrari, a beach house, 2 retail stores, a townhouse, a beachfront villa, and a $2,000,000 bank account. If a boy is born, my legacy will be two factories and a $4,000,000 bank account. If twins, they each will receive a factory and $2,000,000. However, if there is a miscarriage, what do you suggest I do?" At this point, the father, who had remained silent, places a hand firmly on the man's shoulder and tells him, "You f*** her again." | CON | 8977d54d-2019-04-18T19:41:32Z-00003-000 |
should students have a off-campus lunch. The average school lunch costs $2.08, according to the School Nutrition Association. But, http://www.massresources.org... states that meals are based off of salary income. Personally, my school lunch is over three dollars. You say that eating out is more expensive than eating in. http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com..., gives me several menu prices that are under school lunches. Here are a few options: McDonald's: Double Cheeseburger: $1.59 Triple Cheeseburger: $2.00 Grilled Chipolte BBQ Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Grilled Honey Mustard Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Grilled Ranch Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Chipolte BBQ Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Honey Mustard Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Ranch: Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Small French Fries: $1.29 Medium French Fries: $1.59 Large French Fries: $1.79 Grilled Onion Cheddar: $1.00 McDouble: $1.39 McChicken: $1.00 Bacon Cheddar McChicken: $2.00 Buffalo Ranch McChicken: $1.00 Bacon Buffalo Ranch McChicken: $2.00 BBQ Ranch Burger: $1.00 Cheeseburger: $1.00 Double Cheeseburger: $1.59 Daily Double: $1.99 Jalape"o Double: $2.00 Bacon McDouble: $2.00 4 Pc. Chicken McNuggets: $1.99 Parfait: $1.00 Sweet Tea: $1.00 Side Salad: $1.00 3 Cookies: $1.00 Cone: $1.00 2 Bags of Apple Slices: $1.00 Sausage Burrito: $1.00 Sausage McMuffin: $1.00 Sausage Biscuit: $1.00 1 Hash Brown: $1.00 Coffee: $1.00 2 McGriddles Cakes: $1.00 Egg & Cheese Biscuit: $1.29 Cinnamon Melt: $1.59 That's just McDonald's. I could rave on and on about the extraordinary price difference. | PRO | a0af764c-2019-04-18T15:12:43Z-00000-000 |
Zombies Cannot Run!. I'd like to say that I love Zombies films and I do know quite a bit about them. Towards the end of my opponent's first round he said "We are talking about a walking corpse, not an athelete, criminal, or school child, or any one else you would expect to be able to run circles around the rest of us. " It appears that my opponent believes that Zombies are just walking corpses. This is FALSE. Using this reference for the meaning of "Zombie": . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... You will see that (in the directory section) it describes various meanings of zombies as: "1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States. 2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse. 3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton. " Fact 3 is the key fact I will use to argue this debate which is that a zombie can be one who looks or behaves like an automaton. If someone behaves like an automaton it means they are not behaving like a normal human would, sometimes it could also mean they are out of control. In the first round my opponent said: "What my opponent must do, to be clear, is refute my arguments by using media and pop culture. (Literature, movies, internet. )" And so this is what I shall do to argue my case that Zombies can indeed run. Using reference to the British horror films called 28 days later (2002) and 28 weeks later (2007). .. Sources: 28 days later: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 28 weeks later: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The story of these films revolves around a time when Animal activists invade a laboratory with the intention of releasing chimpanzees that are undergoing experimentation, infected by a virus -a virus that causes rage. The naive activists ignore the pleas of a scientist to keep the cages locked, with disastrous results that lead to the chimps biting the humans and infecting them with the virus. Later on after the incident, zombies are running around London killing non-infected humans. The Zombies in these films are not walking corpses like Pro believes Zombies to only be. They are in fact rage infected humans hell bent on killing people who have not been infected with the rage virus. And of course they all behave like automatons (like I described earlier) so they are in fact zombies. The zombies in the 28 days later films can run and to prove they can run please watch the first video source I have provided. . http://www.youtube.com... This is scene from the film 28 weeks later that shows zombies running after a human. Unfortunately the up loader of the video has edited the video to have funny song playing at the same time, but I'm sure there is enough to notice that the zombies in these films can indeed run at a fast pace. | CON | ed9f2fbd-2019-04-18T19:00:36Z-00002-000 |
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States. innocent people getting hurt was just one of many reasons why we should ban assault rifles. assault rifle will create many criminals. there are many people who tries to get something they want by force. and assault rifles are best weapon to help them. if this happened, there might be a murder and eventually people will die or get hurt. if we don't ban this now, some people won't be able to live peacefully. and yes it is true we haven't banned inexperience driver to drive just because they are bad at it. but it sometimes caused very bad result. just like inexperience driver problem, there will be a problems from having assault rifles for people. | PRO | 24b7de9-2019-04-18T17:39:30Z-00002-000 |
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team. Recently, terrorists took several hostages in various Mumbai hotels. The Indian police force ended the crisis with force. The resultant conflict left at least 188 dead and 293 injured (1). The Indian commandos took ten hours to reach the terrorists, were never supplied with adequate maps of the hotel, never attempted to take the terrorist alive, and did not posses any non-lethal weapons (2). The attack has been considered a major failure and lead to the resignations of the Indian Minister of Home Affairs, National Security Advisor, Maharashtra Chief Minister, and Deputy CM of Maharastra (3). It is evident that the Indian counterterrorism forces could have done a better job. Furthermore, there are numerous highly trained and experienced counterterrorism forces around the globe (delta force, SAS, GSG9, et cetera). If The United Nations were to create a global version of such forces, then this force could be employed in cases such as the Mumbai attacks. This force could be brought together quickly, do its job, and then disperse. Each contributing nation would only have to send a few members of their counterterrorism force. The costs would be minimal, but the benefits, especially the lives saved, would be dramatic. 1.http://news.bbc.co.uk... 2.http://economictimes.indiatimes.com... 3.http://ibnlive.in.com... | PRO | af88aee8-2019-04-18T19:34:24Z-00005-000 |
Time isn't real. And we do experience time as well, You are wrong. The way you explained how you can't change things because it is controlled by spatial dimension. Spatial dimension are the objects touchable objects surrounding you. And no I don't think we do not exist, unless you can prove otherwise you theory of 'impulse' is nothing but a mere bed time story. I exist because I control my actions I can feel, touch, smell and hear. So basically I am alive. Now if you want to talk about TIME. It very much exist, because as I have said if it did not exist you would choose which day even era to live and experience, you could even be immortal. But you might argue and say that this is a biological 'thing' again. Why do you think people die? Why do they experience heart attacks, it's because of time, if there was no time everyone would live forever or at least for a certain standard age. The fact that people die could be simplified in an example of you buying a computer, after 10 years this computer will depreciate and lose it's value and eventually 'die'. Same thing with human beings, our organs depreciates as TIME goes on. IF time did not exist we would be youthful forever and our vital organs would not depreciate or function less. | CON | b6359b49-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00004-000 |
The U.S. Government Should Increase Funding to Their Military. Hi, there debaters!This debate is for me to try and persuade you all that the USFG should create a larger expenditure for the American military. My opponent can do whatever they wish in Round 2.I. American Interests Are Currently SufferingThe United States has suffered a series of budget cuts to the American military (http://www.wsj.com...) and due to such expenditure shortenings, the U.S. should try to rekindle the fire of our great military. It is evident and prevalent how our enemies are flowering as our military is cowering and our rivals, empowering! The United States can take an example from Syria because our sissy foreign policy of not having boots on the ground, there was an open invitation to Russia to stick their flag in Syria and destroy American-backed rebels under the curtains of morals saying they were targeting ISIS (http://foreignpolicy.com...). Now that the Russians knows the American military isn't willing to get fully involved, they have the stronger foothold in Syria to such a potential, we lost our window of opportunity to take down the dictator Assad and free Syria! This of course can be changed on America's next military campaign if we increase our budget and maintain our position as the world's strongest military!II. American AlliesThe United States is also losing their allies in Europe as Putin stuck his fork in Ukraine and is eating at the sides! NATO has been questioned for their potential to actually defend against a seemingly imminent Russian invasion (http://nationalinterest.org...), and our allies can rest assured and feel safe enough themselves if we increase our military expenditure. This will also be a slap in the face to Russia for thinking they can reach in Europe and take what they want, knowing that America has the potential and know-how to fight back!Those are my points for now. I hope my opponent provides good arguments! | PRO | e3dd7a2a-2019-04-18T12:58:34Z-00003-000 |
Animals should be given equal rights to humans. I will disregard your last statement as it simply emphasizes your sentiment and doesnt try to put any argument. If you believe in Darwinism and the 'survival' of the fittest, you also justify violence towards other beings, theft, robbery, murder and rape. If you read a book on evolution such as the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, you would have known more about how the evolution theory applies to animal behavior and can be generalized to humans too. I dont think a society should be politically encouraged to fully support and base its ideology on the survival of the fittest. The first thing that would happen is huge layers of poverty, poor social policies and blue collar crimes being more justifiable... Your intelligence relating to you should tell you to support technology that deviates from producing animal products and looking for alternatives. There is already a technology that produces food that tastes like meat! That meat is expensive, but technological advances will get you to your juicy tasty meat. Use your intelligence, get a Phd in biology or biochemistry and solve that problem, dont pour salt on animals wounds and dont make your stomach their graveyard. Henceforth, the intelligence point just back fires at you when you tried to establish some supremacist view on differences that exist between us and animals. The pain should get more of our attention, cause pain is the feeling that is shared between all earth species. | PRO | c8d9002d-2019-04-18T12:06:18Z-00002-000 |
Parents should disown their homosexual children. Your entire argument here is based of the assumption that homosexuality is immoral. You have provided no evidence for this. It is blatantly false. Homosexuality may be immoral according to some moral systems, but there's no reason to apply your fucked-up moral system to everyone else. That is immoral. Just let people live their lives. Don't worry about morals and just do what makes you and others happy. It's just basic nihilism. Why is the most important thing reproduction? Like I said, what sets humans apart from animals is that we have empathy. We are capable of rising above our base instincts and trying to help each other, rather than just doing what our genes tell us to. Intelligent people should work to use their intelligence to better the lives of those around them. That should be the primary objective of the human race: To make sure that we are all has happy as possible. It's the only way to possibly measure our success. The most important thing for a population of animals is to grow, but humans are not animals. We are better than that. "If intelligence is only used in the pursuit of equality or any other such nonsense, then the human race will devolve into idiocy". Think about how messed up this is. You're saying the entire purpose of life is to reproduce. No enjoyment, no relationships, nothing. Just f**king and dying. Is this really the world you want? Think about the world you are arguing for. Just generations of miserable people, reproducing as much as possible before being starved to death the minute they can no longer reproduce. That is the absolute degeneration of sentience. According to your logic, that is the world you want. That's your ideal world. Is that what you really want? When I opened up your reply, I expected it to make me angry. That's what the other ones did. But more than anything, this made me sad. I can now see your worldview for what it truly is. I don't know what is going on in your brain. All I know is that it's not good. I can't imagine what must have happened to you, to make you think that life should not be enjoyed, that the true purpose of humanity is to bring ourselves down to the level of animals. You seem like an intelligent person, who knows what you could contribute to society if you were so inclined. You could touch many lives, if you chose to. All I can say is that I hope you make that choice. There's a lot you could do for society. There are many people you could make happier. And, if you tried, you would find that it makes you a lot happier too. | CON | 64dcbda7-2019-04-18T11:30:25Z-00000-000 |
Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation. Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.”[1] The Supreme Court has in the past also recognized this principle to mean more than the right to cast one vote which is counted equally. In Reynolds v Sims the Court held that “full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires… that each citizen has an equally effective voice in the election of members of the state legislature”.[2] Such an “equally effective voice” is undermined by one individual or organization being able to influence the votes of thousands or hundreds of thousands through the deployment of financial resources which the average voter does not possess. This undermines the fair scheme of representation that is fundamental to a veritable democracy. [1] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Chapter 12: “Maintaining the Fair Value of Political Liberties” [2] Reynolds v Sims, U.S. Supreme Court, 1964. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0533_ZO.html | PRO | d78c0803-2019-04-15T20:24:32Z-00015-000 |
I know what day of the week you will vote. Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting! | PRO | 497d9f24-2019-04-18T18:12:15Z-00001-000 |
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game.". Fast food tastes good and may be addictive, however the consumer always has the option to not eat it. Sugar may also be addictive but fast food is not the only way we get sugar into our bodies. My last point is that it is common knowledge that fast food is unhealthy and consumers should take this in mind when purchasing fast food and only eat in moderation as it is not addictive that way | CON | b27c6acc-2019-04-18T18:00:31Z-00002-000 |
Nationalism creates diversity. According to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects. [1] Miscevic, Nenad, "Nationalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) | PRO | 58c03613-2019-04-15T20:22:11Z-00014-000 |
The decision often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being. The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important. | PRO | 414eb72a-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00054-000 |
Small Federal Government. Im arguing for a small federal government, it is what the founding fathers intended, im not talking about anarchy, im talking about a free society, where your property is yours and the government should respect that unless they follow the constitution fully. A government entirely base off of the constitution, allow free use of firearms and purchasing or things that the government has put laws against using. Currently there are 300,000 regulations on the federal level, as well as 4500 laws. Known as Overcriminalization, many of these laws are poorly written, many more not being constitutional. I believe that the FBI should be abolished and the states should handle there own problems, the the federal reserve should be abolished, and that President Barack Obama be impeached for his unwillingness to follow the constitution, for his ignorance of the procedures of the Executive branch, and his signing of bills entirely unconstitutional, this country spends 5 Billion dollars a day, 3.8 of that borrowed. There is consequences to spending that much money, and the consequences are, a failing government, a collapsed economy, no money to fund any sort of military. In light of these I would like any and all to debate my ideals, no profain language, no vulgarness, racism and the such, please I want to have a fullhearted debate. | PRO | 842a7a95-2019-04-18T18:27:20Z-00004-000 |
MLP:FiM Should Keep on Going. 1. Long Enough According to Wikipedia, "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" has had 91 episodes. Think about that: 91 episodes. A Power Rangers season in its current state runs for about 20 episodes per season. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic so far has been the equivalent of 4 Power Rangers seasons in length. I think it's fair to say that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic has had a good run, and it would not be an injustice to the show to end it now. Much better shows have lasted considerably less long (such as Firefly, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Digimon Tamers, Power Rangers RPM, etc). 2. It's Dumb Any show with "My Little Pony, My Little Pony, ah-ah-ah-ah-ah..." as the first set of lyrics to its theme song must be dumb. 3. Outdated Graphics Source: Any Image from the Show However, I will offer something more substantial. The series began in 2009, correct? I will compare it to "Digimon: Digital Monsters", a show from 1999, graphic-wise. Note that there should be a 10 year difference in the graphics. Digimon (1999): http://www.bing.com... My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (2009): http://www.bing.com... (Don't let the pseudo-anime eyes fool you.) Point proven, yes? 4. MLP:FiM is just one aspect of the "My Little Pony" franchise There was My Little Pony long before the 2009 series, and that trend will continue until the franchise runs out of money. If the 2009 series ends, they can create a new series in its place, possibly one that is better. The franchise's development should not be further impeded by a series which has been going on for 5 painfully stretched out years. I whipped this together at the last second, so I apologize for my argument's shortness. It's my opponent's turn again now. I await his response. Thank you. | CON | ef08dc25-2019-04-18T15:26:43Z-00004-000 |
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs. I would just like to admit that I am sexist because I believe men are expected to lead the way since it is in our genes to do so. Yes, there are women who had led humanity to great heights, but men still need standards that make them MEN. Watching musicals like Hairspray (West Side Story is more manly), wearing high-heels, playing patty-cake or acting extremely gay is not the standard that men should have. Anyway, back to the argument, selfies are plainly examples of ego-maniacs because they are trying to glorify themselves. No other form is more egotistical than selfies unless you would care to refute. As I said, conversing with your friends in person are better than texting, selfie-posting and calling. These are reasons for the need to go back to the past and forget about cell phones voluntarily because it ruins the spark in interactions. | PRO | c1d774ac-2019-04-18T16:13:46Z-00000-000 |
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels. I would like to remind my opponent that this debate is entitled "Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels", not "manga are more effective storytellers than novels". My opponent began to attack my case by saying "As to his beginning stipulations, I am an avid reader of both manga and novels". This debate encompasses ALL comic books, including both manga, and comic books. My opponents' lack of insight into the American comic book industry leaves him at grossly underqualified for this debate. Statement 1: "Displaying emotions and thought processes that characters undergo." Although the meaning of the sweat drop in Japanese manga can be overused and have a large variety of meanings, a veteran manga enthusiast can easily combine both the context of the situation and the dialogue between characters to discern the emotions being displayed. Furthermore, you must also consider that the famed abnormally large sweatdrop is rarely used in American comic books such as X-men. In issue X-men: Annual ShatterShot Part 2 (an issue from my own collection, there is no use of the sweat drop at all, as opposed to the countless number of sweat drops in manga such as Love Hina. Please note that my opponent's support for his statements are accompanied with no citations of any sources whatsoever. Statement 2: "Descriptions of places, people, objects, etc..." | PRO | 267467b6-2019-04-18T19:29:59Z-00001-000 |
We should go to war with isis. The U.S. should not step in where it is not wanted. I watch the news, it is the worst of atrocities that is only paralleled to the rape of nanking, and now we should have nothing to do with it. declaring war would entail putting boots on the ground, putting our young soldiers at risk. Isis is not a country with professionals and strict uniforms, they are a guerrilla force that does no take prisoners. They are not motivated by nationalism, they are motivated by their religion where they honestly believe that they will go to heaven if they die, and will fight to the death much like the Japanese during the second world war. When soldiers of a country that is perpetrating atrocities, the populous of soldiers as a whole has a decreased morale and are at much higher affinity for desertion. The members of Isis do not believe that what they are doing is wrong, and we cannot win a war without surrender or truce, and there is no possibility of eliminating every extremist in the middle east. And we tried to step in in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Korea and Vietnam. The United States left those countries in an even worse condition than when they tried to intervene, and not to mention the death of countless soldiers. I believe in putting the lives of American soldiers first before that of other citizens. I plan on joining the Navy. I am no a liberal by any means, but if we have learned anything from recent history, it is a bad Idea to try and fight an enemy in a civilian population where it is uncertain who to kill. I would be ready and willing to take the life of any enemy of the United States, but not if there is a remote chance of them being a civilian. We would kill more than we would save. Why not let Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Iraq handle the situation that is happening in their back yard. | CON | 8a69db4e-2019-04-18T15:02:19Z-00002-000 |
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!. Just some examples of Selena Gomez's philanthropy: Gomez was involved in the UR Votes Count campaign which encouraged teenagers to learn more about 2008 presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. In October 2008, Gomez participated in St. Jude's Children's Hospital "Runway For Life" benefit. She is the ambassador of DoSomething.org after being involved with the charity Island Dog, which helps dogs in Puerto Rico. She got involved while filming Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie in Puerto Rico Gomez is also involved with the charity RAISE Hope For Congo, an initiative of the Enough Project, which helps raise awareness about conflict minerals and violence against Congolese women. From 2009 to 2012, Gomez was involved in Disney's Friends for Change, an organization which promotes "environmentally-friendly behavior", and appeared in its public service announcements. Gomez, Demi Lovato, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers recorded "Send It On", a charity single with all of its proceeds to the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund It debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 20. Also in 2009, Gomez made a surprise visit to a Los Angeles elementary school as part of the "A Day Made Better" program that was sponsored by OfficeMax. During her visit, Gomez gave the school an award and $1,000 worth of school supplies, and talked to students about the importance of giving back to the community. On January 22, 2010, Gomez participated in the Hope for Haiti Now Telethon with a number of other celebrities. In April 2012, Gomez was named ambassador to the Ryan Seacrest Foundation. How is she not a good example for young girls? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | fc837d00-2019-04-18T16:17:04Z-00004-000 |
The Modal Ontological Argument Is Unsound. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world C: A maximally great being exists I believe that the argument is unsound. The burden of proof will be shared (my opponent must show the argument sound). | PRO | 7012f92-2019-04-18T16:59:30Z-00007-000 |
be it resolved that the national debt be repudiated. How much money exactly do you think Pakistan has been lending out exactly? Con's claims are exactly the sort of hyperbolic nonsense that surrounds this discussion. We better do what he says or nothing short of nuclear wear and the death of humanity will result! Wow! It is exactly this sort of brazen hysteria which surrounds this issue. Instead of a reasoned debate we get "bow down to our side, OR THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL BE ENGULFED IN A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST". Such outrageous assertions make one question whether anything Con says in their entire argument is true. Russia and Pakistan don't even own the debt, so I have no idea why they would do a nuclear first strike (because not repaying your debt will make you a pariah, but apparently no one cares if you just launch nuclear first strikes at people..... right) Of course there are countless nations which have repudiated or are repudiating their debt through non payment in the third world. None of them have been nuked, or invaded, or even threatened. Even the media, hysterical as they are on this issue, has never gone to the length of arguing that it could possibly result in nuclear war, because they understand how absurd this argument would sound to an informed observer. Of course people benefit from inflation, other wise it would not occur. The very first thing you need to ask yourself when you do an analysis of something is 'qui bono'? Inflation benefits debtors at the expense of creditors because the debtors get to pay back creditors with money that is worth less. The political class, those who are most intimately connected with the state, for example bureaucrats, politicians, companies that specialize in procurement, they all get the money first and can spend it at it's original pre-inflation value. Taxes are terrible for the economy but this is of secondary importance. They are immoral. When you advocate that the debt not be repudiated, you are advocating that people be taxed. It is far more immoral to tax people who had nothing to do with the spending of the money, in order to repay it, than it is to simply repudiate the debt. Con has completely failed to make an argument, aside from their nonsensical claims about nuclear first strike and the world ending. (some further reading material on this subject) http://mises.org... http://fff.org... | PRO | 3065c227-2019-04-18T17:51:27Z-00001-000 |
Death Penalty. Death penalty is often advocated with the debate that by killing felons, the government would prevent future killers from killing or other people committing heinous crimes. It can also prevent re-attempting to do a crime. It is obvious that those who are executed cannot carry out future crimes. Humankind has consistently used punishment to unnerve future offenders from illegal activity. Since humankind has the topmost significance in deterring murder or other heinous crimes, it should practice the most robust punishment possible to avert wrongdoings, and that is death penalty. Unfortunately, our judicial system shows more empathy to criminals than it does to victims. It is the right time to put priority of our justice system back on safeguarding the victims rather than the offenders. One of the biggest debates against the death penalty is the chances of error. Of course we can never absolutely wipe out skepticism, but nowadays, DNA testing and other approaches of modern crime scene science can now productively eradicate almost all ambivalence as to a person"s guilt or innocence. DNA testing is over 99% efficient. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich utilized a new manner of study that shows that 7 lives are spared from murder for every inmate who was executed. Identical outcomes have been presented by zealots of Ehrlich in follow-up researches. Capital punishment subsidizes to the dilemma of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across many countries are now facing the issue of too many prisoners and not ample slots or capital. Each new prisoner needs an allocation of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so forth. Penalties which are rapid and assured are the best deterrent because there are some studies where the death penalty is subtly used and that takes some years before death penalty is finally performed. Death penalty gives prosecutors another dealing chip in the plea bargain proceedings, which is crucial in reduction of costs in an squeezed court system. According to Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, said: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.." Particularly, this is a style of elimination, related to the idea how a thief put in jail is inhibited from stealing on the streets. (BBC.co.uk, DeathPenaltyCurriculum.org, BalancedPolitics.org, List) | PRO | ed87c0e8-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00004-000 |
Christ or the prophet of Islam..... I guess it wouldn't be proper to introduce my central argument (truth of islam and prophet Muhammad in the Bible) so I will list some very fast replies. Ruh Ul Qudus (Holy spirit) is a title for Angel Jibreel (angel of assistance and revelation) , he is also called Ruh Ul Ameen (Trustworthy spirit). Con didn't explain the contradictions that I mentioned in the bible. I know the bible speaks of a trinity but I showed verses which proved otherwise. If he still believed in the trinity he had to explain the inconsistencies. He seems to acknowledge them because he says "The same book". The reason I missed the rounds is because the time limit was too short (1 day) and Pro responds really fast. | CON | 859d05d5-2019-04-18T18:31:04Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished. Thanks for excepting, I am excited for a good debate._________________________________________________________The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system. - No matter how great your justice system is, innocent people may die, and that is not just. - Since 1976 about 150 people have been posthumansly pardoned, and about 4% of excecuted prisionors have been found innocent._______________________________________________________________The Death Penalty costs more in terms of money, and emotions. - The death penalty costs much more bcause of the fact that it takes so long to decide due to the Constitution's requirements. - Cases with the death penalty cost about $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.________________________________________________________________The death penalty is immoral. - No matter what the case, human's do not have right to condem other humans to death, it is murder in itself, though executed legally. - Not only is it immoral, but the ways of inflictiong it are cruel and unusual sentences, against what the constitution says. EXAMPLE: During the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak, while being killed. | PRO | 50d3348d-2019-04-18T14:46:43Z-00005-000 |
Pro Evolution vs young Earth Creationism. I will be arguing for evolution against young Earth creationism. First, the world cannot be less than 10,000 years old due to glacier carbon dating which show the world to at least 400,000 years old. [0]Picture should be here.Almost all Diamonds were formed at least 500 million years ago. This is much greater than 10,000 years ago. "Almost every diamond that has been dated formed during the Precambrian Eon - the span of time between Earth's formation (about 4,600 million years ago) and the start of the Cambrian Period (about 542 million years ago). " [1]The oldest fossil is over 3 billion years old, this is greater length of time than 10,000 years ago. "Some of those ancient fossils, known as stromatolites, are more than 50 times older than Sue -- 3.45 billion years old," [2]The furthest object in space took 13.2 billion light years, that's 13.2 billion years to reach Earth. 13.2 billion is greater than 10,000. [3]I propose that instead one of two possiblities, God created man via evolution. That God created the first microorganisms which eventually evolved intom humans. The second possiblity is abiogenesis. [4]Although these two ideas of how the first lifeform was formed contradict each other, either one acting indepently could both satifiy the critera of evolution and defeat creationism. Thanks for the debate. Sources0. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 1. http://geology.com...2. http://science.howstuffworks.com...3. http://www.nasa.gov...4. http://www.allaboutscience.org... | PRO | 65bf87c-2019-04-18T12:54:36Z-00002-000 |
Inflation is worse than unemployment. Again, inflation can lead to unemployment if it is not managed correctly. Plus, all the effects you listed above could also occur with inflation. If you doubt the problems with inflation, just look at the 1970s, and the effects of the staggering inflation were overt. Furthermore, when unemployment is high, those who keep their jobs are largely unaffected while inflation hurts everyone. Furthermore, inflation can lead to an enlarged national debt because one dollar no longer supports the same amount of programs because it is devalued. Speaking of currency devaluation, inflation will also cause the value of the dollar to decrease in relation to foreign dollars. Also, in response to your first comments. During times of high unemployment, inflation is usually lower. | PRO | 8ca760ee-2019-04-18T14:50:49Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard. Greetings Dan1 I hope to have a good debate. I agree with the definitions. ========= My negations: ========= C1. Moral obligation- My opponent has worded the resolution, and used a definition of "Ought" that holds the resolution to a moral obligation. Meaning he is arguing that we are morally obligated to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. Now, in order for my opponent to uphold the resolution, he must do the following: 1. Prove his system of morality that obligates us to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. 2. Prove that removing the necessity to pass exit exams will be beneficial. C2: The will to learn- My opponent has suggested that if we remove the exit exams, drop-out rates and lower grades would decrease. This would seem quite obvious however, this is not necessarily a good thing. While the current rules apply, you must pass the exam to graduate. This is giving students a motive to study, and make sure that they are learning the material. Without the test, there is no will to learn the material. ================= My opponents arguments: ================= C1: Teachers teach the class, which is correlated with the test. The test tests them on things they need to know, thus the reason they teach the class that way. Sub-point A contention: This has no bearing on whether we are morally obligated to remove the tests or not. Sub-point B contention: Whether they are highly respected or not does not make it an obligation to do what they want, the test is based on the curriculum making that point irrelevant. Prove that they will be learning less. C2: Maybe we should, they still have standardized testing. Thank you for conceding the debate right there. C3: Prove it. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent suggested that we adopt Finland's system which possesses standardized tests, I'm not quite sure how to take this. I await my opponents response to my arguments. | CON | 894cd8a6-2019-04-18T19:19:33Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Religion is not fake. My opponent must clarify his statement. No educated person will make the case that religion is "fake." Whether specific religions are divinely inspired or not, on the other hand, is and has always been a subject of fierce debate. You cannot demand a counter premise from an opponent when you have not given him a premise yourself. From what you have given me, all I can tell you is that A) Everybody, unless you live in a cave and have yet to come into contact with human civilization, holds that there are different religions that different people worship. B) That being said, though, not everybody in the world believes in one same, correct religion. By correct, I mean divinely inspired, or that it came from God. There are certain people that believe that Christianity is correct. The same goes for Judaism, Islam, (those are the three major Abrahamic religions) and others. One cannot possibly believe in/ practice more than one of those religions at the same time. It is impossible for all of the major religions of the world to be divinely inspired. Only one of them can be, or none at all. If you wish to make the case that a specific religion is divinely inspired, then so be it. You must be more specific first. | CON | 235f2831-2019-04-18T19:07:26Z-00001-000 |
God is Dead (Redux). I will now ask you some of my own: It seems to me that almost everyone in the world has beliefs that are not entirely created by themselves. Given a certain time and culture, it is easy to predict the beliefs of an individual. Because of the fact that there are so many constructed paradigms throughout all of the various epochs and societies, how is it that you feel justified in having accepted the arbitrary beliefs you've happened to stumble on? Have you cross-examined your beliefs to as many others as possible? Are you open-minded enough to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, and have striven to create objective criteria for determining truth in the world? If so, how is that possible on an atheistic mindset, where truth is subjective and cultural relativity reigns supreme? You mentioned that the Bible is a book of mythologies, that it is self contradicting, and that it contradicts other historical records. Do you truly feel justified in making this claim? Have you studied multiple historical documents and compared them to the testimony of the bible? Which historical documents have you read that prove this? Also, if you claim the bible is self contradictory, where so is that the case? And before you reached that conclusion, did you study the bible using the historical-grammatical method, making sure that you're accurately understanding an ancient text before you make wild and unfounded conclusions? You claimed that a righteous God is at odds with the God depicted in the Bible. How are you justified in making that claim? How much time have you spent studying moral theory? Did you provide an emotionally charged conclusion, merely because your cultural values are at odds with the moral actions of another culture, or do you have a justifiable moral theory that proves the actions in the Old Testament are indeed immoral? If you can't provide a justifiable moral theory, how then can you make such a certain statement? You claimed that science offers evidence based accounts of origins, while Christianity offers only mythology. Why do you set up Christianity as a straw man? Do you deny that there are intelligent creation scientists who have devoted their lives to explaining the origins of the universe in scientific methods? How many of the creation scientists have you read? Even if you disagree with them, and believe evolution to be a better explanation, why must you still belittle the Christian explanation? Again, it seems this conclusion is emotionally charged and without merit. Basically, you are making a lot of claims, claims which would have required hundreds of hours of research in each topic alone to justify your conclusions. | CON | d40917bf-2019-04-18T12:26:20Z-00004-000 |
Drug Legalization. Rebuttels1. I thank my opponent for his response.My opponent makes a good point. However, the solution to this problem is the same method that is currently being used to stop smoking and drinking. It is that we effectively regulate, tax, and to use media campaines to discourage kids from using them. This method is currently being used aagainst tobbacco use in New York [1]. New York has been experiencing record lows in smoking do to a fierce campain against it. The same technique can easily be used to attack drug use after legalizing, and can effectively decrease drug abuse and crime related to drug abuse.2. While I would concied that drugs are not a good thing, and they do take away the humans ability to act human. There is no good reason to keep them illegal on these grounds. Choice and self-ownership are rights that all people have. If people want to do that to themselves who are you to say they can't? If people smoke weed, drink, snort cocaine, etc in the privacy of their homes, it is not hurting anyone else,; so then people should be allowed to do so at their own risk.Also, if we regulate drugs, there will be a decrease of their use, just like smoking.Therefore, I would urge the voters to vote pro.[1] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... | PRO | 74e90a4a-2019-04-18T18:38:49Z-00002-000 |
The inclusion of comedy deviates from traditions of Tragedy. Ultimately the play is centred on the Tragedy of love and the violence that ensues however Shakespeare includes comedic moments which allows a departure from the classical traditions. For example in Act one, Scene one, although serious in the resulting brawl, comedy emerges from the sexual and physical bravado amongst Samson and Gregory. Shakespeare uses the opening scene to animate the characters, ensuring as much comedy as possible filters into the play before the drama develops. Such punning with 'Draw thy tool' is free to be humoured by audiences, as sexual innuendo instead of in a tone of conflict. | PRO | 33f46bf5-2019-04-19T12:47:10Z-00005-000 |
It is a misconception that all animal testing involves pain. Many forms of animal testing do not inflict any pain on the animal. They may simply study the effects of a mild drug on an animal or simply test brain activity without cutting or harming an animal in any way. In consideration of this fact, it is inappropriate to call for abandoning all forms of animal testing. Certainly, there is no need to abandon the forms of animal testing that do no harm to animals. | PRO | fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00181-000 |
The usual arguments #2: Objective morality. I don't want to do this. I have a feeling this debate will be close and that I very well could lose strictly based on conduct points. However, life circumstances force me to forfeit this round. Just to give my opponent a chance at rebuttals, before I actually post my argument, I will tell him what I'm arguing. I will be arguing for moral sense theory. I believe moral sense theory can prove objective morality. I'm sorry con, for having to forfeit this round. | PRO | 192aa7be-2019-04-18T16:21:12Z-00004-000 |
I will not break a rule- and this time I mean it!. Greetings the real retarded_flamingo. I feel you on your problem with your slaves. My slaves do that all the time! It's such a bother. There's a reason slavery was abolished. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who is using your account. My rules are stated to concern the instigator and whoever is using your account is the instigator. There is nothing you can do about that. Furthermore, my 3rd rule stated that all rules created by anyone other than me (Logical-Master) are to be ignored, hence making the majority of your above round pointless. =============== MY CON SECTION | =============== RULES: 1. All of PRO's sentences must be no longer than 10 characters. 2. Each statement which PRO makes must also be a compliment towards Michael Bay. 3. PRO must wear a hat for the duration of the debate. I have a good feeling that PRO will violate these rules. In fact, I know without a doubt that it shall be done explicitly! ============ MY PRO SECTION: ============ Uwe Boll is the greatest directer ever and this sentence is probably more than 10 characters. In addition, I don't like to wear hats, hence I refuse to wear a hat! | CON | ace8bc3a-2019-04-18T19:12:35Z-00006-000 |
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East. CX Questions: 1. You speak a lot about Saudi Arabia. Which is more important: the US promoting democracy and women's rights in the Middle East or the current unstable relations? (source: http://www.goupstate.com...) 2. Hasn't democracy prevented terrorism in the past, such as the American Sons of Liberty transition to the peaceful democracy we know as the United States? 3. How is Russia even relevant in this debate about the Middle East, especially considering you only talk of economic sanctions, not democracy related? 4. Your CP talks about promoting democracy on stable nations only. Would Saudi Arabia be considered "stable", which is contrary to your case, and thus meaning that your D contradicts your CP? 5. You say that the Middle East is non-stable. Isn't a process to a stable, anti-terrorism area preferable? | PRO | 5f86c753-2019-04-18T13:32:58Z-00003-000 |
Fear & Hope. 1. Fear is an emotion caused by being afraid of a person, place, or thing. It often comes from the belief that something is dangerous, painful, threatening, or upsetting 2. Hope is a want or desire for something to happen or be the case 3. It is possible that one could Hope for something to happen, but not fear the opposite. For example, I could hope I win the lottery, but I do not fear not winning the lottery. Hoping to win the lottery is something many people desire to happen, so this fits our definition of hope. However, people do not fear not winning the lottery. I can be disappointed if I do not win, but that is a different emotion than fear. I feel no terror, I am not afraid of the outcome of not winning the lottery. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. It is not necessarily the case that hope always leads to fear. | CON | 30003ec2-2019-04-18T16:18:21Z-00005-000 |
There are only two kinds of Christians. Ok Truth_seeker. Here you go. Your first one liner is false because the Church of Thyatira was following a false prophetess. A false prophetess cannot be Christ because 1 Christ had to be a male to fulfill the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah being a King. 2 Christ as the Lamb of God had to be without spot or blemish. Here is what Christ said about Thyatira: "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead." Revelation 20-23a NIV) Concerning your seconded one liner- Humans are complicated. For instance, I have only been at this here website for a week or two and have come across several posters who claim to have been Christians for years and then after some sort of problem became non-believers, (agnostic, atheistic, etc). So we can easily tie your two one liners together and come up with- (1) Christians are one dimensional. (2) They are incapable of changing their minds or making mistakes. (3) They are mindless robots who follow Christ like zombies. (Sorry about the third one liner at this point but you got one more coming and I wanted to for sure address your last one.) Thanks for the debate. | PRO | 9d4b91c-2019-04-18T16:00:03Z-00001-000 |
Mayonnaise is better than Miracle Whip (and any other condiment, for that matter). There is no way miracle whip is better than ketchup. It is a disgusting lumpy white substance that has a resemblance to semen. It is mostly made up of egg yolk; imagine putting egg yolk on a burger. Sometimes I just deal with it because fast food chains dont even ask they just put it on. For my taste buds it doesnt really enhance anything; it kind of just drowns out the taste of the food a bit. I suppose everybody has different tastebuds but everyone loves ketchup. If you do not love ketchup you are obviously a commie. Ketchup is still the number one condiment in america. I think most would agree mayo even if they like it is in the top 20, not the best. As for miracle whip, have you tried it on strawberries? | CON | cc253fa7-2019-04-18T13:39:44Z-00004-000 |
So, what is better, Marvel or Capcom? I pick Capcom btw. You do have an excellent point there, but when it comes down to it, marvel doesn't kill as much as Capcom does (trust me I would know). Also there are plenty of Capcom characters, (though they are not mentioned due to specific reasons or just not favorited by fans) and they killed Gods before, so Galactus isn't that much of a big deal and a lot of them are demons, hunters, or Gods themselves. Also, just to say it already, we have zombies (lol beat that). | PRO | 2babe15f-2019-04-18T16:11:51Z-00003-000 |
Gun control. The reason most mass shooting have happened in gun free zones is because that is where a lot of people are (night clubs, movies etc.) Yes, police should carry guns to protect people in situations like such but if gunmen could never get ahold of military grade assault weapons there would be no need for anyone to pull out a gun and shoot another person. Gun control has worked again look at Italy. Why do you think it would be any different for America? | PRO | e0c0b36e-2019-04-18T13:09:06Z-00003-000 |
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person. "i didn't really add anything new."Yes you did. The direct result of cannibalism was never introduced until I brought it up."and even if i added a new rule, should it change anything?"New rules change everything.Here's a story to outline that. I am walking through the forest unarmed and a leopard attacks me. New rule, I get an AR-15. Now, instead of being the victim, I am the aggressor. All because I changed one rule. How have I avoided the question? Let's go back in time to round one. "It's never moral to kill somebody. It may be practical, or even necessary, but never moral." This debate is not about whether it is wrong to kill and eat a fellow human. It is about whether or not you may morally kill another human. Pro has not given a real argument, and has only compared us to other animals. Animals do not have morals, they do whatever they can think of to survive. Humans do that too, but as I stated before, it may be practical, even necessary, but never moral to kill and eat another human. The source that Pro has provided is a few random people talking on a forum message board. No sources are used in the message board, so I do not recognize the source as legitimate. Although I will say something about the claims in the source. The source uses examples of snakes, mice, and insects. None of these animals are able to comprehend morality. The source also failed to mention pigs, which were the animals that made me request a citation. | CON | 3a44d202-2019-04-18T15:55:21Z-00000-000 |
DDO Olympic Debate: That the Hyde Amendment Ought to be Repealed. Opening Arguments: The Case Against the Hyde AmendmentC1: The Hyde Amendment harms low-income womenBy withholding funds from Medicare, the Hyde Amendment disproportionately harms low-income women. Abortion can cost up to $3,000 out of pocket, which leaves many low-income women without the means to pay for the procedure (1). Stephanie Poggie notes (2): “Because of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women have been denied the ability to make their own decisions about bringinga child into the world in the context of their own circumstances andthose of their families. ”"[P]oor and low-income women are harmed, some grievously, by the Hyde Amendment’s discriminatory restrictions prohibiting Medicaid funding for abortion. By restricting these women’s access to abortion, the law violates their fundamental human rights and denies them their reproductive autonomy. Free from these restrictions, women throughout the country would be empowered to make their own decisions regarding what is best for themselves and their families. After 34 years, repealing the Hyde Amendment offers the United States a critical opportunity to restore women’s equality by making a genuine commitment to reproductive health for all women, regardless of economic status. " Although the current Hyde Amendment allows abortion funding for cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is at risk, women with cancer or other health issues that are threatened by pregancies are still denied coverage, thus putting many women's health at risk (3). Indeed, a 2015 report showed that low-income women are more than 5x more likely than their counterparts to seek out an abortion (4). Part of the issue, as the report noted, is that poor women often lack access to contraception. If they did have the same level of access, it would cut the birth rate of those living in poverty to over half. Consequently, abortions would also be significantly reduced. C2: The Hyde Amendment Harms SocietyResearch has concstantly shown that unwanted children and children who are born in severe poverty are far more likely to be abused, suffer malnutrition, have limited education, show emotional distrubances, have learning and behavioural problems, and brings about a higher infant mortality rate. (5,6) I wish I was able to write more, but I have been very busy and do nto want to forfeit. I turn it over to con and look forward to an exellent debate. Sources1. . http://bit.ly...;2. . http://bit.ly...;3. . http://bit.ly...;4. . http://slate.me...;5. . http://bit.ly...;6. . http://huff.to...; | PRO | c12c6b6f-2019-04-18T12:53:07Z-00007-000 |
Fear is key to success. Fear is an element that each of us face in different ways, and at many intervals during the course of our lives. We may suffer fear of physical confrontations, emotional clashes, personal and professional setbacks, declining physical or mental capacities. When undertaking an inventory of our life"s experiences we inevitably underline for emphasis the role fear has played on so many occasions during our journey. In today's fast changing world, most people who have been adept when it comes to success and accomplishments, they contend that if human beings are endowed with just the feelings of sadness, anger, happiness, and fear, it is fear that is more likely to bring about success. Not that every successful person is afraid of everything. This only means that fear is the basic foundation of all decisions that trigger successful results. It is through fear that people are enticed to overcome whatever impedes them to do what they should have done in the first place. In fact, surveys show that 80% of all choices that people make are based on fear. Most people do not choose what they want; they choose what they think is safe. Hence, it is extremely important that you create an action that will correspond and overcome your fear. It is important to do some actions now before you have to let go of your fear. Otherwise, things will not change because the "trigger" is no longer present. The point there is that fear stimulates a person to take some actions. It is that feeling of wanting to overcome the anxiety that envelopes one's personality. Fear is enough reason to make an individual think of something in order to produce positive upshots in life. Fear makes you believe in yourself. It makes you push a little harder on things that you have not rendered some notable energy. In this sense, fear creates energy to keep you going. It is that inner voice that compels you to move, to do some action, and to continue strives harder. In fact, most successful people and those who are optimistic in life contend that there are no such things as failures. What people think as failure is only a result of something that they forgot to do. Indeed, it is so hard to overcome fear but when you have reached the point that you were able to overcome it, the gratification that you will get is more than enough to console yourself from taking that risky first step to success. The world is not pulling for us to act differently, think differently, and choose differently. So, if you decide to be an agent for change and get that fear out of your system, you have to stay committed to getting what you want, and eventually, you will find your supporters and overcome what stood in your way. | PRO | 5bfc13b9-2019-04-18T15:54:13Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: In the United States, Public Policy decisions should be made via a Public Referendum. Minorities don't vote as a monolith. You said 62% voted remain that means 38% voted to leave. Everyone's vote counted equally and at the end of the day leave won. The rest of your argument seems to be against David Cameron and Brexit. Just because you disagree with the results of one referendum doesn't mean we shouldn't have referendums. When politicians don't have the courage to carry out the will of the people a referendum is necessary. Unless you don't think the government should carry out the will of the people I don't know how you would argue against a referendum. | PRO | 53103bbd-2019-04-18T13:05:32Z-00002-000 |
Genetically Modified Foods. The major problem with genetically modified food is the fact that people do not know the long-term effects of consumption. Genetically modified/organic hybrids are not even approved for human consumption, proving there is something wrong with the genetically modified food, as organic hybrids are approved for human consumption. So while there might be a tomato that is insect resistant, five times an organic tomato"s size, and tastes better, does not mean that it will be good for anyone for long term consumption. | CON | 3e8f0f71-2019-04-18T16:24:01Z-00007-000 |
EU Should Push Forward Equality for All of its Citizens Regardless of Sexuality. The EU works for equality within society in Europe: what more brings about equality and is a stepping stone to lessen discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. The EU places individual rights at the heart of its mission by demanding that all member states sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a legal declaration enshrining in law everyone’s right to life, freedom and self-determination. Although the ECHR does not mention same sex relationships explicitly, it does prohibit discrimination by institutions and the list of categories it gives is non-exhaustive. It is time the EU accepts that by not giving homosexual couples equal rights it denies them the right to self-determination and family life that all other EU citizens enjoy. The EU has an obligation to ensure that its member states respect the rights of all their citizens. Introducing the civic register was a humanitarian step forward to give gay or lesbian couples the facility to protect their partners in cases of bereavement , how could anyone disagree we in Liverpool did so before national legislation Cllr Steve Radford Liberal Party | PRO | e01eff2d-2019-04-19T12:45:26Z-00015-000 |
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind. First of all, I am talking just about America. I apologize, As I should have stated that in round 1. " Imagine if guns became legal, People would be shooting each other for the smallest things. Fights would break out of nowhere. Instead of stooping down to the level of the criminal how about we increase the efficiency of the military against terrorist attacks. Increase the salaries of policemen and stop wasting that money on useless things. " Since I am talking about America, Guns are already legal. Sure, There are some shootings and fights with them. What would we be wasting money on? However, Although guns take lives, Many more are saved by them. There are over 2. 5 million DGU's per year. (https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually) "Pro-gun is pro-violence. We never fight bad with bad. That is not our way. Most governments are selfish for their own countries in a good way but the countries who are not like South Africa and Pakistan will need help from other countries, From other nations, If only our world wasn't inconsiderate. " I would argue anti-gun is pro violence. You are not fighting bad with bad, You are fighting bad with good. Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. And again, I wasn't talking about other countries, Just America, Which is my fault. Gun bans have proven not to be effective, Such as Britain, Australia, Etc. After the ban in Britain, Homicide spiked up and then eventually went back down to the pre-ban rate, Proving not effective. Violent crime in America has decreased 50% in the last 20 years as concealed-carry goes up during that time. I'm not saying correlation equals causation, But it is proven concealed-carry does not increase violent crime. "Carrying a pepper spray or a taser is a way safer option for our world. Plus when we will have guns we will have to change so many laws and regulations, That time should be spent trying to abolish poverty and improve education instead. Or even increase the efficiency of the military instead. When you will have the gun you will feel like it's your safe treasure and the smallest thing may lead you to possibly kill someone. For example, A slight movement of the hand and you have shot someone" I'm pretty sure guns would be more effective than pepper spray and tasers. Gunman can power through pepper spray, And tasers are no good if they shoot you from a distance. Guns are already legal in America. That's not what happens when you have a gun. Gun owners are very responsible and know the risks. Concealed-carry holders even commit crimes 14% less than police officers. That's how law-abiding they are. (https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/) "Governments will have to increase prison space for the increased crime which will break out. " Violent crime has decreased 50% from 1990 in America. | PRO | 8ef0697d-2019-04-18T11:19:04Z-00000-000 |
Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com... | CON | 497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00002-000 |
Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning. Rebuttal 1: "To solve this problem, you can bring back the wooly mammoth that we humans endangered this animal and drove it to extinction. "Firstly, I was unable to find the research you talk about so you may want to post your sources. Even if this theory that mammoth poop can reverse climate change works, it would be impossible to bring enough mammoths back to create enough dung to signifigantly reduce climate change. In my previous arguments, I also mentioned in my arguments that cloned animals don't have as long of lifespans so the they wouldn't be able to produce much dung at all, and they wouldn't live long enough to reproduce creating genetic diversity and a large enough population. Rebuttal 2: "According to mit. edu, if you bring back the tasmanian tiger along with a few other species, you can restore the biodiversity of australia's increasing amount of endangered animals. "Again we have the same issue here. The animals wouldn't have a long enough of a lifespan to reproduce in order to create a large population for biodiversity. Secondly, it's impractical to bring back extinct animals to create biodiversidy when we can preserve the current biodiversity by not letting our current species go extinct. Rebuttal 3: "Secondly, Our technology has improved. Since the last decades, our technology has improved, benefited, and helped mankind stay satisfied. This shows that it is possible to finish the research and develop the process in order to bring back animals. "This argument is irrelevant because we are not arguing if it is possible to bring back extinct animals with our current technology, we are arguing if we SHOULD bring back animals via cloning. Over to my opponent now. | CON | 5640a654-2019-04-18T14:15:31Z-00001-000 |
Video Games Cause Violence. While it might interest some in harming others, it's highly unlikely. People with stable minds know that what is shown on screen is not actually happening in real life. You must be utterly sick-minded to think off attaching a chain saw to a gun, and actually killing people that way. To even imagine that, you need to be confined to a mental institute. I stil also don't see why people keep singling out video games as a source of violence, when most R rated movies explicitly depict violence in MUCH MUCH worse ways. The amount of blood in Halo is minor, even the amount of blood in Black Ops is. Also, most games have gore filters. | CON | 8294b441-2019-04-18T17:22:30Z-00000-000 |
Abrahamic Religion & Morality. Hello, Welcome to the debate, Thanks for accepting! You said, "The ceremonial and civil laws (which mainly make up Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy) were given to the Israelites and are not meant to be followed today. However, Moral laws, Such as the ten commandments, Are meant to be followed and are talked about by Jesus when he states, "I came to fulfill the law. " This is meant to clear up confusion on which laws Christians follow and why. " Is this all just interpretation or is this literally spelled out somewhere? I am pretty familiar with doctrine, And I am unaware of anything in the Bible clearly articulating which commandments to follow and which ones not to follow. Are you saying some of Gods laws are not moral? Are you saying he is fallible? Are you saying parts of the Bible are not intended for certain people? I would argue that when Christians are faced with conflicting moral standards, They cherry pick the pieces that suites their underlying morality, Further proving my point that morality does not originate from religion. Some reject the old testament, Some make excuses for it. It's all one collective book and allegedly sourced by the same God. Secular morality can be relativistic, But it's also objective. The concept behind secular morality is the overall well-being of its participants. If someone is performing an action that would be considered a violation of another's well-being, It would be immoral. So slavery, For example, Would be immoral because it violates well-being. It's not up to each individual to decide what is moral and immoral. It would come down to what is beneficial or non-beneficial to the well-being of the collective group, Which is why it is objective. It is also able to self-correct and evolve to become better over time as cultures change and definitions for well-being improve. Religion cannot do this as it is considered to be an absolute morality. | PRO | d45a01c-2019-04-18T11:12:15Z-00007-000 |
Abortion is right. well because i think that girls that consent and don't use protection and are well aware of what they are doing and get pregnant really shouldn't have the choice of abortion because they should live with the consequences of there actions. but i think abortion should be offered to someone that has been raped. and about adoption, in reality i think thats one of the worst lives you could ever chose to give a baby, to be passed around, put in different households? not to mention there are hundreds, thousands of babies that already don't have a home and you're going to add one more to it? why would you want to give that kind of life to something? | PRO | ccbf304e-2019-04-18T20:03:24Z-00003-000 |
Addressing the atrocities against dalits. For the purpose of this debate, I am siding with caste system. The caste system was never intended to separate the people. The caste system originally came from Hinduism. In Hinduism, the caste system originated from Purusha, the first human. Purusha was divided into four parts. The Brahmin (priests) represent his/her mouth. The Kshatriyas (warriors) represent his/her arms. The Vaishyas (peasants) represent his/her legs. The shudras (laborers) his/her feet. Now, the original caste system only had four sections. But, as you know, there's a fifth section called the dalits. Now, in the olden times, the dalits were the conquered people. The prisoners of war. They were conquered, then forced to be slaves. The dalits were those slaves. In the caste system, in the religion itself actually, you rise through the castes when you get reincarnated (if you're lucky, in your own lifetime) by fulfilling your dharma (role). The dalits rarely rose through the ranks. In fact, if you're a child of a dalit, you often become a dalit yourself. The problem with abolishing the caste system is the fact that it's tied to one of the biggest religions in the world, Hinduism. Abolishing the caste system itself will mean breaking down one of the main pillars in Hinduism. The whole point of Hinduism is that eventually you'll be able to reach moksha. In order to achieve moksha, it'll take a couple of lifetimes. The caste system determines what role you have been given. Being a dalit also makes sense in the religion because remember, you just get reborn. It's highly unlikely you'll be created by Brahma as a dalit. You'll likely be either a shudra or a vaishya. If you're reborn as a dalit, that means you have not been fulfilling your dharma. Which makes total sense in Hinduism either way. | PRO | ec06aa40-2019-04-18T12:20:57Z-00000-000 |
The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media. Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide as much information as possible, including information about their representatives’ private lives. Without that information they would never be able to adequately gauge who might best represent their interests. | CON | 5c22eb90-2019-04-15T20:24:40Z-00020-000 |
Mormons are Christian. You aren't reading my argument clearly- I stated in the part you pasted that it was the protestants and Catholics, commonly accepted as Christian. The topic of this argument is that Mormons are Christian. If they have his name in the title of their church, is it not somewhat of an indication of their belief in him? And I didn't say that anyone denies him. I said they didn't proclaim his divinity as often or as clearly. Most of those differences have to do with the spiritual definition of God, not the personage we're discussing here (though you guys do think they're one and the same.) The one contrast applying to Christ is that he is the same being as God, and that has nothing to do with pretty much everything important that he did. The important things that he taught and did were not dependent on what he did, since either separate or homosousian (you spelled it wrong), he could have saved us from our sins and taught about compassion and whatnot, according to both religions. The definition of Jesus as the Christ is totally dependent on the fact that he atoned for our sins, something that is as much or more the key of the Mormon religion as much as any other. No differing of opinion on his life or being prior to that act is as pivotal or vital to Christianity. For the record, Mormons also believe in the bible, including the New Testament, the real documentation of his life. They also have added to the scriptures with the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Further declaration of his name) which further records his acts on Earth (3 Nephi, Chapters 11-18). The fact that Mormons believe in Christ and his divine role, name their church after him and declare it led by him, believe in the Bible as documentation of his life, and continue to receive revelation from him, culminates into a truth that is impossible to call not Christian. | PRO | ee3f9b92-2019-04-18T19:45:07Z-00001-000 |
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios. I thought that it was a generally accepted idea that it is, at times, okay to kill another human being, but I then had a group of people disagree with me, and no one take my side. So, I would like to see, in depth, the views of someone who believes killing another human is inherently wrong. I'd like anyone of mental maturity who follows this way of thinking to accept my challenge. As pro, I offer the following scenarios for rebuttal. I would like con to try explaining why these scenarios are not acceptable instances in which to kill another human being, and to offer further argument as to the cause of human killing being inherently wrong. Scenario One: You are at home caring for your children while your spouse is away at work. Suddenly, you hear a door being broken in your home. You grab a personal sidearm and tell your two of your three children to hide in your bedroom. You quietly go downstairs and see three armed individuals, one of which is a male who is forcing himself upon your youngest daughter. Is it not acceptable to fire upon them? Scenario Two: You are an average citizen living in a country at war. Suddenly, a soldier that is a part of the invading army bursts into your home. You have an infant who is sleeping in the nursery, and a knife right next to you. Can you be judged for taking action to protect your innocent child? Scenario Three: You are an adolescent who has stayed late at school. As you pick up your things and get ready to leave, an adult you do not recognize walks through the doorway. You nervously mumble a hello and attempt to leave the class. At this point, the man grabs your arm and throws you to the ground with much force, then shuts the door. You remember that the trash bin, which is behind you, has broken glass from a science lab accident inside of it. As the villain pulls out a knife, you make your move. Is it not understandable to use the only form of defense offered to you to protect yourself from death? Again, I say that multiple people argued against my "killing a human can be reasonable" claim, so I know there are those out there who feel this way. I was not, however, able to have a full discussion with them. I would like to see this point of view in full, so I encourage anyone who wishes to champion that cause to do so. | PRO | b985524b-2019-04-18T16:39:28Z-00005-000 |
Mafia is not at all fun to everybody. Abuse is a debate term for a situation in which one side puts an impossible burden on the other. This debate is clearly a case of abuse as my opponent has switched the meaning of the resolution and thus the sides we are arguing. As such, I can't fulfill the burden he places on me because 1.) I accepted the debate in anticipation of arguing that mafia is not fun to everyone and 2.) He can't switch the terms of the debate in the second round. The problem is not with my knowledge of the game Mafia, it's with my opponent's blatant abuse and attempted redirection of the resolution partway through the round. | PRO | 15349853-2019-04-18T18:33:47Z-00001-000 |
should bullies be convicted of manslaughter if bullying another kid and makeing him kill himself. You should be convicted of Manslaughter. As I said in my past statement you practically put the gun in the victims hand even if you're a little fifth grader your killing someone. You don't have to be incarcerated at the young age but going back to you're statement the age. What is the legal age to be incarcerated? 11 is your answer you'd pretty much be in the fifth grade by now and trust me I personally seen this happen a boy hanged himself because of a bully no one did anything about it but the parents called the police up and said what is to be done about this manslaughter the cops said the bully was only 10 years of age and they said not until next years and that boy who died was my best friend. So therefore I agree on why the bully should be convicted of manslaughter. I rest my case. | PRO | 3e772be6-2019-04-18T16:32:38Z-00003-000 |
There Is No Observable Evidence For the Big Bang. In the comments of a prior debate, logicaldebator made the following claim:"Believing in a Creator is, based on observations made, much more scientific than believing in a "big bang" which has no observable evidence to back it up, whereas believing in an orderly and logical Creator makes much more since because we live in an orderly and logical universe."I will be arguing that there is in fact substantial evidence that the big bang occured, but all I will require to refute his claim that there is no evience is to provide SOME evidence.The big bang is defined here as the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe. (1)The first round is for acceptance only and no arguments are allowed to be made. We will both present our arguments in round 2.(1) http://lmgtfy.com...; | CON | 44b563fb-2019-04-18T16:59:05Z-00004-000 |
Banning guns. Now my 1st argument ironically is that guns are not harmful. There are 70 million gun owners in America. Less than 0. 25 percent of those people commit crimes with guns. If you compare that to cars you actually get that you are safer next to somebody with a gun then you are driving. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_ownership https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U. S. _by_year(Wikipedia is 95% correct) Now my proposals are the same required by Japan and Switzerland. Both countries have VERY low crime rates. Japan has 10 gun murders per year. No one invades Switzerland because of their secret army. Their guns. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to face tyrannical governments. You know why: Hitler took the guns Stalin took the guns Mao took the guns While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, The murder rate decreased. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes Britain took the guns and saw double the gun crime in 6 years and violent crime is going up. Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. Those are my opening statements. I have more arguments but I would like to see what you have. Two questions for you If guns existed in the past, Why are we only seeing them now? What is your solution to disarming between 325-392 MILLION guns. | CON | 369e6fda-2019-04-18T11:12:10Z-00004-000 |
In Vitro Fertilization. Before a couple chooses to have IVF, they need to know what will happen to the extra embryos that are not implanted. They need to know their options. Some clinics allow them to donate the embryos to scientific research, donate them to other infertile couples, let the embryos thaw out, keep them frozen, or have them destroyed at the lab. Other clinics may not give the couple all the same opportunities. For some couples this may be harder then it would be for others. Nobody imagines they would grow feelings for just an embryo, but they do. This causes the disposition of embryos to be harder. But the couple has a choice. They can donate to a couple who is having the same struggles of infertility just as they did. The couple doesn"t have to donate their embryos to random couples, they can pick whom they wish to receive it. For the donating couple, this may be easier then just letting the embryos go to a random couple or letting them thaw out. Some believe that destroying embryos is unethical, so if they know they have the option to donate it to a infertile couple it is reassuring. For other donating couples, they may not like the idea of strangers having their baby, so they may choose to donate the embryos to science. This way they know the embryos aren"t being wasted. A couple undergoing IVF needs to be aware of all their options of what to do with leftover embryos. Sources: Embryo Adoption | PRO | 5032bad1-2019-04-18T14:59:23Z-00003-000 |
Monkeys eat their children from time to time. I can't stress enough how credible my evidence is. Monkeys DO, in fact, eat their children approximately once a day. And I assumed you interpreted "their" as a possessive adjective pertaining to the whole community or species of monkeys. Therefore, the mother or father of a singular monkey familial unit can eat the monkey babies of another monkey familial unit. A recent study, done by *Cannibalism in the Wild Study Group*, suggests that the problem of infanticide followed by cannibalism (I'm unaware of any single term for the consumption of one's own offspring) is more widespread than previously thought. One researcher, Antonio Malvoroni, concluded after a recent trip to South Africa to observe several Chlorocebus tribes, that "after conclusive documentation and observation, I've concluded that velvet monkeys {chlorocebus} display an odd and seemingly disadvantageous tendency of eating their own offspring, usually within 2-3 months of birth, and offering chunks (such legs or thighs) to other mothers of the same clan" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If that's not definitive evidence, Lieutenant Zubin, then I don't know what is. Zubin your own grubin. | PRO | 190c7d55-2019-04-18T19:22:27Z-00001-000 |
Death Penalty. This is a debate concerning the death penalty and as the side arguing against it, I would like to make the following points: 1. The death penalty is costly When I say costly, I mean that according to NBC it costs about 1.7 million dollars to execute someone. New Jersey got rid of the death penalty because it costed 4 million dollars per inmate and they hadn't executed anyone since 1963. Plus, inmates staring into the face of the death penalty are entitled to two lawyers which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars alone. 2. What if they're innocent The fact that the risk of ending the life of an innocent person should not be permitted, Killing an innocent person is morally reprehensible, so why should our justice system allow that possibility to exist? By eliminating the death penalty we eliminate any chance of this happening. 3. Does the death penalty deter crime "There's no credible evidence of deterrence," concludes John Blume, a law professor with the Cornell Death Penalty Project. (Excerpt from the Denver Post). There's no way to tell if a murderer was aware of a state's death-penalty status when the crime was deliberated, or what impact the knowledge had. (also from the same article). In, conclusion I believe I have shown the death penalty to be more of a hindrance than a help There's my argument(s) and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. | CON | ed87bdc2-2019-04-18T13:54:46Z-00003-000 |
Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency. Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages. | CON | 57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00013-000 |
Abortion is always immoral. Like I said it is implicit in the fact that we are debating. Who would enter a morality debate like this if it was not? "Even we did use that arguement morality is subjective. Your right may be my wrong. Your wrong may be my right"<<<< You are making a contestable assumption here. That is not a universally accepted fact. If you are not in this to ACTUALLY debate, then don't sign up. | PRO | d4836457-2019-04-18T13:53:19Z-00003-000 |
The UK School System does not work. The system focuses on 'passing exams' as an indicator of success; there is evidence that students who cram for an exam will hold sufficient information for the next day, but they will forget it quicker, therefore the exam cannot be a true indicator of one's knowledge. Even if students don't cram, they're not being tested for that information after the final exam so they will have no reason to remember it, so they will forget it anyway. It's not just that; I could go on. But I don't want to make it too long as, as much as I love debate.org, I also would love to sleep. So I am addressing all aspects of the education system, not just exams. Over to you. | PRO | 5751f01f-2019-04-18T11:53:21Z-00002-000 |
Vermont is better than New Hampshire. Greetings! Vermont and New Hampshire are both beautiful states, but I believe NH has more to offer. NH is one of only five states that has no sales tax. VT is not of those states. http://www.investopedia.com... Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in NH earn over $1000 more per year than in VT. https://www.census.gov... NH has the 4th lowest unemployment rate in the country. Vermont is rated at 10th. http://www.bls.gov... NH has the lowest poverty rate in the United States. http://www.povertyusa.org... NH has lower energy consumption than Vermont. https://www.census.gov... Mount Washington as well as the majority of New England's tallest mountains are in NH. http://www.franklinsites.com... NH has one of the longest zip lines in the continental United States. http://www.gunstock.com... NH was one of the 13 colonies. http://www.history.com... In 1833, the world's first free public library supported by taxation was established in Peterborough, NH. http://peterboroughtownlibrary.org... NH has 11 more colleges/universities than VT. http://www.univsearch.com... NH simply has it all. Mountains, lakes, biking, skiing and hiking trails, and sledding hills. The state is also perfectly situated. It has the Atlantic Ocean which makes for a great beach season. Maine lobster rolls are always nearby. Boston is just down south. To conclude round one, I leave you with New Hampshire's state motto: live free or die! | CON | e1ebe290-2019-04-18T13:45:11Z-00002-000 |
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,. "Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives"I disagree. With the ideas that most liberals have, I see them as less intelligent. Most of them support Hillary, Islam, Muslim Refugees, Black Lives Matter, Open Borders, and many other absurd things. From my research, and observations, I've seen liberals to be a very stupid group of people. In arguments, very few of them use logic and they dismiss facts, many of them are against gun rights, and pro-abortion. How many Intelligent liberals are? Very few. Many liberals are against the United States, they can burn American flags, and insult veterans. "There are many of them who are also against free speech. proof comes from the high priests of the Left – the editorial board of The New York Times. What set them off and displayed their complete lack of intelligence and good sense was their editorial attacking former President Obama for taking a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald." Excerpt of article from: https://townhall.com...Liberals like to use "identity politics" and those that disagree with them or their ideas can be seen as an "Nazi, White Supremacist, Fascist (if an person were to voice their support for Trump)". They also like to use luring and fake facts to verify many of their ridiculous assertions. Many liberals also support Islam, a barbaric religion that originated in the middle east, and open borders (No border, mass waves of illegal immigrants to flow into the United States). “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.” says Dr. Lyle RossiterExcerpt from article http://www.wnd.com..."They [liberals] are like spoiled, angry children. They are rebellious against the normal responsibilities of an adult and demand that the government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”In the article, more examples is given: Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: "creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization, satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation, augmenting primitive feelings of envy, and rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government." | CON | 3aed6f4a-2019-04-18T12:04:22Z-00004-000 |
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons. P1- If the government adopts a policy to decrease the prison population then people who would've been in prison would be left to roam the streets. What does education have to do with overcrowding prisons? That's a red herring fallacy. If the government needs money to support the prison staff or education then they should just increase taxes. Anyone that's sent to prison is there for a reason, a growing prison population makes sense because America's population is increasing as well. http://www.census.gov.... So it's not shocking that the prison population is growing along with the total population of the U.S. P2- If the government has to hire more people to regulate prisons then they should do it because they're protecting the good civilians of society from harm. If there are more corrections officers regulating prisons there will be a lot less fights and it'll help create a safe environment. If the government needs money to create a larger prison staff, then I'm all for it, they can increase taxes. Furthermore, adopting a policy to decrease the prison population will allow minor offenders to become serious offenders because they'll think they can get away with it. In fact, the government isn't even prosecuting minor offenders for drug charges. http://www.bjs.gov.... So how is the corrections system locking up too many minor offenders? P3- Why should civilians be concerned about reuniting inmates or offenders with their family? Hiring parole and probation officers to help reward criminals with family time shouldn't be a governmental priority. That's giving them a slap on the wrist and allowing them to get away with their crimes. Additionally, funding programs to help inmates to be with their families is a waste of tax payers money. This money should be spent on making them serve their prison sentence to the furthest extent. Hiring more prison staff workers will create the same amount of jobs rather than hiring parole and probation officers to help criminals. C-The government should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons | CON | 46372467-2019-04-18T16:15:47Z-00002-000 |