argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Technological progress will probably destroy our planet. If you want ecological reasons you will have it. What means ecology to people nowadays? It is big problem which can cause global warming or apocalypses. But technological progress can decide this problem. For example in Northway near 99% of electricity came from energy of falling water. It is technological progress solution. We try to improve our machines not to cause such problems and without this progress we cannot do this. Progress means improving and improving in technology gives to us more safe machines which will not cause bad effect to our nature. I can give another example. It is using of solar energy. It is very safe way of taking energy from the nature. Technological progress made it. If something create problem, it can solve it. And if this progress made a lot of problem, it will be solved by technology. | CON | 825b2ebc-2019-04-18T18:42:10Z-00000-000 |
The God of the Bible Exist. The Bible states in Genesis 1: God created" Therefore the claim is made that God exist. Definitions for God (to be argued for or against) to be based on the Bible. Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. Since there is only 3 rounds, Con can start posting from the 1st round. Please use only 2 arguments maximum per round. Should there be more than two then I will pick the ones I want to respond to without any obligation to answer the rest. Con also agrees that forfeiting a round is the same as forfeiting the debate. | PRO | 9170c764-2019-04-18T11:10:10Z-00003-000 |
Natsu dragneel vs Gajeel redfox. Nastu already proved he was ahead of Gajeel when he beat him at the beginning of the manga. Not much has changed and they both grew at a similar pace with Nastu a tad ahead, then Nastu obtained lighting fire mode. That put him far ahead of the liked of both Gray and Gajeel. Of course Gajeel later got iron shadow mode, however while that boosts him up, Nastu has still got the edge. He has more feats, and more moves. Plus most anime/manga fans know the main character always has the fastest growth rate. Plus after the time skip Nastu proved he has powers far above anything Gajeel has shown http://www.mangabee.co... read on to 27. | CON | e07ee7ec-2019-04-18T15:15:38Z-00006-000 |
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal. There's a difference between the rich having a toy, which is what cars were then, as opposed to an innate advantage that could make them a superior species, biologically. You have admitted that "People with power do rarely use it for good." If GM people became dangerous, how would we stop them? They would be impossible to legislate against, since they would still be people with full rights; compete with; or make normal again (all gene changes would be permanently passed down). | CON | 1eac34b9-2019-04-18T16:10:36Z-00002-000 |
There is/was intelligent life living in the universe besides humans. I understand that there is no evidence, but I'm going on beliefs and personal experiences. I know my argument title kind of asks for specific events and evidence, but I took my debate as arguing your beliefs. There has been one main evidence that there have been many arguments over, and it is one of the biggest alien conspiracies to date. That would be the Roswell incident. It just so happens that today is the 66th anniversary of the Roswell incident today. Many people argue over what was really found, a weather balloon, which the government says it was, or a flying saucer, like many eye witnesses say it was. I am going for the existence of aliens, now or at some point, during the worlds own existence. I know that there is not a lot of evidence, but I'm hoping that one day there will and the Roswell incident could hopefully prove for my case. | PRO | 9a432337-2019-04-18T17:23:57Z-00001-000 |
Gay Marriage. So your going with the survival argument! I think that is rubbish! That has nothing to do with why the gays are not allowed to get married! You speculate that it will have some detrimental effect on our population grow! Am I the only one that think that the "mutation" that causes homo-sexuality might have something to do with population control? Unless your insinuating that if gay people got married some how that would make everyone gay! Our population is out of control including the homeless, poor, orphaned children. I'm sticking with the old statement that the anti gay marriage campaign is led by homophobia (Usually a fear that you could be gay) | PRO | 63347aa2-2019-04-18T17:28:44Z-00003-000 |
America and Outsourcing. You and I support American's jobs by spending just as much as the company does. For example, if you go to a clothing store and buy $100 worth of clothing, that money goes back into the company, and goes to the workers through payroll and benefits that are bought with my donation. By outsourcing these companies pay less in wages and keep more money to spend in the American economy. Also, with the country that the outsourcing is being done in, they will buy the products they are producing, thus giving money right back into the economy. In addition, there are several jobs that are open today for those who lose their jobs to outsourcing to fill. | PRO | 2807caab-2019-04-18T14:09:40Z-00003-000 |
Jesus is real. My opponent does not address my above arguments, so an extension of them is warranted. Also, as a debater, it is his job to provide me with his evidence. Simply telling me to do his job and his research (as in, go read a book containing someone's opinion) is not maintaining his position by any means. Rather, it only weakens it. Thus, I wait for my opponent's final rebuttal. | CON | 8ef68e3a-2019-04-18T19:54:03Z-00002-000 |
The United States of America is a Christian nation. So I took this debate, not because I feel passionately about the fact that there a lot of christians in the US, but more to correct my opponents fallacious logic. With that, I will begin...... So I will be jumping around with my quotes to best represent what is most important..... "So someone prove to me that we are a Christian nation." --I need not prove anything to you, you are the one who instigated this debate. thus, the burden of proof is on you my friend. That is like you taking the con on whether or not aliens (from another planet, not country) exist. And telling the pro to prove it. Obviously the pro cant just go find an alien and say, "hey, here is an alien, I win." The con has to bring up some points as to why they don't exist. This is more theory than anything else, and if my opponent wishes to continue this argument, I would be more than happy to debate it, but lets now move on. "So, convince me." --Irrelevant and fits right into my point above, not to mention we aren't here to convince each other, we are here to convince the judges, it is almost a given we will both vote for ourselves. "Yet our nation was founded on the notion of being able to practice ANY religion." --Very true, however that does not mean that we are not a christian nation, a majority of people in america claim to be christian (which fits right in to your next point) "Not in terms of the majority of what people believe (many people believing one thing doesn't make it true)" --True that many people believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true. However, we are not debating whether or not Christianity is true, we are debating whether or not the US is a Christian nation. and with this statistic..... "76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian." We can very much see that most americans are christians, and in a democracy, majority rules. Thus, america is a christian nation. Happy easter btw! :D 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. | PRO | f514d3a0-2019-04-18T19:47:28Z-00004-000 |
Evolution is a scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact . The idea that humans and all animals evolved into what they are today. Most do not deny Microevolution, a small change in a species that allows them to adapt. "House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale." (evolution.berkeley.edu) I believe that most people do not agree with the idea of Macroevolution simply because, unlike microevolution, we can not observe Macroevolution first hand. or can we? "Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale." (wikipedia.org) ie; Australopithecus evolving into Man and Apes. or the "tree of life" in the following link. http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov... Interesting side note, a poll on msnbc said that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution. (firstread.msnbc.msn.com) Pro will argue that Evolution is a scientific fact. Con will argue Evolution is not a scientific fact. Con can argue that both Microevolution and Macroevolution are both false, or one is true and one is not. I wouldn't do it though, seeing as the only difference between the two is time and scale. Fact-something that actually exists; reality; truth -Dictionary.com Scientific fact-any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted -Dictionary.com Evolution-change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. -Dictionary.com I want the person I'm debating with to be very passionate about this subject. I realize that Macro and Microevloution are terms coined by creationists, but the words are likely to come up during the debate so I might as well help clarify their definition. -http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 949c412b-2019-04-18T18:45:28Z-00005-000 |
I will not contradict myself. Challenge accepted, let’s begin. Are you a homosexual? Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and Do you follow the law? Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy? Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights? Is killing another person ever morally acceptable? Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm? Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces) Are semantics appropriate for this debate? Will you contradict yourself in this debate? | CON | 489cc6bf-2019-04-18T18:38:57Z-00008-000 |
Mac is more user friendly and more efficient than a PC. I used a PC for about 15 years and 2 years ago, I changed to a Mac. This was a brilliant decision on my part. I recently purchased a PC for my mom and Windows has become so complicated and confusing that I am tempted to return it and get her a Mac (this coming from someone who knew his way around Windows very well). Aside from the obvious luxuries of being able to just plug in my iPod and iPhone, Mac recognizes any device I plug into it and doesn't geive me headaches like a PC did, having to download drivers, etc. constantly. Mac allows me to keep all my files, pictures and music organized... and yes, Apple created iTunes which is just another reason why Mac's are better, especially because you can download the program onto a PC and it is very simple to use... | PRO | f2831f4e-2019-04-18T20:03:28Z-00004-000 |
Band Directors should not tell whole bands they played horrible at a preformance. No, it is the judges job to judge the band. If the students cannot tell if they played horribly, they shouldn't be in band. All musicians should care about their performance and practice any way. Good musicians will always strive to improve. I agree band directors should not lie and say the band preformed well, but they should leave the judging to the judges. | CON | 20b519f2-2019-04-18T16:23:59Z-00002-000 |
Germ theory is a fraud. 1. Germ theory is essentially an illogical assumption. The assumption that germs can or would kill their host is illogical. If this had been occurring throughout mankind's evolution, then, the germs would have become extinct a long time ago. 2. The Mayo Clinic doesn't mention any thing about causes. This is a common omission of germ theory advocates. Germs don't appear unless there is a cause for them to appear. In most cases, the human body generates its own disease which is a reaction to toxic chemicals or vitamin deficiency. 3. Nature doesn't have any diseases. Disease is restricted only to humans. Animals in natural surroundings never get sick. The only instances of animals getting sick is when those animals eat or are infected with human made chemicals which cause the disease or problem. Some examples would be - Tasmanian Devil - Cancer caused by herbicides, insecticides, fire retardants, plastics, rubbish tips and poison baits. Bees - Colony Collapse Disorder, Varroa and Acarapis Mites - These are just the result of insecticide spraying which causes these problems. Note - The authorities try very hard to ignore the causes of disease so that they can't be blamed as being part of the cause. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and government bodies are protected against litigation and prosecution. You will never hear a media report on a disease which highlights the true cause. The media will never say, for example - "that the Tasmanian Devils are being poisoned by toxic chemicals in the environment". In order to find the true cause you have to seek out secretly produced research documents which never reach the public's notice. 4. The main cause of human diseases are improper diets, lack of sanitation, eating stale food, faecal infection of water supply, chemical poisoning and over processing of food. Humans have adopted an unnatural diet which nature never intended. The human body can't handle or deal with the foods that humans eat, thus, they get sick and blame it on germs as being the culprits. Universities support germ theory because because they get funding from the pharmaceutical industry and germ theory generates a lot of profit for the health industry in general. | PRO | 4a953ad4-2019-04-18T14:17:30Z-00003-000 |
Chicago Is Better Than Los Angeles. Not including population and size Chicago is far superior to Los Angeles, because of the history, it has been around for a lot longer. The culture is far more diverse, you have the Polish, the Germans, the gays, and so many more. Ever seen the Chicago skyline, way prettier than the Los Angeles, Los Angeles has what? One maybe two tall buildings. In Chicago we have a more intricate weather system, we even have all four seasons, unlike the two seasons in Los Angeles, we have snow one day then 80 degrees the next day. Then there is foods, Chicago pizza rather known as deep dish, is the best out of the pizzas does Los Angeles even have their own pizza type? And Chicago style hot dogs delicious, the one time I went to Los Angeles all the food sucked(Not to mention I almost got shot twice). All in all in my opinion Chicago is a far better city then Los Angeles. | PRO | 2edb257b-2019-04-18T14:59:03Z-00003-000 |
the breath of my ice dragon will silence the escape of your unicorn. My unicorn has rainbow spots and a chocolate mane. It procreates faster than the speed of light. It is like a shape shifting salamander. It sits on my shoulder. It smokes pot. He was supposed to convince me to not have sex the last time, but he hadn't been laid in a while and forsook me on the issue. It has 3 things. It's humping style is wierd. It is super wierd. And getting wierder as I go along... | CON | 9429310d-2019-04-18T13:01:49Z-00002-000 |
Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state. Now, the appeal of government-free society is not really about there being no government. It is no established government. It is a state in which all law is upheld by the people in the state without obligation. That they will develop as they see it without being told. Now, in your argument, you said that crime will skyrocket. Do you believe that the owners of property will not protect it? In the beginning, there will be chaos. But from chaos comes order. The owners or property protect it and gang together. Police and citizens will work hand in hand to protect each other, not from law saying so, but out of natural obligation. ========= Conclusion ========= Anarchy is a misunderstood term, seemingly always associated with chaos and destruction. Know that the point of anarchy isn't no law, but self law. For citizens to be able to govern themselves and not be told right and wrong, because they already know it. | CON | 173949c8-2019-04-18T19:12:31Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine. Thank you. For future use, I will clarify my case. I believe that supporting the Ukrainian army in mainland Ukraine will benefit not only them, but to the local nations nearby. Now, I have to prove that it is conceivable that Russia would back off or not to make such bold threats to Ukrainian safety. Here is a backdrop. Ukraine, by itself, may not be worth the war games. But Poland is. So is Germany. These nations will be affected when Russia steam rolls over Ukraine, as it would tip the balance of power and bring Russian expansion to something that wasn't seen since Cold War era times. Eastern Europe isn't something you just say "Eh, no biggie." to. Now, you might be saying that the Crimean"s voted to join Russia. But as of now, the UN is saying the vote is illegal.[1] With Russia taking over Crimea in something that"s almost an act of war, we have to stop Russia and protect the stability of Eastern Europe. Now, support sending troops and supplies to Ukraine to prevent the area Balkanizing, that"s all. Do what is happening is South Korea, but have it used as the Crimean"s confusion over who runs who. Russia will simply not invade because it would mean war with the USA. That is a deterrent. Spreading turmoil across Europe never ended well anyway [1]http://www.aljazeera.com... | PRO | 436269b4-2019-04-18T16:27:07Z-00003-000 |
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation". This doesn't remove the inherent volatile nature; for instance "we're f**ked" (profanity) has a stronger emotional connotative value than "this is bad" (statement) which also has weaker emotional connotative value than "we're screwed" (slang). You've not shown that they aren't offensive or vulgar but instead that they can be used in ways that may or may not be "as offensive" (context sensitivity). The entire idea behind vulgarity (swear words) is emotional and not objective.. "The main purpose of swearing is to express emotions, especially anger and frustration. Swear words are well suited to express emotion as their primary meanings are connotative. The emotional impact of swearing depends on one's experience with a culture and its language conventions. A cognitive psychological framework is used to account for swearing in a variety of contexts and provide a link to impoliteness research. In support of this framework, native and non-native English-speaking college students rated the offensiveness and likelihood of hypothetical scenarios involving taboo words. The ratings demonstrated that appropriateness of swearing is highly contextually variable, dependent on speaker-listener relationship, social-physical context, and particular word used. Additionally, offensiveness ratings were shown to depend on gender (for native speakers) and English experience (for non-native speakers). Collectively these data support the idea that it takes time for speakers to learn where, when, and with whom swearing is appropriate." (http://www.degruyter.com...) A second source (http://books.google.com...) helps explain what expletives are and how they work in society. Sadly I'm out of space for the quote I'd like to use. | CON | e6d19204-2019-04-18T15:45:17Z-00001-000 |
War Game scenario: Russia vs China. I accept.I would first like to thank Russia_the_Almighty for allowing me to debate this topic with him. It sounds like it will be a lot of fun!China Forces:Manpower: Total Population: 1,355,692,576 Available Manpower: 749,610,775 Fit for Service: 618,588,627 Reaching Military Age Annually: 19,538,534] Active Frontline Personnel: 2,333,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 2,300,000 Land Systems: Tanks: 9,150 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 4,788 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 1,710 Towed-Artillery: 6,246 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 1,770 Air Power: Total Aircraft: 2,860 Fighters/Interceptors: 1,066 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 1,311 Transport Aircraft: 876 Trainer Aircraft: 352 Helicopters: 908 Attack Helicopters: 196 Naval Power: Total Naval Strength: 673 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 47 Destroyers: 25 Corvettes: 23 Submarines: 10 Coastal Defense Craft: 11 Mine Warfare: 6 Resources (Petroleum/Oil): Oil Production: 4,372,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 9,500,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 17,300,000,000 bbl/day Logistical: Labor Force: 797,600,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 2,030] Major Ports and Terminals: 15 Roadway Coverage: 3,860,800 Railway Coverage: 86,000 Serviceable Airports: 507 Financial (USD): Defense Budget: $145,000,000,000 External Debt: $863,200,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $3,821,000,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $13,390,000,000,000 Geography: Square Land Area: 9,596,961 km Coastline: 14,500 km Shared Border: 22,457 km Waterways: 110,000 km These are all of my military statistics and my WMD will be..... Inter Continental Ballistic Missile with ground jamming capabilities that block that of modern air defenses. Has numerous capabilities to deflect interception missiles. (ICBM) | CON | f7f1c68a-2019-04-18T15:10:47Z-00008-000 |
Practicalities. Movies are already currently regulated by film boards which provide films with an age classification as to who can see the movie based upon its content. Currently film boards cover content such as violence, sex and even drug use, of which smoking is not currently included, adding the extra caveat of smoking into the analysis of film would not cause too many practical issues. The main hurdle for adding such regulation would be getting the guidelines right as to what can and cannot be shown and what is appropriate for certain age groups to see or not see. Creating the guidelines would have to involve both public and expert consultation but on the whole putting restrictions in place would face little if any practical problems. | PRO | 284ea85-2019-04-15T20:22:26Z-00014-000 |
Snowden did nothing wrong. The Burden of Proof is on Pro to show that Edward Snowden did nothing wrong. I as Con need only to prove that Snowden did something wrong no matter how insignificant it was. I will provide definition for the following two words: Oath:"The words or formula of such a declaration or promise. " . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Wrong:"Something contrary to ethics or morality" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Snowden was employed at the National Security Agency(NSA). In order for him to be employed at NSA he had to take a couple oaths. One of these oaths was an oath of secrecy. Snowden under any circumstances was not allowed to release the classified documents to outside sources. Snowden broke his oath when he released classified documents[1]. Snowden therefore did something wrong when he released the classified information. Snowden also committed theft when he took government property(classified documents) as well[2]. The documents did not belong to him but he took them anyways. This is not only wrong but also illegal. There are numerous things Snowden did wrong but I will await Pro's reply before providing the other wrongs. [1]. http://www.slate.com... [2]. http://apps.washingtonpost.com... | CON | c76c2e20-2019-04-18T16:47:53Z-00008-000 |
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2). The process of actually donating food is easier said than done. The Donation of good that is past it"s exporan date as well as those that are almost expired requires a lot of logistical coordination. It also requires precise and through planning. While the idea sounds simple enough there"s a lot of coordination that stores and restaurants would have to go throughout in order to accomplish this grocery shops would need a lot of recourses and time . Elise Golan, the director for sustainable development at USDA. "The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," she said. "If you"re having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that"s not good for anybody." The process of donating expired or close to expiration date food sounds good on paper but the actual process is demanding and hard to accomplish. Sources: "Why the US May Never Pass a Food Waste Law Like France." Google, Google, www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/why-the-us-may-never-pass-a-food-waste-law-like-france-1757351244/amp. Why Grocery Stores Don't Donate All Of Their Surplus Food to Charity, www.flashfood.com/blog/why-grocery-stores-dont-donate. | CON | d089a39f-2019-04-18T11:31:22Z-00004-000 |
IVF Debate. In regards to OHSS, Doctors work to prevent this with extreme caution. They identify patients at risk by an accurate antral follicle count and measurement of anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) Levels, if they find that the patient is at a high risk they can lower the starting does for the fertility drugs , and also can decreasing the trigger dose of hCG, which is the prime stimulator of VEGF. If they do manage to get OHSS even with all the precautions, pregnancy CAN worsen it, /but/ the doctors are able to freeze all the eggs/embryos so they can treat the symptoms by either: 1. Early tapping of ascitic fluid, which reduces the load of VEGF in circulation and can show immediate improvement in the patient, or 2. The usage of metformin, it's normally used for treating type 2 diabetes and works by reducing insulin levels, because insulin stimulates VEGF, so it may reduce the chance for OHSS. One of the big reasons why IVF is needed, is because it bypasses many problems with a woman's fallopian tubes. IVF was actually first made because women who had fallopian tube damage or blockages wanted to still have children. It lessens the need to have surgery on the fallopian tubes, and in estimation has cut the number nearly 50%! It makes sure, even though they cannot have an egg pass into their uterus naturally, that one can be placed there (And it's still theirs.) without having to use a surrogate mother or to adopt. | PRO | 66744a72-2019-04-18T14:52:58Z-00005-000 |
Apple Is Better Than Android. First let's get some terms and ideas addressed. What do you mean when saying better? Better at what? Are you arguing that the physical apple product the phone itself with its design is better? Are you arguing that the processing of the apple product is better? Are you arguing that the functionality of apple is better (more user friendly)? Are you arguing that apple has better customer service? Please refine your argument, that way there is understanding of what you are actually trying to prove. | CON | 5a46740d-2019-04-18T12:14:29Z-00000-000 |
Age of consent laws should not be legal. My opponent is a 14 year old female. I am a 29 year old male. In her view, I should not go to jail, nor suffer any type of legal consequence if I have sex with her. As a grown man who is double her age- I disagree. I think it would be sick of me to have sex with someone who could be my own daughter, and I am sure her father would agree. Now that I have gotten that off of my chest, let's get to the debate. Contention #1- Age of consent laws are in place to protect the child. Let's consider the statements I made above. I was 14 in 1993. My opponent had not yet been born. At the time I had uncles, aunts, teachers, and other people in positions of authority who were both younger than I am now, and slightly older than I am now. I looked up to these people, and relied on many of them for emotional, financial, spiritual, and familial support. At that age I even looked up to the Seniors in High School, and they looked old to me. I was easily manipulated by people slightly above my age, and luckily never encountered anyone twice my age who tried to manipulate me into having sex- even if I wouldn't have felt manipulated. At the time I was also a babysitter. My neighbors trusted me with their six year old daughter, whom looked up to me as her older brother. I was a young man going through puberty, and never had any sexual attraction to anyone lower than my age range. Now, if it's ok for a 29 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, is it also ok for a 14 year old to have sex with a six year old? I am sure that question just filled my opponent with repugnance... or at least I hope it did. Age of consent laws protect younger minds and bodies from the manipulative, impulsive, and much more sexual mental acuity of those who are older. Contention #2- Age of consent laws are based on precedence. Many children have suffered sexual abuse. We often hear stories of children who innocently took part in what they thought were "games", only to later find out they were molested by a person they trusted... like a priest, an uncle, or a teacher. Without age of consent laws, what would deter pedophiles from having their way with unsuspecting children? Contention #3- Without age of consent laws, where do we draw the line? I gave the example of my opponent- who is a 14 year old female. What if she were 12? What if she were 10? What if she were 4? Where do we draw the line? I will allow my opponent to respond... | CON | e4cd685a-2019-04-18T19:34:32Z-00007-000 |
Atheism. Time to take the Devil's advocate. Good luck Pro. Definition of Atheist: A person who lacks a belief in god Definition of Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Basically, the definition of Agnostic is, that he/she does not believe in god yet he/she cannot prove or disprove god. Both people lack a true belief, however one person claims that god cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, the Atheist implies that god can be disproven. Which is obviously false, since it is impossible to disprove anything that cannot be observed. You cannot even disprove things that are false. Example: Assume there really is not a flying unicorn in the room Person 1: There is a flying unicorn in the room Person 2: No there is not. I can not see it Person 1: It is invisible Person 2: Well, I cannot feel it Person 1: The unicorn cannot be sensed by any of your senses Person 2: I cannot detect the unicorn by any heat sigs, x-ray, or any other form of artificial vision Person 1: It cannot be detected by any of the instruments Even if the unicorn is not there, you cannot disprove the the unicorn is not there. Because Person 2 is going to keep throwing claims that is beyond person 2's capability of disproving. | CON | bee5cfe2-2019-04-18T15:21:02Z-00002-000 |
Accountability: polluter pays. Our policy may seem limited, only targeting the reduction of destruction of rainforests. Yet, its implications are much more far-reaching, in the sense that it establishes a new trend for the UN’s attitude on climate change concerns by declaring that the days in which polluting as much as possible, as fast as possible, for quick money, are over. Until now, most countries have engaged in a neck-to-neck competition to consume as much resources as possible in order to achieve quick development, and common thought was that such governments were immune from facing the consequences of their rampant pollution. However, this sanction shows a fundamental change in attitude; by making it clear that the global community such as the UN will not allow for quick profits made in the expense of the environment, we establish that the simple principle that pollution is unacceptable, and that the polluter will have to pay for whatever harms he/she inflicts upon rest of the world. As stated in the second argument, the environment is now a global, common resource, so if a company pollutes for the sake of its personal profit, this is tantamount to theft, as it is an act of stealing a common resource for private benefit. The principle behind this sanction is simple, logical and fair—if someone takes away a resource that does not wholly belong to himself and uses it for his own personal benefit, he will be held accountable and punished accordingly. We think this is more significant because our plan is an unprecedented one that encompasses all nations; in the past, countries such as the United States have frequently acted alone, threatening and imposing unilateral sanctions such as the US sanction on shrimps caught without TEDs (Turtle Excluding Devices). In such cases, sanctions have been difficult because loopholes existed, and trade was still possible with other countries; in our case, we ensure that the world as a whole sends a clear message that this international crisis will be addressed with international cooperation, and that there will be no way out of it. Countries will either have to be held accountable for their unapologetic pollution of the environment, or face international ostracism. References: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/teds.htm | PRO | 6e39cdc8-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00022-000 |
Rap battle NDECD1441 vs RMTheSupreme. Disclaimer: Any violence and vulgar views that follow are not real threats, this is battle rap.Undisclaimer: I am a genius of rap, if any rhymes are elsewhere lyrically, it's coincidence and I guarantee that maybe only some part of some lines are form another rap, I can't help if the coincidence happens. I did not plagiarize a whole line but did copy a flow here or there.I done seen a lotta fools in the game step to me and get their throat slit,Boy you messing with a big G, pick up that mic from the Stone, acting like you can throw sh**,Realise it doesn't want your spit upon its spittle shield, you little b**ch I don't just live for this, I own this,15 year-old rapper oh sh** rewind the tape, I think what's about to ensue here counts as pedophilic rape,I'm too prolific to care, I give not sh**s to be fair, Imma throw his a** to the ground and bone it,WAIT WHAT DID I JUST SAY, you can't say that, That's lewd, too crude well where's the pay back?Where's the justice in the world? am I supposed to think he'll fight me,Considering he puts 'not saying' for his views I find it unlikely.He's a scared lil snitch, leave his body in a ditch,The typa wart-nosed witch you try to drown her but she's swimmin' like a fish,So I become a shark, make your heart go thud,swim fast lil fishy' I'm out for blood,Swim far lil muggle, more like mudblood,I'm the magical infallible immaculate masculine stud.R for the Rational, M for the madman,Supreme is the theme, mess with me? That's a bad plan,You're a joke and not the type that can mess with the batman,You're a fool getting schooled, math class solve a problem:Me plus me = infinity times two, Me plus you equals that too,You're nothing to this kingpin, I'm the new trend, I'm the in-thing,You're fast-passing fad and rappin' 'bout that bling-bling.Comprehend me Mr 1441, you're Illuminati I can tell from you're pic but son,You're the lowest of the gods while I'm the highest of the devils,You're the least organised tyrant, I'm the leader of the rebels,Eminem is cool, it's nice you wanna be him,But I'm more like a Viking riding on the sea-in,On your shore, Pillage whores, 13 reasons why I'm a superior being,[2]Or maybe not thirteen, I aint got time to waste I'm 'not saying' I am feeling,[2]Lazy or anything close to easy breathing,[2] I'm a monster on a rampage the kind you wish you never had to believe in,I'm sending you a declaration of war that you're receiving,This time you won't get scarred Potter, your parseltongue's self-deceiving,You can talk to snakes because a snake-a** snitch is all you are,I'm that Divergent next breed, evolved shadowhunter,You're the shadow I'll be 'eating'.References:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... = mic, only the chosen one can wield it properly.[2] This is his profile as I see it, many references are from his description: http://www.youtube.com... | CON | 6844d7d1-2019-04-18T11:35:07Z-00004-000 |
Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con). This is my first debate on this website, so I figured why not go for a BIG topic? I will be arguing from a Conservative standpoint, and I am looking for anyone Left of Centre to argue from the Liberal viewpoint. :) Round 1.) Introduction Round 2.) Economics (taxation/regulation) Round 3.) Social Issues (Marriage, Abortion, etc.) Round 4.) 2016 Presidential Candidate you are supporting, and why. | PRO | 97979fe8-2019-04-18T15:00:15Z-00007-000 |
"Justice is blind". Ok, this is my first debate but I'm wanting to put forward the notion for consideration that justice is in fact blind. By this I am saying that I believe that the effort to create systems of justice can lead to inadvertantly the opposite instance occuring, in short: creating organised systems of injustice. Many lawyers or those who study law are taught that public law seeks to administer justice but that they should uphold the law and not justice in their profession. I would like to take this further and insist that outside of transcendent notions of justice and judgement (ie; the final judgement) that justice is a subjective notion which as far as people are concerned is actually a figment of the mind without such trascendent notions. To support this case I would like to introduce as an example the national union of Myanmar (or Burma). In which after the 1962 coup d'etat the ruling military government has since gone on to persecute all forms of dissidence to what the Burmese military defines as a pursuit of a "disciplined and flourishing democracy". The arguement is that human logic is subjective in it's "anchoring" and largely absurd. Irrespective of trascendental notions this then highlights that the justice of the state is subject to the notions of the rulers. I'm not in for anything snide but I'd appreciate going in with anyone who's game..? Thanks :) Keith | PRO | 9bb8603e-2019-04-18T19:33:01Z-00006-000 |
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false. . And judging by your previous debates I can see that you're very likely to be a troll. All well. P1: Objective morality can only exist if objective purpose existsP2: Since objective morality exists, objective purpose existsP3: "Purpose" can only be assigned by sentient beings. P4: Since a purpose assigned by ourselves cannot be objective, a sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective purpose. C: A sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective morality. This proves that naturalism, as a purposeless origin of our existence, could not be possible if objective morality exists. | PRO | 6ff473f5-2019-04-18T15:52:12Z-00003-000 |
A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions. In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised. | PRO | be83ff08-2019-04-15T20:22:49Z-00018-000 |
Stricter Gun Control Policies. Thank you for starting this debate! To begin, I will state my policies on firearms. I do not want to take anything away from innocent, hard working Americans. It is clearly their constitutional right to bear arms. However, back ground checks should be put in place to determine whether or not someone is fit to operate a firearm. For example, Texas, the state I live in, is the easiest place to buy a firearm. You can practically walk into a store and own a firearm. Also, "WASHINGTON " Slightly more than 190,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen across the country last year, according to a new report by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives". As a person who owns firearms, I can ensure you that they do not just go missing. Mandating gun safes could potentially help in keeping firearms out of criminals hands. Also, there is no excuse for firearm dealers to "lose" firearms. Thanks http://www.usatoday.com... | PRO | 9d41bfd8-2019-04-18T15:29:31Z-00006-000 |
Ban bacon. Top 5 Reasons to not ban bacon: 1. It tastes amazing and can enhance almost anything 2. Bacon is just one cut off of a pig and so if you banned bacon you'd be wasting a portion of the animal during butchering unless you are wanting to ban pork altogether 3. Bacon is part of a sustainable food source 4. Bacon has a lot of protein and if eaten in moderation it's not that bad for you 5. Breakfast just wouldn't be breakfast without bacon and a bonus 6th reason would be that there's no real legitimate reason to ban bacon | CON | c6859d57-2019-04-18T14:14:07Z-00004-000 |
Darwinian Evolution is a Weak Theory. Darwinian evolution is a weak theory because it lacks a mechanism for actual evolution, Meaning an increase in complexity or information. Natural Selection works fine to filter out the best genes that exist, But it doesn't explain how new genes come about. Neo-Darwinian evolution theory claims that mutation is responsible for the appearance of new genes / proteins / traits, But there is a lack of evidence to support this. Without evidence to support a hypothesis, It remains weak. To clarify, Evolution as an historical event evidently happened when looking at the fossil record. However the mechanism that drove it upwards is largely a mystery, Which Darwinists are unwilling to admit. If Con uses scientific articles in their arguments, Then I request that they limit them to one per round, To allow for enough time to accurately read and assess the contents thereof. | PRO | e96b1ac3-2019-04-18T11:08:33Z-00007-000 |
Censorship is good. In this debate, I am going to argue that censorship is bad. There are many kinds of censorship. One of them is self-censorship, which I am not going to be arguing against, just to be clear. Self-censorship is when someone doesn't want their audience to be exposed to something, so they leave it out. My problem with censorship is that it forces creators to leave out stuff, often against their will, which makes their work suffer. If it's the creator their self who's censoring the work, then the work doesn't suffer, because it's creator-approved. I have already stated why I think that censorship is wrong. | CON | f7b04e85-2019-04-18T14:37:44Z-00009-000 |
TV rap battle tournament round 2. It's somewhat embarassing to commence the dismantling And trampling of this weak clown getting beat down I'll damage this amateur and any other challenger That wanna step up, it's a set up, now you're wet up Not with blood, but sweat and tears that leak from every orifice Your name is mud, I'll tell your peers you're weak and they'll acknowledge this Your rap, you need to polish it, I'll demolish and abolish it I can't guess what possessed you to come up with such a crock of sh1t Why you braggin that you pay for sex? You're obviously a virgin Though it makes sense; that's the only way your knob would get a slurpin' Yes I'm white and pasty but my style is tasty, people rate me You shoot yourself in the foot, like you left your gun off safety Got green fingers like I do botany, Cee-Lo Green might have forgotten me But he did to you what he talked about on the album version properly I'm sly like Sylvester, but no, I don't rock no polyester I'm rockin' strictly cotton, while your rotten @ss rhymes hit rock bottom I bring the pain faster, to injure Brainmaster Raps impact like natural disasters, breaking backs and causing fractures It seems your head got twisted, like dreadlocks on a rasta Or maybe like spaghetti (that's my favourite type of pasta) You speak nothing but inane chatter, I make your guts and brains splatter What type of name is that for you, when you ain't got no grey matter I switch it up and call you Mainbasterd, little b1tch, you're lame and @sshurt Feverish just demonstrated how to make your fvcking raps work | PRO | 195231d1-2019-04-18T18:45:34Z-00001-000 |
Philosophy is Dead. I do not accept that philosophy is currently useless or is going to be useless in the future, but on the contrary, I believe that philosophy is currently useful and could be very useful in the future when it comes to social enlightenment and academical progress, and I shall use different arguments to support my view. I suppose the burden of proof is shared although Pro is the one who makes the positive claim that "philosophy is dead. "That being said, I await my opponent's case. | CON | 906c62d9-2019-04-18T16:49:08Z-00004-000 |
No uniforms. I think that schools should not have uniforms. Kids need to express themselves with the clothes they ware. I think it is fun to pick out what you are doing to ware in the morning, try different outfits, and have fun. What are uniforms even for? They really don't do anything. Some people think it looks more presentable, not to me. I think it looks good, to be creative. Ware more colors, designs, patterns, sparkles, ect. If you think uniforms are better please comment and tell me why. Thanks for reading. Don't forget to tell me what you think:) | PRO | 20ee21b1-2019-04-18T17:38:39Z-00003-000 |
AOW Debate (Shattered World). This is a war debate. the reason I challenge you to this debate is because you were going to join my open debate but that one was taken by . I will be playing again as the People's Republic of Southern China. These are the rules: 1. If you choose to accept this debate, tell the name of your country, and tell the numbers of your armed forces for things like vehicles (aircraft, ships, tanks, armored cars), men, missiles, and hackers (Yes, certain countries have the ability to do cyberwarfare). You can not play as the People's Republic of Southern China or the Vatican City. You can play as any country except the ones that are dead (USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, China, Australia and Russia) 2. If you need information on a country tell me in the Comment section. Wikipedia is allowed to be used for military units. 3. You do not have to choose the countries I present, they merely represent the countries that broken up. 4. You do not have to declare war on my nation as soon as possible, for you could conquer any nation. 5. Please listen to the Geneva Convention, if you do not there will be major consequences. Here is a link to the Geneva Convention: http://www.redcross.org............ This also includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 6. If this AOW Debate takes more time then 5 rounds, it will be extended to another debate. Link to new countries: http://mapgame.wikia.com.........(Countries) 1) Military Force: Tanks: 3,621 AFVs: 1,954 SPGs: 684 Active Soldiers: 948,000 Reserve Soldiers: 920,000 Manpower: 309,000,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 8,600,000 Total Aircraft: 1,122 Fighters: 452 Fixed Wing Attack Aircraft: 529 Helicopters: 320 Attack Helicopters: 81 Aircraft Carrier: 1 Frigates: 17 Destroyers: 12 Submarines: 27 Coastal Defense: 55 2) Political State Disputes: South China Sea Alliances: ASEAN (Dialogue Partner) (The UN has collapsed) Wars: None 3) Economy Defense Budget: 60.2 Billion USD Debt: 374.3 Billion USD Reserves of Foreign exchange in Gold: 1.288 Trillion USD GDP nominal: 6.345 Trillion USD Current Account Balance: 321.34 Billion USD I hope you accept this AOW Debate. | PRO | f27446d8-2019-04-18T12:39:39Z-00002-000 |
Replaces autonomy with state interference. Given some of the circumstances in which many British inhabitants find themselves today, it would perhaps do no harm to be governed by paternalism. Though this may be interpreted as unwelcome control, if such restrictions were implemented they would be backed up by a worthy justification. If the measure proved effective it could perhaps be considered making its application temporary, so as not to infringe on individual freedom. However, it must be noted that an individual cannot enforce any right to reproduce; another person is required who is under no obligation to consent. | CON | bb86a0d6-2019-04-19T12:47:42Z-00010-000 |
The media influences citzen support on behalf of Washington agendas. "Though the media has failed to fully analyze the historical aspects of our involvement in the Middle East, the reason is not because of corporate interests, because corporate interests are not the media's main concern and role." A corporations interest is making money. When the government allows you to use public airwaves for free, resulting in billions of surplus revenue, they hold considerable sway over what they DONT want broadcasted. It is true what you say about historical events and ratings. In my opinion, C-span is news. all they show is political events, not someone talking about political events. What happens is the greater government influences corporations through their billion dollar blackmail to stay in line with the rest of the news, prompting Media outlets to disregard what they may view as considerable news that would make Washington angry, in fear of reprecussion. It is the United States version of censorship. | PRO | 4d8d191b-2019-04-18T19:54:24Z-00001-000 |
Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics. Loss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone. 1Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI Working Paper #658) | PRO | b62dac16-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00013-000 |
Schools kill creativity. Let the reader know that my opponent has not touched on my contention at all, leaving it standing. Thus, you should vote negative. It was Pro's burden to give examples of how schools kill creativity. All he states is that our system is monotonous, and throughout the whole debate gives no sources or proper refutations. My opponents tries arguing in round 3 that one system of education isn't enough for millions of diverse students; this, however, is refuted by my independent high school contention. Each student enrolls in the plethora of classes that best suit their own creative needs. My opponent even says "...in showing some new approaches to the problems..." I have done this with independent high schools. These are schools located in high numbers across many countries, and they help creativity grow like it's a plant and they are miracle grow. Since I, as Con, have shown schools that promote creativity without objection from Pro, I win this debate Thank You. I urge a Con vote. | CON | b85fcb43-2019-04-18T18:41:28Z-00000-000 |
Historic place names should not be changed to appease the Jews. If it makes some Jews happy, and nobody else minds, then why not? It's not like they're forcing anyone to change place names. They're just bringing up things they think are issues, and trying to get them changed. They're not trying to force anyone to change them. So why not? Let's now turn to refuting your examples. Let's start with Carleton pond. This name was first officially used around 1920, which doesn't make it very historical. It's been knows as Carleton pond and spring pond as well for most of that time, anyway. Also, there was a town vote about it. It was changed to make the town happy, not just a group of angry Jews. Matajudios will also be put up to vote soon, so if it is changed it will be a decision of the town. If your still concerned about the historical value, it is thought the original name was not Castrillo Matajudios, but rather Castrillo Motajudios, Hill of the Jews. I have yet to hear word of complaints about the name of the financial centre of London, Old Jewry Road. In fact I would think many Jews would be flattered. | CON | 3ddb8de8-2019-04-18T16:17:44Z-00002-000 |
The Roblox Corporation are cash whores who take advantage of kids to make more money. Roblox is just one big scam to get kids to buy their useless items. Multiple studies have shown that kids and teens are unable to properly decision make because of their brains are not fully developed and are still growing. Roblox takes advantage of that of making useless catalog items that are purely aesthetic that cost over 3000$ for a game that is "free". One advertisement in particular is animated where a bunch of people are on Roblox and they are suddenly becoming cooler looking with gear and clothing wearing Roblox packages which are sets of clothing you buy for a bunch of robux which is the in game currency. Which costs a bunch of money. It's not just roblox at fault though. It's the toxic community of cyber bullies which encourages kids to persuade their guardians to buy them useless crap for a free game. There also used to be another in game currency that you got for FREE! Something that was actually free on roblox was tix. Tix was a currency on roblox you got for playing on games. You could use tix to buy clothing to put on your character or trade it for robux. They have since then gotten rid of tix. Though there were some good reasons why they got rid of tix but this just hurt roblox as a good game and ultimately caused it's toxic 10 year old player base. This also turned them into bigger money cows making money off of naive kids and parents. I am not saying that you shouldn't buy anything on roblox though. A lot of those developers deserve that money for so much coding that goes into roblox. I am saying that they don't need to have insanely pricey items that stupid people will buy. | PRO | 3b577c76-2019-04-18T11:23:27Z-00001-000 |
Windows Os is better than Mac Os. Though true, built in isn't always better. For some people, finding your own protection is the way to go because: 1) You don't have to pick a computer based on it's anti-virus software 2) When you pick a software, you also have the choice to remove it and/or replace it, wheras if the software come pre-installed, you might no be allowed to romove and/or replace it 3) If you get your own protection, the computer's price drops because the software is not included, making it more affordable Another windows advantage would be that you can put the OS on almost any computer, unlike apple. This allows DIYers to make their own computers, which can be chaper and more customisable allowing them to get the most out of thier computer. In conclution, I truly belive that Windows is better than Mac for many reasons apart from the few that i named in this debate. So, I gave my best and hope that you vote for me, along with the many other Windows preferers. Thank you for reading my side :) . | PRO | 6cf56bc9-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00001-000 |
Questions. 1. make one 5 into an 8. Since a 5 is like this, put a line connecting the tips of 5 together to form the number 8. Therefore 5x5x8 = 200 2. b ( I give up; I guessed this one) 3. e (the house was a circle not a sphere so it is 2D. So therefore there are no windows... I am sorry if I messed this one up) 4. Since there was a call from the police to come to the crime scene, and he went there... the police arrested him because his shadow was seen by the spotlight used by the police. (Hope I was right or I am creative :D) | CON | d962fcaf-2019-04-18T17:00:00Z-00002-000 |
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16. Yes, you are correct. I will not even try to deny that. Most teens these days, from what I see on a daily basis, are not yet mature enough enough to be able to drink at such an age. Yes you are correct, a lot of 16 year old teens drink on a daily basis. But most teens are still growing, and their bodies are still going through changes. Alcohol effects while the body is still growing can be dangerous. Most teens at that age are still growing. "Adolescence is a time of rapid physical development, and a lot of growing teens feel ambivalent about these changes. Facial hair, vocal changes and signs of sexual maturity can be both exciting and embarrassing. But teenagers may not realize that alcohol can interfere with this important process, causing delays in sexual development. Frequent drinking can also cause weight gain, which may put you at risk for developing high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes. Teenagers who keep drinking into adulthood have a higher risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver when they"re older. The liver is one of the most important organs in your body, helping you metabolize nutrients and rid your system of harmful toxins. Because your liver also metabolizes alcohol, excessive drinking can put a tremendous strain on this vital organ, eventually leading to illness and death." (newportacademy.com) At the age of 16, I believe it is not the time for a teen to be actively drinking legally. | CON | b20ff8e7-2019-04-18T15:16:57Z-00002-000 |
current united states foreign policy in the middle east undermines our national security. 1:1998 is not recent enough to be in this debate. It was two presidents ago and our policies have changed. 2:The problem is that these terrorist organizations are in the middle east. We are using drone strikes to get rid of these terrorists.(http://articles.cnn.com...)Osama bin laden himself even talks about drone strikes getting the job done. We are stopping major terrorism attacks. 3:We are stopping terrorism and giving help where help is needed. "The revolts embody American values and, at least in Tunisia and Egypt, have achieved significant political change through non-violent methods, striking a blow to radical ideologies that depend on violence."(http://www.nydailynews.com...) Our policies have changed since the 1998 incident so that is irrelevant and we are stopping terrorism and helping the mess of the arab spring. | CON | 9fbb147a-2019-04-18T18:02:55Z-00002-000 |
The "International Community" is a sick joke, as is all .gov. Not sure if you are speaking of .gov websites, or due to some failing in education do not know how to spell government. If it is an intentional abbreviation, the period should go on the end, not the beginning; meaning the failed education still stands.To say the international community is a sick joke, also suggests a lack of education. There have been less genocides thanks to their efforts, which is saying something grand considering how over exposed any today are thanks to freedom of information in the digital age, whereas before they were fairly easy to cover up; the Armenian Genocide which the Holocaust was modeled after is still openly denied [1]."anyone that tells you what to think, and how to live, it is incredibly obvious that all of our leaders are tyrants."Please don't snort bath salts, or if it's too late, cease snorting bath salts. There, by Max's logic I am a tyrant.The Nora D. Volkow, M.D. the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is also opposed to this harmful behavior, noting that bath salts have "been linked to an alarming number of ER visits across the country" [2].Snorting bath salts is related to complete breakdowns of sanity, tied to several cases of cannibalism [3].I await your case for why discouraging the snorting is bath salts, and raising awareness of the consequences of them, is in fact a sick joke.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com... | CON | 9593c3b3-2019-04-18T15:24:53Z-00002-000 |
Obese customers should pay more for flights. With the rising price of gas and the growing costs of airfare, some airlines are starting to opt in programs that charge fees for passengers who are visibly over a certain weight. The reason for this is simple: 1) Obese customers cost more to insure. Those who are obese are more prone to high-altitudes medical situations, thus airline insurance for such scenarios go up. Since they currently don't charge insurance based on individual fliers, it seems unfair to charge everyone for the lifestyle choices of a select few. This is greatly different from those who are medically unsound by nature, such as seniors, since except in VERY rare instances, being overweight is a choice people make. 2) Obese customers take up more room. The current trend in flight engineering is to maximize the seating space to have as many people sit comfortably as possible. When a customer is obviously taking up more than his or her chair space and has in fact occupied half of other people's, it seems logical to require them to purchase extra space. 3) Obese customers weigh more. A study concluded that the 10 pounds Americans gained on average during the 1990s required an additional 350 million gallons of fuel a year. With the rising price of gas, there's no question that people should pay their own fair share. It's already common practice that those who want to bring heavier luggage or extra luggage must pay extra, it would only be common sense to charge for weight as well. With oil at an outrageous price-per-gallon as it is, does it seem just that you have to pay more because someone else chooses to not exercise? Of course, I'm talking only about those who are overweight based on their choices to overeat or not exercise. There are only a handful of people in the world who are actually obese genetically (less than 1%), and they can apply with proper documentation from trained doctors to have the extra fees waived. In this modern day and age it's quite easy to find resources that help people lose weight, and until they do it's unfair that the rest of society should pay to support their unfortunate habits. | PRO | 7d8e5f55-2019-04-18T19:39:49Z-00005-000 |
disbelief=belief to the contrary. Good luck. So it seems that this is pretty obviously grounded in the notion that atheists don't merely lack belief but also believe that he does not exist as a result of not believing he exists. Not to sound condescending, but this is a common misconception that I used to share as well and I'm happy to clear it up as one who is currently atheistic. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. Nothing more, nothing less. If I choose not to believe something, this is not the same to say that I believe it didn't happen. There is a middle ground of simply not taking a side on the matter. Anti-theism is the term for those who believe that god DOES NOT exist. This is perhaps demonstrated best with the popular courtroom analogy, which I'll quote from another website that explains it very well: http://www.freethoughtdebater.org... "The accused"s innocence is assumed to be true, unless someone can actually prove otherwise. In other words, the accused"s innocence is the default position. As a result, it is absolutely not required for the accused to prove his innocence; he has only to show that, based on the prosecution"s case, there is no good reason to believe in his guilt; that the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution are either unreliable, or do not make his guilt any more likely than some alternative explanation. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Importantly, when a jury returns a finding of "not guilty" they are not saying that they believe the suspect is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have a truckload of doubt about his innocence. Their finding means only that reasonable doubt exists as to the suspect"s guilt. If there is such reasonable doubt and the burden is on the prosecution, then the jury is ethically and rationally required to acquit" You may believe that the defendant is innocent, but that's a separate matter. All the atheist says is that the evidence is not good. Thank you! | CON | 8d837b6-2019-04-18T12:56:30Z-00008-000 |
chicken or egg- i argue the egg came first. answer: the egg. science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be that all chickens in existence now can breed with one last anscester in existence. this would be next to impossible as a practical matter to determine, but in principle, there came one ancester of chickens that is able to breed with at least one chicken in existence now. the only other way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it. and this is not optimal given it's too precise for something we do not know how to be precise about. the above is best.... either they mate or they don't. we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he does take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn. in practice, scientists might take a nucleotide or piece of DNA less, but a point must be drawn. what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum or is able to breed. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match. the parents of that first chicken, would be chicken hybrids. because they are are able to breed with some chickens and the rest they breed with are not chickens. | PRO | efaad119-2019-04-18T15:53:45Z-00003-000 |
Write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. what happen. Resolved: Write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. What happen I negate the resolution write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. What happen Being CON, all I have to do in this argument is not write about a time where I've followed the crowd, and nothing will happen. So, once I use up all 500 characters I will hopefully have not shared about a time in my life where I followed the crowd. T | CON | 2b0a1da1-2019-04-18T19:19:17Z-00000-000 |
Rap Battle. Wow mane, you're a wanna-be. A dreamer. You'll get no further in life than a flea-ridden lemur. Your rapping is nonsence. It makes me sick. These are our last raps, then the viewers will pick the winner. The champion, who I know will be me. You can bang on the door of rap, but you don't have the key. My rhymes don't go on forever but I can put the right words together. I don't care who wins, but still know It'll be me. But i'll shake hands with you man, my rapping buddy. The curtains are near and it's the end of this round. I hope you choose not to get up off the ground. | PRO | cda6f832-2019-04-18T18:37:06Z-00001-000 |
Sport is not for women. Men compete . It is the way nature made us. Women nurture and that is how we are. Sport is a replacement for war, hunting and gathering. Its OK for women to enjoy sport as a spectator as that is how they can Identify the dominant male for breeding purposes. Its seems to be going against evolution to watch female "athletes" battering each other. | PRO | 5cf87748-2019-04-18T16:31:04Z-00004-000 |
Equal pay for women. The research you provided seems to be lacking the reason why she received a lower pay. Rather it sounds like it's defending my argument that women make less on all levels, whether that be as an employer or a business owner. Can you please provide the article link where you obtained this information? Although I appreciate your analogy, I would prefer if we could stay on track by focusing on the factual information. Women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20% below men's. Women make 80 cents to the dollar that a man makes. According to an article by Cornell University research, "When women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines - for the very same jobs that more men were doing before." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, men make more with jobs even when the female counterpart matches up with them with education, responsibility, and skill level. What piece of information would it take to prove to you that women do not receive equal pay? | PRO | c8d4c0a0-2019-04-18T12:16:05Z-00000-000 |
Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis. I believe that television does offer a window to violence, especially when they watch violent games. I have two grandkids ages 8-9, who used to watch some children's shows. I noticed that after they finish watching the show they run to their room and grab their toy guns, and start shooting at each other. In other occasions, they start hitting each other and fighting just like the show they just watched. I do firmly believe that some children's shows do more harm than good. I do not allow my grandkids to watch shows where bad words, fighting and violent scenes, or shows where a kid, teenager or juvenile disrespect others. Your children are the future, but all they are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. Yes, television does harm children, because they want to just like them. | PRO | 7bd1920c-2019-04-18T12:26:33Z-00001-000 |
Funny video debate. I apologize for missing the deadline on round four. I was so sick yesterday that I could barely even remember my own name, let alone the debate. But now I am better, and my name is Aleah. Since this is the last round, I want to say thank you to my opponent for joining in. I love your round five post. Sheldon Cooper is the best! http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | 1832a1b4-2019-04-18T17:44:55Z-00000-000 |
Batman vs albert Wesker. I'm sorry my opponent but your whole argument stated by my original rules which are the following 1. Both charterers don't know each other and have no prep time and no info on the enemy . 2. Basic weaponry and abilities no character has an upper hand here like batman having the serum to weaken Wesker . 3 . No running away both characters must fight until ones down . 4 . No because he's batman that's not an argument . A . Your argument where batman does reaserch on Wesker is against rule 1 which clearly states no prep time and no info in the enemy . B . U also broke rule 3 when u said batman wouldn't charge in he is clearly another wha of running anyway or retreating . So in total your arguments are not valied due to the fact there are against the rules of the debate . I must also state this unless Batman is able to take down a thank with his basic weaponry then he can't win due to the fact Wesker has been seen stuned and only stuned by RPG fire which is designed to take out a tank while Wesker has mo ability that not seen by a tank . By using the current information on Wesker I believe wekser is the evolution due to the fact he was born nature with gentic structure which makes him superior to humans in my own words he's th evolution of humanity only pushed on by the use of the proto G virus in his Body and as history has teached us evolution is always make things better . | PRO | e72976b8-2019-04-18T15:33:49Z-00005-000 |
THBT Debate.org should pay fifteen qualified judges to decide wins/losses instead of using votes. Hello all, There is nothing for me to rebut in this round as PRO has yet to post their closing argument, despite the 21 hours in addition to the 24 hours of my debating time that I have granted him/her to do so. I would like to reiterate the fact that PRO has failed to uphold his/her BOP. Take the example of the motion "This is a big red ball". As PRO, one is expected to justify all three points of contention: that the ball is red, the ball is big, and the ball is in fact a ball in the first place. If we apply that into the context of this debate, PRO will need to fulfil the following: a) why Debate. org needs qualified judges, which both sides have clashed upon, and b) why Debate. org needs to pay these judges, which I have raised substantives against but have been refused any discussion upon from PRO. Therefore, I have managed to refute at least one of the two BOP entries that PRO needs to justify, and have taken the debate. If PRO wishes to further the debate, he is more than welcome to do so in the comments section, and I ask all voters not to take forfeiture into consideration when voting should PRO choose to deliver his third round in the comments. | CON | b5a2ffc0-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00000-000 |
'God is everywhere'. "God Belief" emerged because one man alone believed that there is an afterlife. It is up to all other people to accept that theory. God belief, as you said, is everywhere. That does not support the theory that God is everywhere. Simply believing in something does not mean that is is real necessarily. And a God is not the only thing that can explain all curiosities. Science, however, is able to provide an explanation to a myriad of curiosities. I consider myself quite good at picking holes. And, it's not Batman. It's Bat(er)man | CON | 6d60f5be-2019-04-18T13:41:23Z-00006-000 |
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished. Cumwoo, I challenge you to a debate! (Friendly banter between personal friends) You will be debating that the death penalty should be done away with, and I will be debating that it shouldn't be done away with. Let's set some rules and definitions, shall we? Definitions Death Penalty - "the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes)" (1) Abolished - "To do away with; annul." (2) Rules No trolling, semantics, straw manning, lawyering, or actions that the average DDO user would deem inappropriate (with the exception of our banter) First Round is for acceptance. This simply means when you post your argument for the first round it will be along the lines of "I accept you debate" ect. ect. (1) http://definitions.uslegal.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... | CON | ae02ba06-2019-04-18T17:38:19Z-00005-000 |
Mankind would be better off with out a god. I am not denying that, I know many people feel that way. But why? The human condition is the human condition but how does a belief in god helps that condition. Yes people are judegemental by nature but the point is does a god idea help or hender. In a world we are all born with downfalls why are we teaching our children happiness comes from anywhere but whats around us. You are not adressing the example of the 3 boys for example. 3 boys who grow up in church act good because god gave them thr plan to. The other 3 are good becuase they just want to be. No need for a god or a religion. They just want to smile and see everyone else smiling. So if all of what you say is so true that you can ignore the question "why do we need god to be happy. " Then i ask this, Why am i so happy? I never believed in god but i judge myself and do many good and bad things just because i am human. I dont lie ateal or cheat not because god says not too but because wen someone lies to me i dont like it. | PRO | 9c08becc-2019-04-18T11:21:43Z-00001-000 |
The state must allow for parental judgement on head scarves for children. "France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious Freedom". Human Rights Watch. February 27th, 2004 - "Supporters of the law have also defended the ban on the grounds that it will protect Muslim girls from being forced or pressured to wear the headscarf by their parents. Under international law, states must respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the child’s exercise of their basic rights. | PRO | 22cc95cf-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00112-000 |
The history of the gay movement, sexual misconduct, and pedophilia are inseparable. "Sexual conduct is a societal norm" is not a subjective claim. It is born out by anyone who researches societies and cultures around the world. You yourself seemed to assign what you considered to be misconduct, in your very challenge. What is misconduct? An illegal act? Something you find offensive personally? It is ambiguous, to say the least. If you would like to provide what you are qualifying as misconduct, perhaps it would help. Most research such as the study by Groth and Birnbaum (1978) indicate a much higher rate of sexual molestation by heterosexual men and to a lesser extent, bi-sexual men. Their study found no homosexual child molesters. The Dr Carole Jenny study found only 1% of child abuse victims were abused by a homosexual. The Freund study had similar results. Any linkage of the gay movement to pedophilia comes from those who seek to deny homosexuals basic civil rights based upon their orientation or those too ignorant of the science of sexuality to know linking the two is, to put it politely, spurious, at best. As to your comment; "It is literally impossible to teach about the history of the gay movement without mentioning pedophiles and sexual predators because pedophiles and sexual predators have been instrumental in driving the gay movement", I can attest this is categorically untrue from my own personal experience tutoring Sociology in graduate school. I suggest most people would no reason to link them at all. In addition, I must ask, upon what statistics and facts do you base this assertion? I am aware of some studies that try to link pedophilia and the gay rights movement but also am aware many have been thoroughly refuted. Certainly, if I am mistaken, I look forward to you presenting research by reputable scholars to correct me. You have provided no such evidence. | CON | 8989be35-2019-04-18T14:15:33Z-00002-000 |
Best Oldies songs. Wow. I must give it to pro, that is one of my favorite songs. But I have a song also by Johnny Horton that I find a little better. Unfortunately, the song was recorded by Horton, but never published into an album. Of all the songs made by Horton (and I like almost all of them), this one is my favorite. This is Johnny Horton's Battle of Bull Run The sun shown bright and clear that day We all left Washington To lick the Rebel boys in grey At the Battle of Bull Run They came from Pennsylvania and some from Maryland To see the Rebel boys get spanked by Honest Abe's broad hand We said we'll run 'em to Atlanta and to Galveston Bay But they ran us back to Washington and Philadelphia And Philadelphia The ladies wore their brightest shawls The gentlemen were gay They came to see their Yankee boys whip old Virginia I held my momma's hand and skipped When a soldier said to me Would you rather have Jeff Davis' hat or the sword of Bobbie Lee We said we'll run 'em to Atlanta and to Galveston Bay But they ran us back to Washington and Philadelphia And Philadelphia And then the general doffed his hat and said let's rest a spell And for the first time we all heard that awful rebel yell The waters of Manassas creek became a ruby red And many a Reb and Yankee boy lay in the willows dead We said we'll run 'em to Atlanta and to Galveston Bay But they ran us back to Washington and Philadelphia And Philadelphia A fight locked in the chest of time too horrible to tell Virginny's true green countryside became a lake of hell Don't count your chicks before they're hatched Or you'll work until it's done Remember yes remember long the Battle of Bull Run We said we'll run 'em to Atlanta and to Galveston Bay But they ran us back to Washington and Philadelphia And Philadelphia http://www.youtube.com... | CON | 55c06732-2019-04-18T18:16:33Z-00002-000 |
The "who did you agree with after the debate?" in the 7-point system on DDO should be worth points. Forfeit by Pro so just a brief summarization:Pro claims that in selecting who you agree with after the debate establishes who you think is the decisive winner, while again one would contend that personal bias is a large factor, and that the "more convincing arguments" is necessary in awarding points and is what actually counts when deciding the winner. Who you're in agreement with is generally a matter of opinion and depends heavily on resolution topic, rather than the actual arguments. | CON | 1f3f2595-2019-04-18T15:28:51Z-00000-000 |
Voting on whether a PRO or CON forfeits is a poor RFD. In response to what you said: Thank you for agreeing with me but I disagree with people having to be distracted by everything. If something comes up, they have the right to make their personal life a priority. In response to what I think you mean: 1. People are often distracted either by major and minor personal events that are both unpredictable and time-consuming. For example, if a relative dies the day the debater is supposed to submit an argument, they have the right and justification to prioritize a funeral or family gathering over an online debate. Essentially, it is valuing real-world situations and consequences rather than debating someone you don't know about a topic that you may be passionate about but will have no further consequence of (nothing happens if you win or lose in the real world). 2. Extend my argument about how if side A is winning, but forfeits for a reason similar in nature to the example above, that they should still win the round because they presented clearer arguments. Essentially, if you are convinced by one side or another, and the debate abruptly ends, you are required to make a decision but you should not weigh or consider that the last person scheduled to argue failed to. Once again, if a person forfeits and they have lost both the round and their confidence in making a rebuttal, they should lose. I am arguing that just because a person is unable to respond within the time limit, they should still have the possibility of winning the round. Voting on whether a side forfeits is a poor RFD. | PRO | 5e0a3960-2019-04-18T20:00:42Z-00001-000 |
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8. Con spent more than 80% of his final post repeating things that we both agreed on in our first posts and which have never been contested in this debate. Mark did not write the final verses of his Gospel. Con stated that he would like to ask me a question, so I will answer it. Why did scholars add to the end of Mark"s gospel? The most likely explanation is that people wanted to expand how they were using Mark"s Gospel. Mark was original written for gentile Christians. (1) As Christianity grew and copies of Mark were spread around, people wanted to use Mark"s Gospel to educate others who knew little to nothing about Jesus. So an unknown scribe wrote a short summary of the endings of Luke and John and attached that summary to the end of Mark"s Gospel. While this epilogue had its function, we can still use Mark"s original ending as it applies to our lives today. The suggestion that Mark intended to write more but died before he could, while not impossible, relies on a giant coincidence. Why cling to this coincidence when we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Mark would purposefully end his Gospel at 16:8? The original ending of Mark is a cliffhanger, a call to action, and an encouragement to hope instead of being overcome by fear. Mark purposefully ended his Gospel at 16:8. Source: 1. http://www.theopedia.com... | PRO | ffd6f291-2019-04-18T15:12:51Z-00000-000 |
Tibetans opposed China's occupation since the invasion in 1949. After the invasion in 1949, organized protests first began in 1952 and led to an revolt in 1959 that was brutally suppressed by the Chinese government. It demonstrates that the Tibetans strongly opposed the occupation from the beginning; enough to be willing to fight and die for their independence. This indicates that the Chinese occupation was never seen as legitimate by Tibetans, that it violated an inherent sense of identity and sovereignty, and, as such, that Tibetans retain a strong right to self-determination and independence. | PRO | 5a3628e2-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00216-000 |
For Branded ADDERALL || MEDISUPPIES. COM. It is a medication used to treat Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy. It is a central nervous system stimulant made up of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. BUy Adderall online @ www. Medisuppies. Com made available Adderall medication worldwide within your means- This medication was developed in the 1980's and initially used for treating diet control and weight loss. It also fluctuates the brain chemistry and assistneurotransmittersdirect messages between nerve cells and the brain. Buy Adderall online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com and facilitate yourself by accelerating your ability to pay attention and also manages behaviour problems. It improves your listening skills and manages your tasks. . You can buy Adderall online @ www. Medisuppies. Com and be cured of any of the mentioned diseases. It does so by changing specific natural substances that are present in the brain. <<< >>">www. Medisuppies. Com>>> | PRO | 2a9557c1-2019-04-18T11:06:31Z-00001-000 |
Some government involvement in co-ops is justified. Government involvement is not toxic. Governments represent the interests of their citizens, in a republic where government is run "for, by, and of the people". To generally bash the government is to bash one's own representation through legitimate democratic processes. Unless one is opposed to the idea of the democratic process and representative republican governance altogether, a limited role for the government in co-ops should be seen as justifiable. | PRO | 4becd7cd-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00097-000 |
Money can buy everything. Thank you for explaining your reasons. This has been a educational debate for me, and my first one. I'm afraid I don't know the rules that well yet. Thank you for debating with me, and I must concede this debate to you, because, honestly, I agree with you. I certainly hope I can debate with you again. Thanks! | PRO | 856feb7a-2019-04-18T17:42:13Z-00000-000 |
Teaches us that morality isn't black and white. Many 'happy endings' in films leave me feeling sympathetic for the villain. I automatically look for their motive and find ways in which their actions aren't purely evil, and where the situation could have been resolved without killing them or completely wrecking their life's work. In films where 'the hero wins' and 'the villain loses', the morality is entirely bipolar, teaching children that some people are good and some people are evil and we shouldn't question this. This kind of thinking isn't what we need in a situation where it has already caused wars. In original versions of fairy tales, the morality is often quite complex, with main characters performing evil actions, the most unsympathetic people turning out not to be evil and nothing being as it seems. Fairy-tale magic isn't something 'good' or 'bad', its something untrustworthy, a bargain that you don't know the conditions of, with dire consequences if it isn't kept. | PRO | 6d9e359f-2019-04-19T12:46:09Z-00012-000 |
"I think" tells us nothing about the self other than it exists. I will gladly accept this challenge and jump into discussion as the Pro. Thinker: a person who theorizes deeply and seriously; Thought: an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind; " the thinker is the thought. We would like it to be different so that the thinker may explain the things to himself by means of the thought. " J. Krishnamurti This statement overrules Pro's argument regarding no thought of the thinker. If the thinker does not exist or his presence (passive in nature) is not present in the pattern of thought then thought ceases to exist. "We can only know something if it is an object of thought." That is not always the case. In events that require quick reactions (ie. touch a hot surface) your body reacts without thought (reflex). We did not know that the surface is hot since if we were to rationalize and think of it we will get burned before we are able to react. "Therefore, we can know nothing about the self." Since this statement is based on the one above and the one above i have disprove it, i will give you another example. In the event of absence of thought in which you characterize it by no awareness of one's self, an individual in a coma (a state of deep unconsciousness) will still have a thought pattern (brain still active) proof being some people waking up are able to recall their dream/s [1] "All we can know is that it exists." If thought exists without a sentient being to create that thought then none of this would exist. I will not go into detail into this but look at things such as Big Bang, Double slit experiment etc. [1] http://www.reddit.com... | CON | 7e96805d-2019-04-18T14:54:24Z-00002-000 |
Children should be disciplined with beatings. I'm going to go ahead and forfeit this debate. I figured I would want to debate this issue, but I really haven't been motivated to look up information on it. Perhaps, we can revisit this issue at a later date. Or, perhaps, we can meet in the forums, but this isn't a particular topic of heavy interest of mine, and would be doing a disservice to the debate community for not being thorough in addressing this subject I apologize to you and all others. | PRO | 677d02c5-2019-04-18T18:17:59Z-00002-000 |
Fortnite should be banned. Fortnight is a very violent game and i think it should be banned. It increases violent behaviour among youths and eventhough many people enjoy playing fortnight, It is very addicting and can have harmful effects on the player. Children who are easily addicted to this game are failing in their studies. It offers up a battle royale style of combat, Meaning that it's a free-for-all where players kill or get killed. The players especially children, (below 12) are exposed to a lot of strangers online. | PRO | 7753fa93-2019-04-18T11:17:44Z-00003-000 |
Jay-Z is the Best Rapper of All Time. I'd like to add, Eminem is more than a rapper. He writes his own songs, he is a producer AND actor. He starred in 8 miles, a successfull movie. Of course I don't discredit jay, but he will be forgotten in a few years. Eminem will stay longer. He is a good person too. Watch some interviews and you'll see that. He is 40 and he is still famous. And no train wreak. He undeniably has the greatest lyrics. His rap is far from forced and he is a humble man. He's also diffirent then other rappers, his songs aren't like: Drugs and alcohol I'm high now tit butts money mansions I'm high Drunk men I'm rich Ladies and tits (Rasist lyrics) women Crack and cocaine, girls I like big butts That girl has big boobs BLURRED LINES! he doesn't auto tune himself to the point where he sounds non human. | CON | 8eacdbb8-2019-04-18T15:36:24Z-00000-000 |
Yo mama joke contest. Yo mama so ugly she scared the SH!T out of the toilet! Yo mama so fat when she went to KFC and the cashier asked what sized bucket you want, she said "the one on the roof." Yo mama so stupid she sat at a stop sign for 3 hours waiting for it to say GO Yo mama so ugly when she tried to take a bath the water jumped out Yo mama so fat she has more chins than a Hong Kong phonebook | PRO | 4531f909-2019-04-18T15:23:22Z-00001-000 |
Alaska should become an independent nation. (Disclaimer: I have no definite, set-in-stone opinion on this topic, but, as an Alaskan resident, thought the idea was intriguing enough to debate.)First round is acceptance. I only ask that no personal attacks be made, and no argument is met with a reply of "that's stupid" or a similarly laconic, disparaging remark. I look forward to a lively debate. | PRO | f5bfd442-2019-04-18T16:34:42Z-00005-000 |
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class. i did not conceed you point , please look at my follow up to that. look there not asking you to do much they are asking you to write a quick crappy card once a year tops i bet you , i never said dont pout anything in them , its the fact that they are there showing the person you sympthasises with them. No offecne but you have the attitude of most children , "why should I ???" because its the right thing to do. also remember this school cant really force you to do these sort of things if you have a problem comforting a kid who jsut lost his mum , tell your parents to go to the school and it will quickly stop. | CON | e4d52452-2019-04-18T19:27:17Z-00000-000 |
It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils.[1] [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007 | PRO | da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00011-000 |
Slang is a symptom of decadence. Firstly, I would like to applaud my opponent for taking a rather well founded stance. However, I would also like to point out that my opponent has failed to realize the double-sided aspect of decadence. R34;Decadence is defined by the New Oxford American dictionary as moral or cultural decline. I will give this example [1]:In some tribes such as those shown in the exhibit, girls have to get their vaginal muscles painfully altered so as to increase pleasure in during sexual intercourse. Any sane person will agree that this is indeed wrong, but looking into it critically, one finds that it perfectly matches the definition of an aspect of culture. As such, if that practice is stopped, then decadence has taken place. In such a case, decadence has occurred in a positive and constructive fashion. Valued reader and fellow debater, allow me to use my opponent's devices against him/her. My opponent argued that use of slang carries with it a fragment of creativity and it gives a sense of belonging and I agree with every word of that. It seems my opponent learnt the truth of the saying " If you can't beat them, join them" because those sentiments are in my support. Slang is linguistic decadence which promotes creativity hence it is a form of decadence which is positive. As a reminder, I am only arguing that slang is a symptom of decadence without outlining whether it is positive or negative. As a result, for any form of slang-related decadence stated I can classify it as negative or positive but still maintaining the fact that it is decadence. In addition, I shall give a further outline of how slang has led to decadence. It would be myopic to look at slang-related decadence in the context of one country hence I shall look at it within the scope of the whole world. Slang is indeed a world wide phenomenon. [2] Further information to be given in the rounds to follow. [1] [Content removed by moderator] [2] http://sbinfocanada.about.com... | PRO | da8bff9b-2019-04-18T15:49:26Z-00002-000 |
President Obama is a citizen of the United States. Actually, I cited the urban legends section of About.com. But if that still isn't good enough for you, here are some other sources that confirm that President Obama was born in Hawaii:1. http://www.whitehouse.gov...2. http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org...3. http://www.cnn.com...4. http://www.barackobama.com...5. http://www.politifact.com...And I have put up an actual argument: "President Obama was born on United States soil and is therefore a United States citizen according to the Constituiton and the legal principle of jus soli." | PRO | b32f5646-2019-04-18T16:53:57Z-00001-000 |
For and against learning international news at school. Isn't the purpose of Education,to learn? Isn't reading International News learning? Isn't reading a fundamental part of the education of our children,which are the future of our country,and if we are going to raise illiterate,uninformed children,isn't that where our education system has failed. We need to improve our education system,and for me,learning international news keep's children informed,and literate,besides most news stories are written at a 6th grade level. Back in the 90's when i was growing up,we did papers on international news stories,and that made me a informed individual,who today reads the news every morning. This is a great thing,especially in a country,with pretty high illiteracy rates ,for a first world Nation | PRO | 9e61d460-2019-04-18T16:42:17Z-00002-000 |
SuburbiaSurvivor's Opponent Should Win This Debate. Con's Profile Picture Reflects On His Clearly Stellar PersonalityI may not know very many ladies, because I live in my mom's basement and I don't get out much. But I do know that ladies love a snappy dresser. Con's choice of profile picture clearly shows his desire to appear classy, and the microphone in front of his avatars head shows that he has a love for public speaking. I would go so far as to suggest that Con may go into politics one day and become a very influential senator! Con Is From London, And Should Win For His Accent AloneEnglish accents are probably the coolest, classiest, and mostest stellar accents in the world. (See video). The video has other accents, but still. English accents are boss. . http://www.youtube.com...Con Has An Overall Cheery DispositionAfter he accepted this debate, he put a smiley face! People who do not have cheery dispositions do not put smiley faces after they accept a debate. Con Is Open-Minded About Most Controversial IssuesCon's profile shows that he is undecided for all controversial issues. This is good because as someone who is open-minded, he will vote fairly. A lot of you have bee complaining about being votebombed. Well, don't worry about that coming from Con! Con is partial either way. He will only vote for the person he thinks is convincing. Con Should Win So He Will Stay On DDOCon's profile shows that he only has one finished debate. That debate was a tie. If Con does not start winning, it's very likely that he will leave the site! We do not want to discourage this clearly stellar, cheerful, english-accent speaking individual away from our comunity. If I Win You Will Encourage Bad BehaviorRight now there are other things I should be doing. Like schoolwork, chores, I could be looking for a job. But being on DDO is distracting me from that. You must choose Con to discourage me from my irresponsible bahviorConclusion: Con Should Win This Debate | PRO | 3fe4c264-2019-04-18T18:27:29Z-00003-000 |
Chuck Norris Facts. Seems this round has been forfeited. Not entirely sure of the protocol, but I'll continue with this round. If my opponent would like to post ten Chuck Norris jokes in the coming round, they may do so. 1) Chuck Norris can kill two birds with one stone. 2) Chuck Norris once went to Mars. Which is why there are no signs of life there. 3) Chuck Norris can speak Italian... In French 4) There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris. They changed it because no one crosses Chuck Norris and lives. 5) Chuck Norris has a grizzly bear carpet in his living room. The bear isn't dead, it's just afraid to move. | PRO | 51add881-2019-04-18T17:03:36Z-00003-000 |
Islam should be irradicated in the U.S. I disagree that Muslims and only Muslims want to kill people of other religions. According to the FBI, Christians and Jews are responsible for twice as many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil than Muslims. Does that mean we should eradicate Christians and Jews, also? They kill even more people of other religions than Muslims. I think you agree that the answer is no. Although the Quran does command Muslims to kill infidels, there are also parts of the Bible where the Israelites are commanded by God to kill people of other religions. Most Christians know that those commands aren't for them, and in the same way, most Muslims know that the Quran's violent commands don't apply to them. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and kind people who deserve to practice whatever religion they choose, just like you. | CON | 54aff0c4-2019-04-18T16:51:02Z-00000-000 |
School vouchers are unconstitutional because they go against the separation of church and state. Some people have claimed that because school vouchers can end up with government funding a child to go to a religious school, it is unconstitutional. I think that this argument is false. Note that I am opposed to school vouchers, but I use arguments other than the one above. I want someone who is against school vouchers for reasons including the one above to accept this debate and defend the point, and a debate will then follow. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck. | CON | d6912f49-2019-04-18T19:23:02Z-00007-000 |
Todays music videos are getting more inappropriate and the songs more obscene. Again simply put this is irrelevant. Pros argument relies on the fact that he thinks this is inappropriate or obscene behavior. I have shown how almost everything he mentioned is accepted commonly in this culture. Rap music especially has some of these traits. This has been happening for a while and is nothing new. Take Eminem he has always been open about taking care of his daughters and has countless songs with them in it. Ja rule took at shot at Haley during his song loose change "Em ya claim ya mother's a crackhead and Kim is a known slut, so what's Haley gon' be when she grows up?"[1] Essentially Pro is arguing this from his perspective and is assuming all of this is inappropriate. This is just common in the rap game and apologies often follow along with him. Chris brown even took a shot a Drake recently as well. Specifically in rap culture, this is common place so it would not be considered obscene. If we were debating this is in a different time, sure it may be considered inappropriate. We are debating about "today" though. Therefore extend all arguemtns from previous rounds as well. [1] http://www.azlyrics.com... | CON | 8b4b0adf-2019-04-18T17:08:48Z-00001-000 |
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea. In compliance with my Guidelines, I shall be utilizing this final statement to give you some main voters. The first voter will be morality. throughout the course of the debate, I have argued that we should not become warmongerers. Sending our soldiers to their deaths in what will likely be a large-scale war. My opponent has stated the opposite, referring to the war as "our greatest achievement. The second voter will be over attacks and rebuttals. Throughout the debate, I have refuted every point my opponent has offered while he has successfully refuted few if any of mine. North Korea is simply not threatening enough to risk war with real threats just to assert dominance over other nations. The most important thing to remember when giving the order to go to war is that the death toll isn't a statistic. it is representative of lives lost. Of families destroyed. It's simply not worth the devastation. | CON | 74577ce-2019-04-18T12:17:51Z-00000-000 |
Rap Battle. Yeah lets just be friends.. Till the end. Just send.. Me that friend request. I need a nap? Homie Im all hopped up on red bull My swagg meter on full Wait I'm a little tired. Of you rap Like I said utter crap! I'm sorry Im putting you down. But don't frown! Cuz this is how the rap game is played Your out dated. How you doin grandpa? HeHe! HaHa! I'm done. See if you can defeat me son | PRO | cda6f88f-2019-04-18T18:29:12Z-00001-000 |
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them. Thank you. -- Rebuttals -- 1. Children sneaking to gamble I said that parents can create accounts for their children. If they do that, not all children would try to make other accounts, especially if they achieve a lot in their pre-existing accounts that they do not want to give up. Furthermore, if a child is so keen toward gambling or playing games of luck and chance, then the Internet offers much bigger problems. A game like Neopets does not do such a thing. It may have a negative category, but if a child desires gambling then he will not hesitate to find a more useful website for that. Neopets is about much else. 2. Animal Fighting Letting the imagination of children grow is a very important thing. A parent can easily tell his kids that animals must never fight but that the game is just for fun, and they will understand. When they paint pictures of some sort of a magical fight, there is nothing negative about that. They grow and learn about different things and can perhaps minimize imaginations in a way that they still have them but are able to have more realistic ones that they can apply to their own lives. "Imagination is more important than knowledge..." - Albert Einstein 3. Communication My opponent argued that children might talk to perverts who wish to lure them. Dear readers, is it really reasonable? We need to look relatively at things. Surely luck and chance games might not be good; chatting with strangers might not be good; however, Neopets is just one game and site among millions of others. If we compare it to other sites, it is not bad at all. In fact, it can be a very good start for using the Internet. Learning how to deal with different content, not talk to all kind of people, avoid spreading personal information, all of this is good in helping a child with learning how to use the Internet properly. 4. Popularity As for games of luck and chance being most popular, perhaps it is because children feel ease with them. What is the problem? The Internet is enormous. They can go to Miniclip[1] and find another game if they want. Neopets, however, can teach them how to sort out the different content and stick to what fits with your own rules. Children may not want to play Stock Market, but it remains there. If the parents encourage their children to play this rather than games of luck and chance, then maybe they will start doing so. -- Closing comment -- So far, my opponent has not offered a strong argument against Neopets. He has yet to prove that the negative sides outweigh the positive ones. I thank him and look forward to the last debating round in our debate. -- References -- [1] http://www.miniclip.com... | CON | e38fde7-2019-04-18T19:02:02Z-00002-000 |
debate yourself. INRTODUCTION"of course, there are various definitions of 'racist'. but given pro initiated this debate, and he hasn't defined it, more BOP should be given to him." Obviously she means con, when she says pro. To start with, I didn't initiate this debate. So no, that is not a reason for me to have BOP. Also me not defining racism in order to make my opponent's position easier isn't a good reason for me to have BOP either. She's been in enough debates to know better. Because of how the resolution is worded a split BOP is fair to assume. HEALTH EFFECTSThere has been numerous studies done to show the negative health effects of racism. Apparently the emotional, and psychological stresses of being discriminated against or just perceiving racism is enough to increase your chance of heart attack and many other stress related diseases. https://www.apa.org...http://blackdoctor.org... MISSING WHITE WOMAN SYNDROMEHow come when you watch Nancy Grace or other news shows you'll see missing white women, who are beautiful and upper middle class? Do black women ever go missing? There's been people who've looked into this question. Apparently from time to time, black women actually do go missing. La Toyia Figueroa disappeared just 3 years after the famous Laci Peterson and Natallee Holloway disappearances, but received almost no attention. http://transcripts.cnn.com... Believe it or not La Toyia isn't the only non white woman to disappear. Even though you wouldn't know that from watching Nancy Grace. In 2002 a 9 months pregnant Evelyn Hernandez went missing. http://www.sfgate.com...Seriously think back to anytime you've ever seen a missing black woman on T.V. that was as big of a story as Elizabeth Smart or any of these other cases I've mentioned. It's not just your experience that tells us of this racial bias in how the media covers missing people. A study using 5 national news stations between 2005-2007 has also verified the massive under representation of missing minorities in news coverage.http://www.academia.edu...The results of this type of racism are obvious. The chances of safely recovering a missing black person in danger is significantly reduced by the lack of media coverage. Racism means that minorities are more likely to permanently go missing.SELF ESTEEM Racism has a negative affect on people's self esteem. People treat you or view you as inferior or bad and eventually you will start believing it.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Low self esteem can have far reaching effects on your life. People with low self esteem are more likely to tolerate mistreatment or to mistreat others. A person with low self esteem is more likely to get in trouble with the law, be promiscuous or do drugs.http://psychcentral.com...CONCLUSIONI've clearly shown many negative consequences of racism, and my opponent has really shown no benefits. I'll get into rebuttals next round and many thanks to my opponent for showing heart and participating in this debate, despite the tough position. | CON | b3057281-2019-04-18T16:01:16Z-00003-000 |
Protecting Tibetan culture by opposing modernization is wrongheaded. "The problem with Tibet". The Guardian. March 6th, 2008 - "there is the desire to save Tibet from anything that looks or smells modern: from Chinese jobs, industry, railways. Apparently such things are a threat to Tibetans' "way of life", which is honourably simple, rustic and rural. This paternalistic defence of "natural" and childlike Tibet from rampant, industrious China is perfectly captured in a Free Tibet poster." | PRO | 5a3628e2-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00259-000 |
Religion delays societal development. I believe you mean the remaining 23%. No, I don't think that a small percentage of people who believe in creationism could "harm" society, it also doesn't take away from the fact that 23% of church-goers are living in the past. Besides that fact, I believe that survey is incorrect as I doubt all Americans were contacted for this survey let alone church-goers. Not all Catholic Americans go to church. I also have to point out this argument doesn't specifically pertain to American society. I also find I am repeating myself. I am fully aware that there were, and still are religious individuals who have contributed to modern society, and I even named a few. Yes, people can be religious and still benefit the advancement of society. However in the moment they are conceiving an idea that will do so, they are not thinking about a creator. It's the same case vice versa, when an individual contemplates an all-powerful being, they are not processing ideas that will further said advancement. Therefore, when that individual is thinking about God, that individual is at a standstill. | CON | 93d9b633-2019-04-18T18:15:42Z-00002-000 |
Restrictions benefit the health of third parties. First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. improve this | CON | 292b475e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00007-000 |