argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Superman vs. Batman. That's a ludicrous statement to make. Batman has no weakness? Batman has thousand of weakness compared to Superman's three vulnerabilities. Batman has a weakness to age, aids, cancer, the measles for gods sake. Internal bleeding from a gun, too much heat, not enough heat, et cetera. Bruce Wayne is merely human and has thousands upon thousands of weaknesses. Superman could easily use any disease or weakness humans have, which of course are many, amongst Batmna only having a radiated element to his whim. On that note, it is described in countless is DC comics of how superman can absorb so much solar radiation that kryptonite wouldn't have the undesired effects that it once might've had. | PRO | 1dbbe3ed-2019-04-18T17:42:16Z-00003-000 |
Racism: Alive and Doing Well. So, I'm arguing that racism is not alive and doing well. Like I said before, only organic beings are alive and racism cannot be doing well as it has no feelings. Con's statement in R1 is incorrect. Some of us don't accept racism and think it's wrong and it doesn't go at the expense of society. http://www.youtube.com... Look at that black guy yelling at the world. He's not an expendable to society and hates the world. He does not accept society and he is black. | PRO | 2ef950c4-2019-04-18T16:33:51Z-00001-000 |
America went to the moon. Radiation beltsIf you go back and read the article I sited, the astronauts spent an hour and a half in this radiation belt. This proves my point, I have evidence to back up my statements, she has nothing. If you still don't believe me though, let's take a look at what NASA itself has to say about the Van Allen radiation belt. Nasa admits it could not go through the radiation beltNASA itself has admitted that it could not send a human being through the radiation belt without this human being fried or incapacitated. This simply proves everything that I have stated in this round. We have professionals and even NASA backing my argument while my opponent still has no one ;Rocks were fakeOnce again, my opponent counters articles with opinions. "One who asserts must prove. " My opponent has asserted much this debate round but hasn't proven it. She still hasn't shown where all the moon rocks are, and the moon that we do know where they are, are fake. She talked about getting a fusion crust, but all a scientist would have to do is determine what makes up a moon rock. There are four main ingredients (plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine,and ilmenite) which were not found in the rocks brought back. . http://meteorites.wustl.edu...;Silence is concessionFinally, in a debate round, silence is concession. My opponent has failed to talk about the anti gravity scenario whch she brought up and I refuted in round 1. She has still failed to bring up sources and talk about where the moon rocks even are. Finally, she did not even address the flag flowing in the non-existent breeze. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, if she fails to prove any of these points by the end of the debate, the Con wins the round. | CON | a406b769-2019-04-18T12:59:13Z-00002-000 |
Should fracking be legal. In the last round, pro has left many of my arguments against fracking unanswered. In this round, I will rebuttal the arguments that he has made in the last round.1. "Methane gas in the water is natural."Of course it is. That is the whole reason we are drilling. We want to get to the methane gas in the water to use it as a natural energy source.2. "or let the methane naturally bubble out."I hope that pro is not saying just allow the methane gas to bubble out into my home. Methane gas is an aspyxiant. At higher concentrations, methane gas can cause high pulse, lack of muscular coordination, emotional upset, vomiting, and respiratory collapse.Methane gas is also highly combustible. When methane gas is mixed in the air, even the smallest spark can cause an explosion. There are numerous cases where this has happened because of methane drilling."Health Effects of Methane". Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. December 11, 2006http://mining.about.com...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...3. "methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers...."I fully disagree with pro on this statement. A very recent study by Duke University has linked fracking to methane gas found in water wells, and the public's drinking water. Because of the drilling, the methane gas leaks into the ground water, and hence into public drinking water.http://www.ewg.org...4. "the water is neccary otherwise they would get much less methane."Pro has clearly stated a large amount of water is needed to get the methane. As I stated earlier, this amount of water needed is becoming a problem in drought areas of the country. | CON | 146f95c0-2019-04-18T17:16:55Z-00004-000 |
Co- Ed Professional Teams. Like I said before, I don't mean to be sexist. But there are lots of disadvantages out on the field...... Some teams have a hard time finding the required number of players from the opposite sex to be on the field and end up loosing the game by default because of that. When Co-ed teams don"t have enough players of a specific sex to rotate from, the few players available are obliged to play a lot and are sometimes very tired by the end of the game and the team in question suffers from that. Most men who are usually faster and stronger than women can be frustrated to slow down when they face women and end up not enjoying and expressing themselves fully. Some women can be frustrated for not being taken seriously during the game by some men who are afraid to hurt them or overpower them. The fact that Co-ed players try to be gentle to each other can affect the game in a negative way and some players might end up not enjoying the game as they would love to. Injuries that occur between weaker and stronger players from opposite sex can be dangerous. The potential attraction from players of opposite sex can sometimes create conflicts and jealousy from other players that can affect the game negatively So, we also already have different teams. Why can't we just stick with that? | CON | 8366a341-2019-04-18T17:58:24Z-00002-000 |
It is empirically proven that you cannot flim flam the zim zam, nor can you simmer the zimmer. "I would also like to point out that Zimmerman is not Mexican. He is a WHITE HISPANIC."Oh come on, 'White hispanic' is just the ugly lesbian version of the word 'Mexican' that hipsters use.... Its all the same crap" I don't see how living in Florida could be defined as a fraudulent scheme or action. "Well then clearly you have never been unfortunate enough to live in or spend time in the state of Florida, the only state in the union where people try to rob banks with a cellphone taped to the end of a pen!https://twitter.com..."He would not be deported just for looking Mexican"Then youve clearly never been to Arizona, where that happens all the time"Would someone who hates him say that she "wants to be with him"? And that "Hes my boyfriend"?"YEAH THEY WOULD, WOMEN ARE CRAZY. "What? Zimmerman's face is very distinguishable."He looks like every hispanic lady working in a DMV and you know it......"His current residence is in Florida, he is most likely scouring Texas looking for more black people to kill."LOL! Wait a minute, did you just yourself flim flam the zim zam? I rest my case"Every women who has not had a sex change wants to be a women has made up their mind to remain a women. "All women know one person they have a slight lesbian crush on and would like to kiss for extended periods of time, your argument is invalid.You can clearly simmer Mr Zimmerman as I have shown. After all...... nobody is safe from the wrath of....THE INTERNET!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..!..!!. | CON | e61a2fb3-2019-04-18T16:45:57Z-00000-000 |
Who would win Superman(pro) or Molecule man (Con). Starting off this debate I believe that if you don't already know molecule man I should explain him a little. Molecule man was originally a scientist until one of his experiments went awry and he opened a rift from this world to another releasing energy no other person or thing had obtained. He then absorbed a substantial amount of this energy granting him the ability to control all molecules in the universe. As explained by doctor doom he is on the same level as the Living Tribunals (omnipotent creatures that used a fraction of their full abilities to create the marvel universe). Now you know some of his backstory now it's time for his powers: 1) he literally has "power over the very building blocks of existence. " More on Marvel. com: . http://marvel.com... 2) he can create shields around him instantaneously. 3) all his power comes from his own thoughts. 4) he made a shield around his mind to protect him from mental control side note: he can take control over anybody that touches his "wand" 5) he can turn into a wand and re-animate himself 6) while in wand state he takes control over whomever is touching it 7) his powers work at the speed of his mind which is almost as fast as a planck second ("10-43 seconds. "-www. physlink. com/education/askexperts/ae281. cfm) 8) create projectiles 9) create anything out of anything 10) change any material into something else in essence MM could turn Supes into a toaster, use him to make his breakfast, then turn him into a plate so that he could eat breakfast, than could literally turn him into a mop and mop the floor with him just as easy as you or I could eat breakfast. he could also turn the very ground into kypronite but if we're excluding kryptonite Superman is also weak to magic and MM's power is cosmic magic granted to him by the Living Tribunal which made him a "multiverse composite entity" as stated by Doctor Doom, Reed Richards and himself almost destroying the multiverse. being a multi universal threat he is in a totally different league than superman and would easily crush him in seconds. | CON | 361aa082-2019-04-18T12:49:37Z-00001-000 |
Should Middle And High School Student Be Allowed To Eat In Class. I think that student should be able to eat in class because you could go straight to learning right after lunch isn't that far away from whatever class you trying to go to. Usually, the cafeteria is on the bottom floor, some of your classes could be on the highest floor in the building. What I'm trying to say here is that eating your classroom it is more likely to be closer to whatever class you have next rather than the bottom floor. It makes easier to go to your next class rather than up. | PRO | d88c43c2-2019-04-18T11:29:51Z-00001-000 |
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes. | CON | cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00002-000 |
Chocolate/dark chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream. Chocolate is healthier than vanilla. Flavanols, a key ingredient, boost blood flow to key areas of the brain for two to three hours. It is proven that chocolate ice cream has anti-oxidants as well. Keep in mind chocolate causes endorphins to be released; this makes you feel better. Chocolate also relieves stress, proven as a fact and by women around the world having major PMS issues. Everyone complains when on a diet that they can't have chocolate because its irritable, never do you hear about vanilla when in ice cream and many other forms has the same amount of calories. Proven again it's more desired, wanted and tasty than vanilla. | PRO | e71d5c3c-2019-04-18T11:48:36Z-00000-000 |
In human reproduction, vaginal birth is superior to anal birth. Well, for this round I will do what my opponent does so we can have a somewhat close debate.Anal birth is far superior because:1) It hurts less (For all you guys, you have a big deuce once in a while. Now imagine that coming out the FRONT, except BIGGER, and SQUIRMING, and CRYING.For all you girls who haven't experienced it yet, its the same thing, except out your muffin)2) It doesn't mess up the goodie box. (People go more for the front than the back)3) Its new, unique, and a good way to start conversations. I mean, "I found a cute scarf at the Gap" is boring. How about "my baby came out my bum!" that sounds WAY cooler! 4) You get to freak out your kids in 20 years.Mom: Honey, I need to tell you something.Son: What mom?Mom:...... You came out my bum.Son: I KNEW IT!!!!!!!5) Show's that women are badass (literally)ANAL BIRTH FOR THE WIN! | CON | 4cc72fab-2019-04-18T18:20:33Z-00002-000 |
Premarital Sex. First, I will say with experience. Lack of intercourse with your partner can lead to detrimental results. What would happen when you finally get into bed with your spouse....and things just do not work so well? Did you know you can get an annulment due to impotency? Yup. If the male can not get it up, and you can actually get down.....that is grounds for an annulment. http://www.divorcenet.com... Also, what if your partner is just horrible in bed? Wouldn't you like to actually know everything about them before marriage? Dedicating your life to one peron is tough. Espeicially when you cannot test the water before hand. Also. Leave religion out of this. Religion will simply muddy the waters. If you'd like a discussion on religion later, we can do so. | PRO | 347e2811-2019-04-18T14:00:45Z-00004-000 |
Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism. Sources need only be cited if requested by the other side. That being said, minimal citations are appreciated. Sources shall not count against either debaters, so please, voters leave it as a tie. Both debaters will have burden of proof to show that their system is superior. Opening statement: I will be arguing that Socialism is a superior economic system to Capitalism. | PRO | 2e023a3e-2019-04-18T15:55:51Z-00009-000 |
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist. IntroductionAgnosticism holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. I argue, that this presupposes that God does not exist. ArgumentIf God exists then he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can do anything logically or metaphysically possible. Proving himself by making himself known to people is logically and metaphysically possible. Therefore, if God exists, it follows logically from omnipotence that he can make known his existence. However, if he is able to make known his existence, then this existence is knowable. If his existence is knowable, then this is incompatible with Agnosticism. Therefore, the Agnostic position could only be true if God does not exist. This means, that Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist.ConclusionThe resolution has been affirmed. | PRO | 7e91833e-2019-04-18T17:27:03Z-00005-000 |
God as a Biblical Figure is Evil. This is my first debate, so here it goes. To start off, we both must argue from the Christian viewpoint. It is important to distinguish the attitude of God between the old and new testament. In the old testament, everyone was under "the law" The law was a particular set of impossible rules that was meant to show the Jews' need of God. It is impossible to follow to the letter. The first instance you bring up is the time of Noah. Genesis 6:5-6 says "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." The people on the earth at this point were not good. There were terrible people. God is a loving, merciful God. He is also just. Evil can only reign for so long. Imaging how grieved God was when he saw his creation utterly evil and against their intended purpose. He decreed that the only way was to wipe the Earth clean. Why didn't he snap his fingers and make everyone good again? God does not forcefully convert people. Second, you say he enforced horrible laws. For future reference, I would like you to cite sources from the Bible if you will. To clarify, God did not send Jesus to fix the world, but to offer salvation. Yes, sin still reigned and reigns as God is sovereign. If God stopped one type of sin, who would decide which ones he would and would not stop? Notice the difference between civil and moral laws as well. It was a civil law that stoning adulterers was required. The Bible is as much of a history book as well as a moral compass. Just because something happens does not mean God enforces it. This is known as moral vs royal decree. You third point is based on the fact that you believe God sentenced man. God gave man everything he could want. Man did not worry about what to eat, what to wear, or where to live. Man lived in perfect harmony with the world and with God. That is until Adam and Eve wanted to be equal to God. Their pride caused their downfall. God is loving. he provides redemption for all who would ask. Romans 6:23 says " For the wages of sin is death." God is also a just God. Sin cannot and will not go unpunished. There must be death to atone for sin. That can either be your death or that of Jesus's sacrifice so that we are released from the bonds of sin. | CON | 7614482f-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00004-000 |
Left 4 Dead 2 is an accurate depiction on how the average person would act in a zombie apocalypse. Thank you for accepting. First I want to say Left 4 Dead 2 is one of my favorite games, so I am in no way looking to bash it, however, I find it unlikely for four people who decide to stick together would act the way they do. For starters, I believe at least one of them wouldn't be so brave. I think there would be one person who expresses fear, and it is obvious for them to over come it. I do know it is possible that 4 brave people can happen to be left behind, but I find all that bravery to be unlikely. Another thing I find unlikely is that all of them would agree on almost every little thing. They act like everything someone mentions is a great idea. Again, it is likely that a group of brave, smart people who think alike to be left behind, but it seems unlikely. | CON | c469fd57-2019-04-18T16:35:30Z-00001-000 |
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find a definition that says specifically if a moral pertains to only how you affect other people or if it can reflect how you treat yourself. So fail for con XD(stupid newb) But- I do have some counterarguments! (yay con!) My opponent states: "Second, by suggesting that a person has the ability to assign a certain action or situation without some sort of moral thought behind it would mean that the person has absolutely no opinion on the issue or has no opinion on anything related to that issue, or has the capability to condition themselves in such a manner to not feel a certain way on an issue, which is downright impossible." I disagree. Not all situations and actions are necessarily moral issues, and you do not have to decide if something is moral or immoral to have an opinion. Someone tapping me on the shoulder might annoy me (an opinion) but that doesn't mean I think it is a moral or immoral thing to do and so it is then not a moral issue. My opponent states that we ARE in fact debating about probabilities. I disagree, there is always a possibility that one action could have happened without another if done by the same person (this is not a possibility if an action is a reaction to an action by another person). For example, Harold flirting with Jane might have happened whether or not he was drunk(which he was in this situation) and we shall never know. Therefore we cannot absolutely surely attribute this action as a direct consequence of Harold's drinking. Also, I stand by what I said before: Not everything you do affects what you will do. For instance: My eating a banana this morning does not directly or indirectly impact my decision to go to London for college. No worries about delays I'm just happy to debate with you worthy opponent! ^_^ | CON | bf45ae0c-2019-04-18T18:59:23Z-00003-000 |
Black And White Should Not Be Used To Classify Humans. Hello! To begin with, black and white aren't the only colours of the people's skin. What about those who have slightly dark skin? Can we call them "black"? No. Or maybe "white"? No, too. So, the classification "black and white" doesn't work here logically. Secondly, it can be offensive. What if people with dark skin don't like black colour or, on the contrary,people with fair skin don't like white? And if you ,despite this, begin classifying them as "black" and "white", it can be considered as aggression towards people's rights and your disrespect towards their opinions and individuality. Consequently, it can lead to the conflicts, which cause discord in a society and even a war. Lastly, such classification is inconvenient and impractical to use. With such large number of people on the Earth, it would be silly to divide them only in two categories: black and white. Moreover, we have already had a good classification by nationality, a language root,etc. Thus, it's pointless to apply a new classification here. | PRO | 250557ad-2019-04-18T12:44:52Z-00000-000 |
I dared you to this debate over twitter. Depends on the format. Check mtgtop8 for decklists. Modern Burn Staples: Goblin Guide Eidolon of the Great Revel Grim Lavamancer Monastery Swiftspear Lightning Bolt Lava Spike Rift Bolt Boros Charm Searing Blaze Skullcrack Lightning Helix Legacy Burn Staples: Take out a few things from Modern Burn and add: Chain Lightning Fireblast Price of Progress Sideboard varies from deck to deck. You want artifact hate (Destructive Revelry, Smash to Smithereens, etc.), lifegain hate (More Skullcracks, Atarka's Command, etc.), maybe some graveyard interaction since Dredge is really popular right now (Grafdigger's Cage, etc.), things like that. | CON | ab82e37e-2019-04-18T12:40:42Z-00002-000 |
competition leads to the death of relationships. I will begin my first argument with some assumptions. First, although you have chosen the Con side, I believe you will be arguing "pro" based on your first post, and as such I will be arguing Con. Second, due to the wording of the title, I believe that you will be arguing that ALL kinds of competition necessarily lead to the death of ALL relationships; I will be debating that this is not necessarily true. I submit that if I can show any instances in which any kind of competition has not destroyed relationships, then I will have won this debate. Now to begin, the sole piece of evidence you used to support your argument was world war I, and specifically, how competition was a factor of the conflict. However, I believe this is a mistake. Even if competition was the sole cause of the war, this one instance doesn't define the whole of human relationships. I believe that there is more than one kind of competition; some destroy relationships, some don't. First, there is the competition for life and death. In this kind of competition, any relationship (if one ever existed) could be expected to take a hit. Second, there is competition for dominance, where pride is on the line. In these instances, relationships, if extant, could be damaged. However, there is also competition for fun, where, in the interest of having fun, some people will choose to put their pride aside and and compete with each other for fun. Sure, there are still hurt feelings sometimes, but these kinds of competitions have the ability to bring people together, to create friendships, and produce good, wholesome feelings. I can attest to this, as I love this kind of competition, and I have made friends this way. If this weren't true, why would friends gather together to play video/board games together? If your assertion was true, they would ALL become enemies, and would no longer compete together, but I think we see the opposite. Note: This is not to say that there aren't relationships that haven't been hurt because of competitive activities, but I would argue that even then, pride is probably the culprit. | PRO | 6fd03b14-2019-04-18T11:23:32Z-00000-000 |
Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous. Scaremongering is not the best way to create policy. Clearly leaving large numbers of unemployed young people could be dangerous but so could large numbers of unemployed of any age. Every government wants more economic growth and to solve unemployment but they should be focusing on how to bring the economy as a whole back to growth rather than specifically on youth unemployment. When this happens unemployment will begin to fall. Artificially focusing on reducing youth unemployment will simply prevent broader action to regain competitiveness. It should be remembered from communist states that it is possible for government action to create full employment while destroying the foundations of the economy. | CON | 419ce672-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00014-000 |
Abortion. Unfortunately, all of what you say is entirely misleading and untrue. You are only looking at the negatives of abortion and ignoring all of the positives. Moreover, some of your conclusions, e.g. abortions lead to divorce, are based on faulty logic. Just because people who have abortions get divorced more does NOT mean that abortions lead to divorce, it simply means that people with kids tend to stay in broken marriages for the sake of the kid. HOWEVER, NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY IS RELEVANT BECAUSE ABORTION COMES DOWN TO A BASIC PRINCIPAL. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. | PRO | b187629f-2019-04-18T12:35:14Z-00003-000 |
The Amero is good idea. Thank you for making this debate. The IDEA of the Amero is good. I like the idea of it and think it should be put in place. The NAME Amero though is not okay. 1. Why would you use the word "Amero". Are we copying EU? They got "euro" from "european". We should follow suit then and make the "Ameri" or something else. 2. North America shouldn't copy other countries, we should be original. 3. There are plenty of cooler names out there than "Amero". There are also ones that would fit better. Good luck PRO. | CON | 4b589745-2019-04-18T19:33:33Z-00005-000 |
Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the best selling cars in 2014. I accept, and being Con, I will attempt to prove that the Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus are not the best selling cars of 2014. For Pro to win, he must prove that both of these vehicles tie for the best selling cars in the world. First, I would like to address Pro's first source. If one would do the honor of clicking the link and spending less than 30 seconds on the site, you will find that the best selling car is not a tie, but in fact only the Corolla. Even neglecting this, the second best selling car is not the Ford Focus; the Hyundai Elantra is next on this list. Pro's first source literally disproves his claim, and undermines his argument. I would like to argue that only the Corolla is the best selling car. In my opponents first round, he states that both have 1.2 million sales, implying that they are at a tie for best-selling worldwide. All I have to do is prove that one of them has sold more, or that there is another car that is in the top two, I guess. So far, my argument rests in looking at Pro's source and looking at the top two cars in the list [1]. If I need further arguments, I will post them in a future round. Sources: [1] - http://www.forbes.com... | CON | 7e683621-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00004-000 |
Abortion is completely moral. I am not here to prove whether or not abortion should be legal or not, as said by the title, I am here to prove that abortion is not a moral act. I will start by stating what it means to say that abortion is a completely moral act. First, it means that you believe that the human fetus has no value or rights, after all, it is considered completely moral to end its life.It means that you would agree that it is morally correct that the mother and father of a baby, or fetus, get to choose its worth. If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live, so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being. Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense? And lets agree on something, there are circumstances in which having an abortion is definitely immoral. If I were to believe that abortion is completely and always moral, then I would agree that it is okay to have an abortion if I wanted a boy and found out that the baby was a girl. Would this be moral? Of course not. | CON | 67ac115c-2019-04-18T12:56:12Z-00002-000 |
Abortion. But saying that by aborting the fetus you are depriving it of the future of life is like saying , that for example we have a woman in a car, at the junction she is lost so she just picks a direction if she turns right she gets lost, then asks a man for instructions yada yada yada, marries him and has a child is that murder.... No because she did not know the outcome but she can see the man and would like to ask him for directions and his number, but she thinks... I don't really want to date so I will go the other way, she knows that by not dating that she won't have a child so but.. You may say hang on a minute relationships don't always work so she might have ended up alone anyway, well pregnancies don't always work either. Oh and I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner, I was away for 3 days and I did not have Internet | PRO | b18623c8-2019-04-18T15:04:30Z-00001-000 |
Existence of God. Let's begin, shall we? I will simply answer each of my opponents arguments an deal with them as such. O Burden of Proof This I fear makes no sense from a critical standpoint. One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion. I have, as I've outlined previously, made none. All the opponent has suggested was a weak claim that is tantamount to "it looks created, and everything has a creator right?" which is not substantiated nor evidenced. Because of this, I can and do reject it and with it reject the attempt at shifting the said burden. Now onto: Experiencing God: 1.I experienced God. 2.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction 3.Other people experienced God http://www.csmonitor.com...... 4.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction Conclusion: God exists> I'd like for you to substantiate 1 and 3. How does one know they've experienced god? How do they know it wasn't something else? A momentary episode or a hallucination? In fact, how could one verify such claims? If it can't be, why should anyone accept it? Examples of such a being (or beings)? <2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. 3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. 4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. 5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. 6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Conclusion: Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. http://plato.stanford.edu...; It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself? -- my favorite! <1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause> Any example of things that have begun to exist, given the contention with the "beginnings" we have evidence for are not "beginnings" in the strict sense but are "changes"? <2. The universe more likely than not began to exist> Unsubstantiated and hence rejected. God more likely than not exists> With the contentions with each points above, the conclusion is deemed (you guessed it) unsubstantiated. All arguments are based on probability, otherwise we all would be theists.> All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here? Having said all that, perhaps my opponent has several insights or clarifications of each points I've had contentions with which may be more than insightful! | CON | fa052a6b-2019-04-18T18:58:32Z-00004-000 |
isn't time the world order got restarted?. I guess everyone is fed up with this capitalism and socialism. isn't there an alternative to them. because i believe to an extent the root cause of all major world crisis may it be financial or economical or political are based on them.if they were absent the world would have been a better place. it's time we thought something alternative to them. The developing counties are forced to take sides with either USA(capitalist)or Russia(socialist). it is indeed time for a change. a world of onlygood | PRO | 7d452727-2019-04-18T14:31:31Z-00004-000 |
KthulhuHimself's Argument is valid. Before presenting my argument as a whole, I'd like to clarify a few things about my proof, to prevent misinterpretations. The simplified version goes as follows: 1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective. 2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory). 3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i. e. cannot be the "highest" being. 4) God is defined as the highest being. 5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined. 6) God cannot be objective. 7) God cannot actually exist. But this can cause a lot of confusion as the proof here is worded in such a way that a few terms used in it are intrinsically ambiguous, as they connect to terms used in other contexts. A better written version of the proof can be worded as follows: 1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i. e. independent on human (or otherwise) perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level. 2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined; because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it. 3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning. 4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator. 5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being. 6) By these necessary standards, i. e. those presented in 1)-4), God is ill-defined. 7) God cannot exist objectively. 8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological. Of course, you could claim that your God is limited; and in that case, this proof has nothing to do with your God. | PRO | 93bcd522-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00003-000 |
highschool dropouts can succeed as much as graduates. yes easily to become a doctor lawyer and etc..because most people don't used the knowledge which they should but using though using their talents such as rapping which the known group today the soja boy which they posted their songs on myspace for fun and later became millionaires or celebrities that have sibling which they can easily be spoil and become something in life without paying out of their own pocket,But things dosn't always happend that way | PRO | 5b5ee742-2019-04-18T19:50:23Z-00002-000 |
Guns to Teachers. The reason I gave only my opinion, is because debate.org is not like a live face to face debate. I'll try something different next time, but I used that as a bit of an introduction. This is my first round in Debate.org, but not my first round in debate. Anyway, Response- A good guy with a gun won't work, because how hard is it for the police to tell the difference? A shooter in these school shooting situations will most likely be wearing clothes similar to the civilians in the area, the shooter in Florida wore his school shirt. The police in the area will be looking for a person in the building with a gun. They can't just ask kindly if someone's the shooter, or if they're a good guy with a gun, because you can't give the shooter another chance. The bonus for the teacher won't be effective, because of the hike in insurance rates. If these people volunteer for their children, yes, they should have compensation. But how are insurance providers going to respond to that? Their customer has become a bigger target to a possible shooter, and as I've mentioned in the last argument, friendly fire by the police. And lastly, how much more responsibility should we give our teachers? They have to keep track of (Depending on the school) 20-30 kids. And now, they have to keep and use weapons. They have to keep the gun locked up, and even if it's locked up in a case, there's still a chance that someone could steal that gun. That case will be more of a liability than a help, because in a shooter situation, getting the gun out of the case and getting it ready will take a while. The Florida Shooting lasted about 6-7 minutes. And even if it's a concealed carry, it's even easier to obtain the weapon. References- https://www.nytimes.com... https://youtu.be... (A crude representation, but the best I could find.) | CON | 18158415-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00000-000 |
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned. I find it ridiculous to debate this. (first statement about Apple didn't release the first smartphone) Here are my simplified arguments: I have never argued iPhone is the first smartphone in the world. I only argue that the existence of Apple influence the future smartphones, that are designed exactly like the ideas/concepts of original iOS/iPhone. I refer to low quality of smartphones before iPhone is released. The so-call smartphones were much far worse than Apple, or professionally they were very different before the first iPhone was released. Thus, identical smartphones/operating systems are clearly copied from iPhone/iOS respectively. As for condemnation, I only encourage free market, but condemn the obligation of free market, which explained clearly few sentences afterwards. Lastly, my sources (esp. Wikipedia) are corrected by the public, thus, more reliable than those editors/official. Note that the sources are outdated too. | PRO | 5e75e409-2019-04-18T14:44:07Z-00001-000 |
The EU doesn’t understand sport and should be made to change. Sport isn’t a business like any other... Football is a big business, a branch of the entertainment industry. Many European clubs have an income of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Players are well paid but can easily get injured and end their careers at an early age, so they deserve the same protection from unfair treatment as other workers. Freedom of movement is one of the most important principles of the EU and should not be given up lightly.\ In any case, there are other ways to raise quality and improve competition. A salary cap could be introduced (as in rugby league) to prevent rich clubs from buying up all the best players. Or revenue for money-spinning competitions like the Champtions League could be distributed much more evenly. At the moment the most successful clubs get almost all the money, allowing them to buy all the best players and so ensure they stay on top in the future. | CON | b43845a3-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00022-000 |
Transgender Bathroom Rights. My opponent claims that it is an "indisputable fact" that there are only two genders: male and female. 1. This is irrelevant to the resolution 2. It is wrong which I've explained in the last round Please extend my arguments on the difference between sex and gender. Con has dropped them. Since gender is a social construct, it is fluid with many variations. Some argue that there are up to 63 ways to identify one's gender [1] "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and from masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity" [2]. My opponent has dropped my points on the state of being intersex as well. Nevertheless, EVEN IF one was mentally ill (in identifying as other than cis male or cis female) it doesn't prove that trans bathroom rights should not exist, as I've argued in the last round. Con insists that trans people suffer additional scrutiny and suffering with more punishment for their condition. He ignores all of my points about why trans bathroom rights are important (trans people's safety) from the last round. Please extend. Con insists that trans people are mentally ill, though many in the science community deny that it is a mental disorder [3]. Again this would be irrelevant to the resolution anyway - we don't discriminate against people with all mental disorders when it comes to bathrooms. Being trans is not a choice and it is an unfortunate condition of gender dysphoria. "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones" [4]. My opponent made some (poor conduct) remark about the "sodomite lobby" and an irrelevant comment on rights. He completely failed to respond to my contentions. Con hasn't explained why trans people - with proven discrimination and violence against them (especially when it comes to bathroom politics) should be subject to laws that put them in danger. He also hasn't proven that trans people using the bathroom of their choices causes any harm at all. [1] http://www.apath.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://psmag.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | ccc99288-2019-04-18T13:13:09Z-00003-000 |
bible presuppose sense, therfore its false. At the end of this debate, it is clear that the con has won this debate. The pro has not really contested much about the Kritik, rather the pro aims to extend his own arguments rather answering mine. Therefore the Kritik goes uncontested throughout the round. This means the Kritik outweighs the case, thus the con must win. Moreover, the pro has done nothing to answer my case attacks, choosing-- as I said before-- to extend, his case is shredded to pieces. Even if the pro wins that "the bible claims sense are totally false invalidates it", that just gives a link to the Kritik, further strengthening the link that has REPEATEDLY been conceded. On the Kritik debate, the only answer he has on the kritik questions the "warrent" section of the alternative. What makes his (and many Youtube comments) rants-- as I call "unwarrented" is that the authors of such rants did not really look into what Christianity really was. Not only was this largely uncontested, attributes of this argument can clearly be seen throughout the pro's speeches, where he makes blatant, illogical assertions about christianity, like how "every word of the bible you have read you have written with your own mind unaware you are in a dream...".This is basically screaming "LINK!!!!!" Lastly, the pro strangely chose not to respond in the alternative debate, which means he concedes the alternative solves the case. Not only does the Kritik outweigh, it also solves the case. On the case debate, he largely extends. He also claims I "conceded all [his] points" but clearly this is false. Upon examination of my second speech, detailed responses to each and every point will be found, plus observations of concessions of the pro. The negative tries to place a new twist on his argument, adding that "reading the bible only to get the truth is clearly false...". First, this argument was added late into the debate, no new arguments should be made in the final speeches, thus this argument should not be counted. Second, my fourth point from my first speech answers this, that there is no clear statistics or proof this is so (which I might remind you, the pro has conceded this point). My first point also answers this (plus generally kills the entire case) that this case follows no coherent structure (this the pro has also conceded). Aside from these few remarks, the pro does nothing else, literally giving me the ballot (not to be rude). Therefore, the pro's case basically is dead. Whether it be from the case, the Kritik, or both, clearly the con has won this debate. | CON | 298786d7-2019-04-18T14:30:15Z-00000-000 |
The Holocaust Happened. I guess I should get serious. There are two reasons why the holocaust that my opponent refers to never happened. 1. The people that deny the holocaust the most is the Jewish people. Why in the world would somebody, much less a Jew, deny the holocaust. That is like an African American denying slavery. Unless, of course, it actually didn't happen. And also, in the Jewish religion, it is a sin to lie. So for a Jew to lie about something that serious might not be a lie. 2. 6 million Jews didn't live in Germany. Assuming that my opponent's definition of the holocaust is a mass murder of jews in Germany, that could not be true simply because 6 million jews didn't live there. They must have had to go to neighboring countries and taken jews from there. But how possible does it sound that while a country is warring against many other countries, that they have time to kill their own people. Now, according to my definition of the holocaust, my defense will be the same. The information proving that the holocaust as a historical event is not conclusive because of three main reasons: 1. It happens in the future. Something cant be historical if it happened in the future, proving not to be conclusive. 2. People don't live on the moon. There are no Americans that live on the moon, therefore that makes this statement inconclusive. 3. The Earth is still habitable. People can still live on the Earth, making this statement inconclusive as well. Sources http://answers.yahoo.com... | CON | f57f0382-2019-04-18T18:08:09Z-00000-000 |
Public schools should teach about world religions. World religions should be taught at public schools to widen students' knowledge about the world and other cultures. Teaching about religions worldwide would not be offensive as long as you include all of them and describe them accurately. The class could be offered as an elective and many students would be inclined to join as it may be interesting. Teaching about these religions would also foster a new understanding and appreciation. Take for example Islam. There are some people who think all Muslims are terrorists. If they were to learn more about the religion they would hopefully discover that Islam is a peaceful religion that does not believe in killing. Students may even learn more about their own religion. I know that my mother doesn't want me to convert to another religion without researching and knowing what would be the best choice and a class like that would give students the perfect opportunity to learn and make the decision on their own on what to believe. Religions should be mentioned in schools because the truth is, they're there and will effect a lot of your decisions. Many students actually don't care about any mentions of religion and if they do, most of the time it's a minor thing they can either get help with or get over. | PRO | d63b8b95-2019-04-18T15:25:11Z-00005-000 |
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT. I accept the challenge and would first wish to define some terms for us since the instigator failed to do so. Love - the absence of hate. First your claim about people living independently of the bible is misleading. What you say is true but you indicate it's a BAD thing. It's not. When we lived in accordance with the bible, it was quite a bit like the Middle East today (more stonings, less dirty bombs) and it's not some hypothetical that has yet to be tried, it's BEEN tried. It was called The Dark Ages. It is a BAD THING when society is based on the bible, history has made that OBJECTIVELY true. Next, you actually make an interesting argument about the fortitude of the nations that your God struck down. Most interesting was that you mentioned that they did child sacrifice, citing science as your proof. I didn't see any reference-so that reference ("archaeology has clearly shown") is rejected as adding anything to your argument. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is that in the same breath you explain the loving God is only murdering to seek vengeance for immoral behavior, and that the behavior of child sacrifice is the unrefutable evidence you offer. Because, I'm baffled how a Christian is so unaware of the Biblical side of this argument. Exodus 12:29 "At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt..." Child Sacrifice like that? Now to your free will impossibility: If your God already knows all that men will do, then they cannot possibly have a will free from His control. Otherwise, if it were free, the God couldn't possibly know the outcome until each decision was made by each will free of his control and therefore knowledge. You cannot have free will AND an all knowing god. Nor can you have a free will, a form of power with an ALL powerful god. This means man can only be blamed for a folly out of the god's power and knowledge. Which means man can only be blamed if he has independence from that god which requires a NON all knowing and NON all powerful god. You cannot have it both ways-BLAME=POWER, POWER=GOD WITHOUT ALL POWER. or GOD WITH ALL POWER=GOD WITH ALL BLAME Lastly you argue that because he waited extra time before murdering them that he's good or loving or something else implicit and I assume positive. So a rapist that lets his victim heal up between rapings must be loving too. | CON | b1547891-2019-04-18T15:46:30Z-00004-000 |
Democracy & Gerrymandering. No, America is not a democracy. In order to adequately answer this question, it is important to understand the terms "democracy" and "gerrymandering." Here are those definitions according to Dictionary.com: Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. Gerrymandering: U.S. politics. the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. You decide... | CON | b585226-2019-04-18T16:33:16Z-00003-000 |
This House Would Ban Video Games that Objectify Women. This House would ban any large scale video game that contains scenes, which show or promote the objectification of women. I thank my opponent for taking part in this debate, and I also ask him/her to offer relevant information to the motion. I believe that any indie or AAA game that contains unnecessary female nudity or sexual behaviour should be banned, so that we can promote a fair and equal society. To do this, we will use an impartial viewer to review each case. For this to be possible, we would make sure that each popular game was carefully "combed" through. | PRO | 1910aba4-2019-04-18T16:45:24Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion. First of all, you say I violated the rules but not what rule I violated, forfeiture sure, but I had 5 other debates going. And like you said, Chinese Law is not the law of the land right? Either way a Chinese person is still a person. And you dropped my point in regards to the 14 amendment, just because it grants protections to a group of people doesn't mean that all other groups are excluded, and as I stated before, the 8th amendment insures this right to all persons. A person is a human being, some thing with a complete human genome as well as a functioning system of organs. So your comparison of sperm is irrelevant since sperm do. It have a complete human genome and conception doesn't separate the cell into an organised basis, and sperm doesn't have functional organs. Also, a fetus isn't a human until 40 days, so the mother should do an abortion before that 400 day Mark. | CON | 1ef0e7a0-2019-04-18T13:13:31Z-00000-000 |
Many replay systems could adequately reduce time consumed. One option is to implement the NFL’s red-flag system, which limits teams to two replays per game. Another is a broader option that allows operators in MLB’s central replay office to stop the game to review a call. Both of these systems would significantly limit the time consumed by a replay system. The maximum time added would be something like 5 minutes to a game, in exceptional circumstances. This is well worth ensuring games are won fairly. | PRO | 6d644353-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00051-000 |
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D. lol, the Skeptic has been waiting for this moment for awhile. So, w/o further adieu, let us begin. Ob 1 - The resolution asks the question: Are these arguments valid? Thus the burden is on him to prove their validity. It is not my burden to prove the validity of pro-God arguments, rather it is my burden to prove his invalid. Ob 2 - Sufficiency in negating. The resolution is unconditional on the side of the affirmative, thus if you have any questions in mind against the aff, you must vote agaisnt him. I concede his "omni" characteristics he has placed for the round. 1. Argument from Evil A. Evil Exists in the world I argue that following: First, God gave us free will to choose what path we want to take. Thus, we can choose the opposite of good. Second, evil doesn't exist in "form." Basically this means that evil is just the absence of good. When God created good, he created a default evil. a. If evil doesn't exist, then good wouldn't exist either. E.g. there is no value to life, if one cannot die. Third, it is because God is so loving that evil exists. God would not be all loving is he abolished evil. This is true for two reasons: 1. Abolishing evil creates automation people, with absolutely no will. 2.If God abolished evil, he would be acting evil towards evil, thus not acting loving. B. Natural Disasters/Viruses I argue the same idea that if evil didn't exist, good cannot exist either. 2. Argument from Non-Belief This argument is inherently flawed for the following reasons: First, it assumes that God wants us to know his existence w/o a doubt. Second, even if you don't buy this, a Christian would argue that Jesus' coming was that sign for hunaity, but some do not believe it. And third, even if you dont buy that argument, cross apply one of my previous arguments that stated God forcing himself on us is not love, but rape. | CON | 71b00a27-2019-04-18T19:30:20Z-00004-000 |
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law. In medieval times, they killed people who they thought were witches. Morally, that is (in the moral world's eyes) wrong as it is unjust and murder for something they couldn't even prove. But in those days, the majority was convinced that it was the right thing to do therefore it wasn't considered immoral. If I was around in those days and my loved one was convicted and killed for being a witch then of course I'd be upset and would find it wrong. But the majority wouldn't so generally (as seen by most people) it wouldn't be immoral. "The right thing is always the right thing no matter what the circumstances are." But it isn't as black and white as that. By definition moral law is "an absolute principle". Not every single human being in the world shares the same principles and opinions. There are many people who believe murder is wrong, but yet again there are others who disagree. Taking this back to the original point of the debate, you're arguing that moral law cannot exist without God. And (no offence) it appears as though God is doing a bad job at enforcing moral law. If moral law is being enforced by the most powerful being in the universe then it's hard to believe so. Why? Because if the most powerful being in the universe really was enforcing moral law we wouldn't have our different personal moral principles. If God really was sustaining moral law in the universe He's doing a bad job of it as not every human shares an "absolute principle". We all have our own different principles so this goes against your argument - that God must exist in order for moral law to exist as well. So if, for the sake of this debate, we were to assume that God has an irrefutable existence, He already isn't enforcing moral law. So, linking back to your main argument, moral law either can't/doesn't exist with God or He is doing a poor job at enforcing it. | CON | 2572429f-2019-04-18T11:30:43Z-00002-000 |
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots. When you say the Giants "got healthy towards the end of the season" they didn't. They gained knowledge about there opponents and skills they should have already had throughout the entire season. A good team is one that has strengths that shine throughout the season which is undoubtedly the Patriots. You point out that Tom Brady couldn't handle the pressure, but clearly if you watched the game Tom Brady performed during that game his team fell short, which by chance led the NY Giants to a lucky win. That' right a lucky win because by far they couldn't have won the game another way. | CON | 8380e968-2019-04-18T18:19:15Z-00007-000 |
The people of both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming ... The people of both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. Both states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. | PRO | b5537875-2019-04-19T12:47:47Z-00009-000 |
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change. Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day. | CON | 9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000 |
Rape should be a punishment for women. -Sex in other primates appears to be less consensual, and a lot of it involves prostitution, such as the female trading sex for food or influence. Women sell themselves for sex, it's nothing new. -Seeing as a woman's appearance (vanity) is their most valuable asset, wouldn't rape (or multiple rapes) be a fitting punishment for those who deserve? -Continually repeated in legal issues, we see men being wrongfully accused of rape, having their lives irreparably severed. What punishment could rectify their loss of life? - | PRO | affdf6b7-2019-04-18T12:19:30Z-00001-000 |
MS Paint Battle: tvellalott versus lickdafoot. I challenge you, lickdafoot, to a ms paint battle!This is how it works: We will do three drawings each. You will choose something, anything really, for me to draw, for example; A ninja riding a train. Be creative but realistic, I am not a skilled computer artist so keep it reasonable.You give me something to draw and I'll draw it in round two. Round one is only for your acceptance and my first thing.Do you accept this challenge? | PRO | 6708ff1c-2019-04-18T18:25:20Z-00006-000 |
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance. It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed. This change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them. National pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo. | CON | 5d05352a-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00014-000 |
abortion. I understand that the common answer to this issue is " Why was it she didn't use a condom". Women have been fighting for equal rights since 1848. the situation is really confusing but women have been fighting for rights that would grant them opportunity to show their independence for such a long time. I believe that a women should be allowed to make any decision regarding their body. if they feel that what they did was a mistake society should not be a judge in a case that's base on a persons own body. what if the mothers life is in danger?, is it more convenient to give birth even though the life of the mother is in danger and just because abortion is considered immoral. everyone is able to make their own decision. why should their body be a limit. P1: women have been fighting for equal rights since 1848. P2: Everyone is able to make their own decision Therefore women should be able to make the decision to whether keep a baby or abort | PRO | 81e6e560-2019-04-18T15:32:29Z-00003-000 |
Catholic priests should not be allowed to own monkeys. Banning hoodies in shops and banning monkeys for priests are not analogous. What you propose would be more like banning young men from wearing hoodies outright, so there goes your precedent. Sending the price of monkeys might cause breeders to take interest, which might turn that ever-decreasing into an ever-increasing, and who doesn't love monkeys? That huge price on monkeys would probably lead to the organ grinders cashing in on their little simian sidekicks, leaving the criminal life and turning into tax paying, law abiding citizens, so yeah it could have a tiny impact on crime figures, but not in the direction you suggested. I'd much prefer being robbed by a monkey than having a badger roaming around my house; I could tell you some stories... | CON | 8b0ad3bd-2019-04-18T19:05:34Z-00000-000 |
The US Gov has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on US soil. I guess we aren't going to use LD structure then. I am arguing AGAINST, clearly since my side is CON. You can pull my opponents argument of illegal aliens to my side, because they shouldn't be given the same constitutional rights. Therefore, since there are no arguments justifying the resolution, you must vote con. Illegal aliens bad, therefore, we shouldn't give them constitutional rights, therefore, vote con. Thank you. | CON | 36b01b63-2019-04-18T19:07:26Z-00002-000 |
The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false. It's a topic I find very interesting for both it's metaphysical implications and for its practical implications. The meaning of the resolutionSecond, let me explain what I mean by "The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection. " If I've got this wrong, MadCornishBiker can correct me or clarify in the first round, but I ask him to be as clear and unambiguous as he possibly can. Basically, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when we die, we cease to exist. We are not immaterial souls who survive in any consicous state after physical death. We are purely physical beings animated by what they call a "life force," which in some publications is likened to electricity. But a "life force" is not the same thing as people traditionally think of as a soul. It is not a person and therefore has no personal identity. After we are dead, Jehovah remembers us perfectly and completely. At the resurrection, Jehovah uses his perfect memory of us to bring us back into existence, albeit with some improvements. Although the resurrection entails physical humans coming into existence, it is not a raising up of the same body that died. Rather, Jehovah fashions a new body which he brings to life. It is important to note that in the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, the person who rises at the resurrection is the same person as the one who died. That means that we ourselves will be raised up at the resurrection. It won't just be a replica. The burden of proofIt is my burden in this debate to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is false. I will provide arguments to that effect. Con does not have the burden to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is true, although he can do so if he wishes. Con's burden will be to show that my arguments fail to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is false. So, in other words, all Con has to do is refute my arguments. FormatRound 1: Acceptance, definitions, clarifications, rules, and well-wishes. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Conclusion. Rules1. No new arguments in the last round, although rebuttals are allowed.2. Con may rebut in round 1.3. Voters must vote on the content of the debate, not on their own views, nor on arguments they would like to have made, nor on what goes on in the comment section or discussion forums.4. Fairness and charity are expected from both debaters and all voters. No motive-mongering.5. Forfeiting the last round is a loss of the whole debate. Forfeiting just one round prior to the last round is a lost of conduct. FinallyI have made the debate 6000 characters long to encourage voting and discourage forfeiting. Good luck, MadCornishBiker. I hope for a challenging exchange. | PRO | ed943652-2019-04-18T17:11:21Z-00007-000 |
Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits. Not only does it help military readiness, it forestalls the calamity of a military draft. Without the possibility of active combat duty, many patriotic women will be put off enlisting, as they know they will be regarded as second-class soldiers. And as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that very few will ever reach the highest reaches of the military and so further entrenches sexism. | PRO | 94c858b8-2019-04-19T12:46:13Z-00008-000 |
The US education system needs drastic reform. I recognize that education is an investment that has a huge impact on the potential of individuals, and of communities. In the US, our education is almost enforced mediocrity, with a huge opportunity cost for those with no interest in education, with wasted resources everywhere, and with far too much wasted time with students that want to pursue higher education. How can current K-12 education be improved? Can we shave 3-4 years off with no loss of utility? We can. Currently, the classrooms of younger students are notorious for babysitting and attention problems. The best way to learn a concept is to learn something that requires an understanding of that concept. If we use math as an example, the best way to raise a mathematician, scientist or engineer is to teach too quickly, force the student to fill in the blanks, while moving on to something new and interesting, something that requires a full understanding of the previous lesson. The jobs most of our high school math students are qualified for is more along the lines of 'cashier', a skill level most attain in elementary school. If students learned how to count cash in the third grade, what were they doing for the next 9 years? We do not expect skilled technicians, engineers, scientists, and businessmen to come straight out of high-school. We should. What about the children that do not understand the significance of education? After elementary school, attendance should not be compulsory if students want to work. The sooner you treat someone like an adult, the sooner they will act like one, as such, the children that do not want to go to school, can get a taste of the alternative, flipping burgers, and can change their minds about that career choice while they still have the option of continuing their education, before they have the obligations that typically prevent higher education. The two most important things to address, the most prevalent limiting factors in the education of all ages is the expectation of failure or arbitrary limitation, and the motivation of the student to learn. | PRO | 57222cda-2019-04-18T19:45:19Z-00005-000 |
3b. Border Fence. Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence: Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison. I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence. First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees. Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison. The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run. I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution. It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one: http://www.borderfenceproject.com... A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld. There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico. | PRO | d84779a0-2019-04-18T19:36:15Z-00001-000 |
are mini skirts appropriate for the office. I accept the terms of this debate, and will argue on the stance that mini-skirts are not appropriate in an office setting. I would first like to start by defining 'appropriate': adjective əG2;pr!3;prē-it/ 1. suitable or proper in the circumstances. With that being said, I am assuming that when you say 'in the office' we are referring to a business setting. In that case, the reason that there is usually a formal business dress code in the first place is to keep a professional image for the business, as well as increase productivity via reduction of non-business distractions. Regular skirts that go down to at least the knee area can be seen as formal business attire, as long as they're not flashy or provocative, and there are many industries that commonly use them as part of their dress code (flight attendants, waitresses, etc.). On the other side we have mini-skirts, which are not commonly seen as formal business wear, but rather as a casual attire, and are usually viewed as being provocative. It is due to this that they are not appropriate in a business setting. I will also point out that my personal view of the topic is that they don't provide any distraction from work for me. However, in a business setting you almost always have a diverse range of people, and thus the dress code must be set so that it will cater to everyone and not adjust itself to persons on an individual basis. There is also the viewpoint that allowing non-businesslike attire into a workplace, on top of providing a bad image for the business, can lead to increased cases of sexual harassment. This can lead to bad relationships between employees and lowered morale in the workplace. In the end, it boils down to a matter of being appropriate vs. being acceptable. There are definitely places where less strict clothing regulations are perfectly acceptable, usually in smaller more casual settings, but in a general office/business setting the dress code needs to be a formal for the aforementioned reasons. | CON | 4b3806ee-2019-04-18T15:54:18Z-00002-000 |
Colors of Stairway. First, when I corrected PRO on the flute comment, I meant it as a joke; I did not want a paragraph explaining why PRO was confused between the two. Also, the paragraph was not needed being that the recorders and flute are irrelevant to the debate. I'm not sure what my opponent meant by "So its very likely that someone with synesthesia would see the same color anyway. " But I think PRO is trying to say something about the flute and the recorder having the same pitch and therefore people with Synesthesia will see the same color. That is true, if the two instruments are played at the same pitch, a person with Synesthesia would see the same colors but the two instruments could play at different pitches making my opponent's argument Null and Void. Later in the paragraph, Pro contradicts himself saying that when the recorder comes into the song you see green, therefore implying he has Synesthesia, and therefore contradicting his earlier statement of "I do not have synesthesia. " My opponent's next two sentences confuse me. You say that Synesthesia is opinionated and I do not understand what you could possibly mean by that, but okay. In response to my opponent's maturity remarks I say… What I meant was not about the lyrics themselves, it was about where the band was at that period of time when "Stairway to Heaven" was written. "Stairway to Heaven" was like their coming of age, the peak of their performance, Led Zeppelin reaching maturity. Also, about the intellect remarks; I again was referring to the band not necessarily the song. -Intellect-(new definition) capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge Furthermore, you could go on to say that intellect has another part to play in describing "Stairway to Heaven. " The lady who is described throughout the song as self-centered, greedy, and ignorant, then towards the end she learns she cannot buy her way into Heaven and must work for it. This fits perfectly with the definition of intellect and therefore fits perfectly into my argument; the color gray best represents "Stairway to Heaven. " My opponent states that "There are variations of what color is symbolized by what emotions, but the majority of them can agree green represents hope. " Really? Because I can't find one that does. . http://www.color-wheel-pro.com... . http://www.squidoo.com... . http://desktoppub.about.com... . http://www.infoplease.com... None of the above listed mention "Hope" when describing what green can symbolize. Just as FeatherintheWind said, "may the best man win. " Vote CON. Thank you for your time. | CON | cde0a2ff-2019-04-18T19:34:46Z-00000-000 |
Digital Books. In 3 parts, the affirmatives opening statement, followed by a small rebutal from the negative moving to the opening statement of the negative, the affirmatives rebutal and then after that a closing statement. ok here we go: Since the beginning of digital books in the 1970s many people have wondered wether it would be a good thing. A digital book is a novel or comic that is read off of a electronic device. Many e-book companies either sell an e-reader or put out an app. The resolution of this debate is that digital books are a good idea. I"m going to debate the affirmative. Digital books are a good innovation for multiple reasons. For starters it encourages readers and writers alike by making publishing easier and getting books much faster. E-books are also a good step forward because they are environmentally safer. First, digital books are an improvement from paper books because they are encourage both self publishers and readers. The number of books sold on paper are diminishing and move to e-books. This is simply because reading a digital book is easier than a paper back. For example The Chronicles of Narnia an almost 700 page book can be read on an e-reader as light as light as 134 grams. Self publishing has grown with e-books manly because self publishing a paper back book can be difficult yet a digital book is much easier to read and is found faster because its so much easier for the reader to find. Second, e-books are more environmentally safe. Most of our forest have visibly deteriorated. Most readers will go through maybe 2-3 books a month, which adds up. According to the Bureau of International Recycling, in 2010 the US alone used over 5 and a half 40-foot trees per person. A percentage of that is used in paper books. Carbon dioxide levels have rose approximately 35% in the past 50 years. Losing our forest to paper books is not an option. My opponent my try to argue that digital books are a lose of culture. Many talk of the joy or smell of new books however the same arguments were made when the telephone was phasing the letter out. Digital books are moving us forward. As digital books evolve, they should not be fought. Digital Books are going to save forests but also encourage people to read and write, one of humans greatest capability. | PRO | a47536e7-2019-04-18T17:06:42Z-00004-000 |
Universal healthcare stifles innovation. Profits drive innovation. That’s the long and short of it. Medical care is not exception, albeit the situation is a bit more complicated in this case. The US’s current system has a marketplace of different private insurers capable of making individual and often different decisions on how and which procedures they’ll choose to cover. Their decisions are something that helps shape and drive new and different practices in hospitals. A simple example is one of virtual colonoscopies. Without getting into the nitty gritty, they often require follow up procedures, yet are very popular with patients. Some insurers value the first, some the other, but none have the power to force the health care providers to choose one or the other. They’re free to decide for themselves, innovate with guidelines, even new procedures. Those are then communicated back to insurers, influencing them in turn and completing the cycle. What introducing a single-payer universal health coverage would do is introduce a single overwhelming player into this field – the government. Since we have seen how the insurer can often shape the care, what such a monopoly does is opens up the possibility of top-down mandates as to what this care should be. With talk of “comparative effectiveness research”, tasked with finding optimal cost-effective methods of treatment, the process has already begun.[1] [1] Wall Street Journal, How Washington Rations, published 5/19/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html#mod=djemEditorialPage, accessed 9/18/2011 | PRO | 5520ff9a-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00020-000 |
Choosing a one of three doors, then having one of the other two revealed, then switching is best. My opponent is referring to the famous Monty Hall problem, just to be clear. It is as follows; "Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?" This problem was originally sent to Marilyn Von Savant (smartest woman in the world) as a brain teaser, and she said to switching doors would give you a better chance to win the car. When she made the reccomendation she had several mathematicians say she was an idiot and it was commonly pointed out that, hey even geniuses can be wrong sometimes. However, later on when computers simulated the problem and kept coming back as showing switching doors was better, many apology letters had to be sent. My opponent is mistaken that staying on the same door is giving you the same odd as switching. In round 2 I'll give my best explanation of how to use Bayesian math to solve this problem, and you'll see my position is correct, but for now I'll just use this round to explain the Mony Hall problem, give context and accept. I anxiously await my opponent's arguments and look forward to a good clean debate. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 6d073b37-2019-04-18T14:45:39Z-00003-000 |
The Election of Woodrow Wilson Marked the Shaping of The Modern Political Parties. Firstly, welcome to debate. org sir, and I wish you the best. I feel as though there is some mild confusion indeed. You stated that I'm stating that "Woodrow Wilson was the first ever modern democrat" and the biggest problem here is I am stating that Wilson was the first ever modern Democrat (with a capital D). I would agree with your analysis of Mr. Roosevelt as the founder of the "democratic" agenda, but Roosevelt was not a Democrat. I am stating that Wilson is the first president of any party to truly establish the status-quo for the party's future. "There are two main thrusts to my argument against. The first being that there were politicians before Wilson that established progressiveism and that there were elements of Wilson's character that seperated him from the modern democratic party. " Now, I would completely agree that there were politicians that established progressivism, but they were not Democrats. I would also like to make clear that we are talking about politicians that became president and president only. So my question to you is what Democratic presidents before Wilson had a progressive agenda? And I hope we're referring to progressive as in the party, no the word itself. | PRO | 32fa7b99-2019-04-18T19:28:45Z-00002-000 |
ICC is too ineffective to deter war crimes. John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "deterrence ultimately depends on perceived effectiveness, and the ICC fails badly on that point. The ICC’s authority is far too attenuated to make the slightest bit of difference either to the war criminals or to the outside world. In cases where the West in particular has been unwilling to intervene militarily to prevent crimes against humanity as they were happening, why will a potential perpetrator feel deterred by the mere possibility of future legal action? A weak and distant Court will have no deterrent effect on the hard men like Pol Pot most likely to commit crimes against humanity. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed? Holding out the prospect of ICC deterrence to the weak and vulnerable amounts to a cruel joke." | PRO | 25333623-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00081-000 |
God does not love you. God loves you. If that is not sufficient for you, you will run out of time and as you are rejecting God's love, you will be rejected by Him. "God loves you" does not mean you can continue in rebellion against Him forever. Your rebellion will be confined away from His heaven forever to the fire of hell if you don't drop it before it's too late. You man win this debate, but what good is that if you lose your soul forever in the fire of hell? God loves you and he wants you to reconsider believing Him. If you will not reconsider, you will get what you deserve, the same rejection you are giving to Him, He will give to you. If you don't care that He died in your place, why should He care when you choose to die for yourself by yourself? why should he not have you cast away like garbage? he loves you and He does not want you to burn in Hell. You are chooing the fire of Hell rather than to believe that He loves you. You are arguing against yourself, and you think you are winning? I'm sorry. | CON | f06425b1-2019-04-18T16:05:25Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Forcing religion upon children is immoral. Id like to start of by stating that within the first three lines my opponent seems to have already contradicted himself. By stating that this child was destined to be a scientist before he was born would mean that he would turn out to be a scientist. But as later stated this child does not become a scientist but rather a priest, making it impossible for him to be destined to be a scientist. The point that I would like to argue today will be moral. As children we are not capable of making the correct decision at all times, had I been allowed to do whatever I wanted I would only have eaten candy and never gone to school. Its blatantly obvious that children need to be taught how to act, converse with others and respect all. Parents sometimes have a hard time getting the point across so they bring religion in not only to have a common connection with their kid, but also to bring this moral guidelines into the picture. In this specific debate I will refer to the Roman Catholic Bible, even though I'm sure the same standards exist within all religions. First I would like it say there is no better way to teach moral then to read a book to your children based on a person that does only the right thing. On top of that, such things as the Ten Commandments create a moral framework that is known to be applicable to non-Christians. Being forced into religion is in the best interest of the children, where as not teaching them religion would make the incorporation of a moral framework much harder. A religion is not like a contract, there is no binding clause stating that a person cannot leave. When the child is old enough to make the decision on his/ her own then they can drop the entire thing all together, but the moral framework will still be there because its what they were raised on. I'm not going as far as to say if religion isn't used that all kids will be immoral, but rather that the institution of religion is helpful in the expansion of morals early on in childhood. It is moral to teach children the difference between right and wrong. this is a correct and effective way of doing so. | CON | 96b5228d-2019-04-18T19:28:31Z-00006-000 |
There is no time to hold a second referendum. The ideal time would be in the first couple of months of 2019, once the deal is pretty much known, but before the UK. It would be best if the deal on how we will leave, and what our continuing relationship with the EU will be were fully agreed before a referendum takes place. However both sides have at each stage been making commitments and the overall shape of the final agreement gets clearer and clearer. There was no agreement on what leave would mean in the first referendum so there need not be a set in stone final agreement for a second referendum either. Negotiations could even continue at the same time. | CON | b0f3731e-2019-04-15T20:24:51Z-00026-000 |
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together. Thank you for the compliment, but honestly I found that out because I had heard something about it one time and decided to look into it. Yes, I will admit that you are correct about the context issue. I too used that source, as well as a couple others which said the same thing, but in the spirit of a lively debate I opted not to use that as it would hurt my argument. Now to answer your logic argument. God did not leave anything to chance; He had a plan since before creation, showing that He truly is a loving god. And I do not see the connection between natural selection and whether or not God is loving. He had a plan for the species that were "picked off," and that was his plan for them: to be stepping stones in the chain of events that eventually created Homo sapiens. As for man becoming like God, I agree that it "will not, cannot, and should not happen." Evolution could not develop omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence in a species. Evolution is a constant flow of adapting and becoming more fit to survive in the environment, and I highly doubt that speaking things into being will ever be necessary to survive. Lastly, to answer your final question, we are not monkeys. We may be closely related to monkeys, but we ourselves are not monkeys. So no, God would not send His Son to die for a monkey. As this is my final argument opportunity, I would like to thank Con now for being an excellent debate opponent. You have brought up some very good points and I sincerely believe that both of us learned something, whether it was something small or life changing (although it probably wasn't life changing). | PRO | c702d8e3-2019-04-18T16:09:16Z-00001-000 |
The Hummer H2 Good or Bad. Ok the H2 is a wonderful vehicle. It exceeds at just about everything it delivers a smooth ride with superior comfort. It comes loaded with just about everything you could want in a car. It has heated seats, onstar, and leather as standard features just to name a few. Also its a GM product and not only a GM product but a GM truck which means it has superior build quality when compared to any other big vehicles. In addition it has amazing ride height which makes it great for everyday use and clearance which makes it a perfect out of the box 4x4 in addition to that it has locking diffs 35in, BF goodrich A/T's, triple sealed doors for heading water (with ground clearance and everything accounted for you can drive in up to 48in of water without the possibility of water coming in do that in your wrangler!) and skid plates this makes it perfect for offroad use. Then on top of this it uses GM 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton pickup parts which means parts for repairs will be as common as water like a jeep. Although the fuel mileage is low it isn't 10 mpg its somewhere around 11.5-14 mpg and I can attest to that. The Hummers poor fuel mileage isn't to be blamed on its sheer mass and size but instead the powerhouse GM decided to use. GM dropped its 6.0L Vortec gas engine which puts out around 325 hp and 360-lbs of torque. Take this motor out of the H2 and drop it into something say like a silverado, tahoe, or suburban and you will see the same poor 11.5-14 mpg. Even though this isn't exactly the best fuel mileage there are certainly better trucks people could have picked for the bad MPG poster child. For example the Ford excursion gas gets a completely behind lousy 8.5-10 mpg. The silverado 8.1L 2500hd gets 9-11 mpg and the Dodge ram SRT-10 gets 7.5-8.5 mpg. Then when we look back at it today 12 mpg was almost average for any SUV/Truck. 2002 Dodge ram 1500 12 mpg, 2015 Nissan titan gets 13 mpg city, pretty much every Aston Martin ever made gets 12 mpg, Toyota 4 runners average 12 mpg, 2004 Toyota tundra average 12 mpg If I keep going you can clearly see that the H2's 12 mpg average isn't that awful. | PRO | a3d7c25d-2019-04-18T14:55:15Z-00002-000 |
The Sith have a better and more realistic philosophy then the Jedi. I begin by thanking you for letting participate in this debate. Your points are all valid, however You only scratched the surface of the truth in this case. It is true that the Jedi use no emotion and shun it as well. This however is not totally a flaw. The ability to shut down or ignore your emotions is something taught in our world today. Our world teaches to accept others despite differences. This enables a group of people to intellectual come to terms with each other rather than use you fear and hatred of people different that you to cause destruction. The ultimate goal of the Jedi philosophy is to never let relationships, or emotions get in the way of doing what is right. In the Sith philosophy it says this "Peace is a lie...", however this within itself is not true. Peace is not a lie, but merely a hopeful idea that binds people together to have courage to do what is right.The Sith teaches self improvement, well so does the Jedi. The Jedi as a whole believe that self improvement makes you more likely to be able to handle situations better due to your dedication. The Jedi's ability to give their lives to protect other people goes on just simple altruism, it shows their beliefs that lives of a group of people are more important than an individuals. If I can take a Star Trek quotation and apply it to Star Wars: "The needs of Many outweigh the needs of few.". | CON | dccfe0f4-2019-04-18T12:51:07Z-00002-000 |
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. Thank you for accepting. As a reminder, please do not read this argument until round 2 is over. The positive effects of Christianity are listed below: Christianity is an advocate of human rights. In the Roman empire, infanticide was common, and it was legal to kill a child. [1] Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, was the one to finally outlaw it. [2] Christianity was also a large factor in the abolition of slavery. According to historian Glenn Sunshine, "Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free." [3] In addition, two thirds of the American abolition society in 1835 were Christian ministers. [4] Martin Luther King Jr. was also a Christian minister, and he is a great example of a human rights supporter. [5] Christianity is responsible for high literacy rates. Christianity has been a leader in education because Bible literacy was so important to Christians. The first law to require education of citizens was passed by American Puritans in Massachusetts. [6] All but one of the first 123 American colleges were Christian institutions. The principles in the American Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution came from the Bible. The idea that all men are created equal is a biblical doctrine. [8] The notion of God's authority is part of the Declaration of Independence and all 50 state constitutions. The preamble of the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...". Christianity helped to make advancements in science. Many of the founders of modern science were Christians, such as Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur. [9] This should be enough evidence. [1] http://news.discovery.com... [2] http://www.faithfacts.org... [3] http://tvcog.com... [4] http://www.ccel.us... [5] http://www.biography.com... [6] http://www.academia.edu... [7] https://www.reddit.com... [8] http://www.slideshare.net... [9] http://www.famousscientists.org... | PRO | b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00007-000 |
A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable. Before I speak my points, I will do as my opponent has so requested and define the word "acceptable. " By the word "acceptable," I see its definition as, "2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome. " [1] Now I will explain why a speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable. I will argue this in two points. My first point will explain the efficiency of the speculation tax. In 2011, Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio introduced the Wall Street and Speculators Tax Act, which, if put into effect, would tax three cents per hundred dollars of financial securities. This would be imposed upon trades taking place in the United States, bringing 352 billion dollars in revenue over ten years. [2] Not only would this bring revenue to supplement important programs but it would also fix a crucial tax loophole. The loophole I am speaking of is the fact that American taxpayers pay sales taxes from their transactions, yet those on Wall Street do not pay a sales tax when it comes to buying or selling securities. A speculation tax would also curb investors from making short-term bets, something that would potentially hurt the market if such gambling went out of hand, effectively reducing market volatility. [3] I now move on ahead to my second point: the moral reason why this tax is acceptable. As most of us know, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more commonly known as the bank bailout, was an approximately 700 billion dollar package used to keep the banks from financial turmoil, despite that their constant lobbying and reckless gambling with the economy brought us to this mess in the first place. [4] Because the government used taxpayer dollars to help the mess-makers, it morally permissible that these same people reciprocate by scratching the back of the American taxpayer. The subsidy created from this speculation tax could help pay for certain programs such as making college tuition-free. And seeing how these same banks are subsidized by the government through tax breaks, tax loopholes (to the point where they pay NEGATIVE TAXES,) as well as the government's oversight of these same banks holding nontaxable, offshore money, it is reasonable that a speculation tax be implemented to keep these people in check. With that, I await my opponent's argument for the second round of debate. Sources: [1]: . http://www.dictionary.com... [2]: . http://ourfinancialsecurity.org... [3]: . http://www.usnews.com... [4]: . https://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00002-000 |
The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. ... The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the US. 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to ‘asymmetric challenges’ to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC. | PRO | a45cc60e-2019-04-19T12:46:05Z-00008-000 |
My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. I attempted to make it more debate-like with the topic one could take con against rather than something like "Photography Competition". RoyLatham I took the time to browse through your photography website to get a feel for any particular style you may have. Feel free to browse my Flickr portfolio if you would like to get a better understanding of my approach to photography. My opponent's first round photograph is an excellent example for proper HDR, too many times people get it wrong and go overboard with HDR. It doesn't do much else though and while the HDR is nice and everything is properly exposed the photograph otherwise seems like a random snapshot. The lack of a subject of some sort fails to draw me into the picture. For my second round photo I present you with this: . http://www.flickr.com... This is the Baughman Center on Lake Alice at The University of Florida | PRO | 29a41b0c-2019-04-18T19:05:19Z-00007-000 |
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation. 1. Your example diverts the nature of a government. Obviously, if your job was a plumber and your sole aim was to fix a toilet, it would be clear whether the toilet works or not. Conversely, to say that a government's role is to lead a country and its people into prosperity is something that can have conflicting ideas in terms of the definition of prosperity. So, clearly, you have misconstrued the nature of the government and the fact that the results that the government bring are not black and white, binary or twofold. Also, whether the government manipulates or doesn't manipulate is beyond the point. The point is whether transparency is necessary for a democracy to occur. 2. I did in my first argument. I asked if you could provide alternate definitions to those that I was posing, however, your arguments turned more into Red Herrings and straw mans. 3. Thanks? 4. Observational selection is no means to put forth an argument. You've used one example and given your previous example about Guantanamo bay, self-annihilate your argument... 5. It's not a matter whether a citizen needs to understand what the government does or not... It is simply a debate about the nature of transparency and its coherence with democratic ideologies... The straw mans are multiplying 6. Yes, however, how can we ever know if they are representing us or not given the nature of the anti-transparency... this is an issue. 7. How? The article doesn't seem clear in the argument is making. Also, hidden agendas must be considered. :) | PRO | 9c630afe-2019-04-18T13:53:25Z-00001-000 |
Debating is not a useful tool for society and is corrupt. Firstly I'd like to apologize for my slowness-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On the note that the definition of eating states no purpose.Eating can be for simply pleasure or to make yourself full.Why is that relevant?My initial point was debating does not have this one "goal" or "purpose"."Disagreeing does not mean lack of harmony. My opponent makes debating seem like a shouting match."Oh touché!Well actually, that is contradictory to the definition of harmony, in at least this context."Okay, so people are not allowed to disagree with each other? Anything involving opposing viewpoints is bad? "No, just not in the form of debating. And I never said "not allowed" I said it was corrupt and immoral though."Then they lose points."Not if nobody notices... but what exactly do you even mean by that? They lose points, for what exactly?"Yes there is resolving. You can use a debate to resolve issues."Okay... How is there finding a solution in debating? I guess it might be possible to do that... but would it be part of the debate? I'm not sure I can see that.Debating is practically arguing with each other and seeing who has the best arguments. That's why you can "Win" a debate. How exactly is that finding a solution or settling a dispute? And if it really is resolving anything, its definitely not a good way to. "Because different people have different arguments."Well then its not adequately settled if not everyone's argument is heard, it's not very efficient either."Non violent Communication""Okay, speaking issues, then leaving.No point."Not necessarily."If you are talking about discussing, then that would be self-refuting because you said above that anything with opposing viewpoints is bad."I do not recall saying anything with opposing viewpoints is bad.Say debates where banned and there is a presidential meeting instead of debate. The candidates say their ideas and leave. No arguing. The audience is left with empty choices with no evidence or proof."Arguments are not the same as debates, debates simply involve arguments.They could still present evidence and proof without arguing anyway."'facilitation'Defined as "Making an action or process easier".I do not see how that is relevant."Have you not heard of a facilitator involved in a conflict or disagreement?"'Conciliation"To obtain or gain. Isn't that what debates do?"Conciliation is the action of mediating between two disputing people or groups, that is definitely not what debates do."'Consensus decision-making'Okay so people come and vote and agree. No arguing. No evidence or proof is presented, people are just voting strictly on their opinions."Not necessarily."'Active listening'You listen to someone. No arguing, evidence, or proof. No point."According to wikipedia (the all-knowing) Active listening is,"a communication technique. Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."What makes it have, "No arguing, evidence, or proof" as you say?And have you ever actually seen your nose running? Also, what exactly would a fly be down about? | PRO | 6e7a1b3f-2019-04-18T18:17:17Z-00005-000 |
Eating meat is good for your health. The debate is centered around the health benefits of meat. This is not limited to red meat only. Con will argue that meat consumption is bad for you health. The debate is not about whether or not meat is good as a replacement of vegetables. There should be a balance between consumption of both. The definitions are self-evident in this debate. "Health benefit" covers both short and long-term health effects of meat consumption. Some advice to Con regarding debates: Don't plagiarize. Put everything that you take from another source into quotes, and make sure you put references. Avoid arguing in the comments section. This can lead to unnecessary disputes. Put your references in the debates, not the comments section. Make no new arguments in the last round. This often gives you an unfair advantage, especially if you are the contender. Avoid personal attacks. Attack the arguments, not the debater. Anything like "My opponent is stupid!" adds nothing of value to a debate, and causes nonsensical exchanges that are off-topic. Don't write more than 10 lines in one paragraph. People tend to get repelled by walls-of-text. Make sure you have spelling and grammar in check. If you point out logical fallacies in your opponent's arguments, don't simply say "Strawman!" It is your job to also explain why something is a fallacy | PRO | e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00004-000 |
A country always acts in it's own self interests. Although the examples of countries acting in their own interest are far more numerous and important than the contrary, I see your point in the examples you listed. Even though it may seem like the countries are not acting in their own interest in these situations, they really are acting in this way underneath the surface. Regarding your first argument, your"best example", I would like to point out that the UN's participation in the conflict in Rwanda was a complete failure. Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN said "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret." The fact that the UN "intervention" in Rwanda failed to stop or even resist the genocide shows that this is not a strong piece of evidence. America's Cold war polices were very much in there own interest. America wanted to stop the spread of Communism at all costs out of fear that they would be left alone to fight the Communists. As for America's cold war policies, such as espionage, were in place to protect themselves from the Communists and Russia. Although I know little about Kosovo, I know that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stabilize the region and prevent potentially dangerous radical groups from obtaining power. | PRO | b850ef31-2019-04-18T16:56:14Z-00002-000 |
Tom Brady is the Greatest QB of All Time. I am arguing the Tom Brady ISN'T the best QB of all time Definitions: I don't think that definitions are need for this debate round but if you believe there is, post it in the comments and I will provide a definition as well as a source as soon as I can. Rules: 1. ) Round One is for acceptance 2. ) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed 3. ) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link. 4. ) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed. | CON | 60495bd4-2019-04-18T14:14:19Z-00005-000 |
I Can Post a Video Funnier Than My Opponent's. I am arguing that the video that I will post will be funnier than the video my opponent will post. Rules for the debate: My opponent will post a link to a video in Round 1, and I will post a link to a video in Round 2. The video does not have to be one that you have created. Voters vote based on who's video they laughed harder at. | PRO | 2f9d2fed-2019-04-18T19:10:26Z-00003-000 |
High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams. Pro's Case: ==High School sports== "Studies have consistently shown that at the high school level, sports directly tie to better grades and better participation in the classroom [1]. We also find, through a study of over 1,000 high schools, that participating in sports lowers crime rates and suspension rates [2]." While sports are beneficial to high school students, high school sports are also a negative to high school students, their high schools, and their families. Not only are the costs of high school sports are rising [1] but there are also many cases of sports related injuries. [2] These sports related injuries, especially those that lead to brain damage, lead to lower levels of academic success. Here is a moral argument against high school sports: Whatever causes harm should not be funded High school sports cause harm and are funded Therefore high school sports should not be funded. As an alternative, instead of high school funding sports teams, students should join sports clubs so high school do not have to spend money on sports, but instead pay money for academic programs or healthier school meals. ==College sports== In order to support her argument, pro stated that college sports generated much income. While this is true, the statistics for these revenues are from the top 40 colleges, and are not representive of colleges as a whole. In adition, very few of those profits go to academics while the rest go to athletics. "Back to Alabama football. Of the $110 million of football revenue, less than $6.5 million went to the university to pay for scholarships, faculty support, and the Acts of Kindness fund. In other words, 5.9% of the football program"s revenue goes toward "academic programming." [3] "Every man is guilty for all the good he did not do" -Voltaire. In order to support her position, pro stated that college sports are beneficial to student's grades. While this is true, students can spend the time and energy doing sports into volunteering, and colleges can put that money that goes into sports programs into volunteering organizations. Volunteering also has a plethora of health benefits. [4] In order to get there excersise, a student can get it from volunteering, or students can set up games indepdently from school funding, and the school can use that money for academics rather than athletics. Sources: [1] http://www.deseretnews.com... [2] http://www.stanfordchildrens.org... [3] http://www.acenet.edu... [4] http://www.nationalservice.gov... | PRO | 976da052-2019-04-18T15:24:18Z-00003-000 |
The majority of people should produce their own methane. Heeeeyyyyyyyyyy xD You can consider me a very passionate believer in the right for people to do what they want with their bodies!!! Drugs don’t kill people, people being irresponsible with drugs kill people!!!! My body, my choice! I’ve never argued this before, so don’t be too hard on me, okay? LOL >.< I have a right to my opinion, as do you!!! Besides, all my friends agree with me on this, so :p | PRO | 5e8b600d-2019-04-18T15:13:58Z-00003-000 |
Mars mission would inspire kids to become scientists. "Why we must go to Mars." On to Mars: "The first manned landing on Mars would serve as an invitation to adventure for children around the world. There will be some 100 million kids in the U.S. schools over the next 10 years. If a Mars program were to inspire just an additional 1 percent of them to pursue scientific educations, the net result would be one million more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical researchers and doctors." | PRO | f932d81d-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00047-000 |
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person. I'd like to point out, for the third time that this debate is focusing on her as a person and not her political ideals, thus rendering my opponent's arguments invalid. Therefore I will give my opponent a second chance to rewrite his argument so it does not focus on her policies in the next round. The format from now on will be: Round 3: Arguments, no rebuttals* Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Final rebuttals and closing statements *I will forfeit this round so my opponent can rewrite his argument. Therefore I forfeit this round. I look forward to my opponent's argument. | PRO | 7d4edf09-2019-04-18T17:33:33Z-00005-000 |
The orthodox solution to the Monty Hall riddle is incorrect. With that said, let us proceed. Let us assume that you ignore what the host does and choose the door you originally believe to be the correct door. When you chose, the 3 doors were equally likely, so you win the car with probability 1/3. Now lets back up for a moment and assume that you didn't ignore the host, and decided to switch; you choose a door, wait for the host to expose the door with nothing behind it and then switch to the other remaining door. You win if and only your initial door had nothing of value behind it (think it through). How likely is it that your initial choice had a nothing of value behind it? Two thirds, of course. Keep in mind that in the beginning, the probability of getting the right door was 1/3. This probability would stick with the door the candidate chose, so when one of the other doors is removed from the game, the remaining probability is two thirds in order to have all probabilities sum up to 1 If you don't buy that, lets expand this hypothetical situation a bit. Suppose there are a hundred doors instead of just three. Only one has something of value behind it. You get to pick a door, then the host opens 98 loser doors, then he allows you to switch to the other remaining closed door. Would you? Of course, it's almost sure that the prize is behind the other door, and very unlikely that it is behind your original choice. Still not convinced? Here's another try. Suppose the host had three boxes . . . one of them contains a hundred dollar bill, the other two contain nothing. You have to pick, but before you do, the host agrees to help you out: You can point to two boxes, and he will gladly combine their contents into a new box. Now, after that's done, would you go for the new box, or for the old untouched one? Of course for the new one, it is twice as likely to have the bill. Now to make it more like the original problem, suppose that the host doesn't combine the contents into a new box, but instead throws away an empty box from among the two you pointed out to him. That's effectively the same thing, and has the same result: the other box is twice as likely to have the bill as the untouched one. Still not convinced? Lets get some empirical evidence then: . http://www.remote.org... . http://www.grand-illusions.com... In both of these simulated programs, you'll notice that the probability for victory will remain at 66-67% most of the time Here is a mathematical proof that confirms my claims: . http://www.remote.org.... Conclusion: Changing your door is the best solution. | CON | 2ae6544d-2019-04-18T19:54:35Z-00004-000 |
The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity. Understandings: _____________ The Christian God exists The Christian God possesses all attributes that are required for God to be the Christian God mainly Omni-Excellence, (All Omni-related attributes) This is a debate about Christianity being morally sound NOT the existence of God. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Clarifications: I did not ask you to prove anything, what I am saying is that a real contention does not consist of petty name calling, I was pointing out that there must be specific examples of the God demonstrating what the quote is saying calling him, otherwise there is nothing for me to content, nor without them it is baseless and really, moot. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention- System or Morality: Despite the quotes lacking anything to back them up I will continue. We both are assuming that God exists, therefore my opponents system of morality must be challenged. My opponent must prove that his system of Morality is the correct one, then prove that the quotes prove it to be undermined. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention- Empty attacks, argument fallacies: I will reemphasize this argument. When one instigates that his quotes refute something such as morality, there must be examples, or evidence if you will of the occasions in which this is happening. Analogously, if I told Geo that he was the most Godforsaken, hideously dressed, ill tempered creature that ever existed, I would need cases or examples of him being Godforsaken, I would need instances in which he was hideously dressed, and i would need instances of him being ill tempered for any of that to actually mean he is any of those things that i am accusing him of. Without examples of him performing the accused actions, I have nothing. This is exactly what he is doing. His quotes accused God of being many things, yet provides nothing to show that he is actually any of those things. And without examples, the accused actions mean nothing. That is like trying to sue someone and telling the judge whatever it is your suing them about, without anything to show for evidence. That being said, his quotes hold no water for what they accuse him of. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention- Burden of Proof: My opponent, the instigator and the challenger, must be able to defend his position; however, he has placed this burden of proof on his quotes, and like i stated in the previous contention, his quotes alone have nothing to back them up. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention- Omnibenevolence and the Moral framework My opponent has stated that the Christian God is omnibenevolent, which is defined as "Moral perfection", "perfect goodness", and "desire to do good." -Dictionary.com/Reference.com Now, morality only exists within it's own framework, conceding that God has moral perfection, means that God has not been immoral in his own framework of morality. If my opponent disagrees, he must prove that HIS is the correct moral framework, and say why the Christian Gods is not the correct framework, then prove how his quotes effectively refute Christianity. | CON | 8153f226-2019-04-18T19:19:44Z-00002-000 |
You Pick (Write it in in your first text box). First of al, Who is "we"? If it is the U. S. Government, I think that is a difficult case to make. I believe that it shouldn't be legal because it negatively affects people, And using weed is comparable to drunk driving. You are not supposed to do it, But people still do. Plus, Even if weed were legalized, A large number of the additives in the weed that is dispensed by private citizens is often more harmful than the weed itself. Thank you. | PRO | d6b9b1d0-2019-04-18T11:07:54Z-00003-000 |
Trigonometry. Goodness. I was only dealing with plane, Euclidean geometry. I haven't even started the other kind yet. But Con is quite right. Spherical geometry does work differently. However, all of my proofs still work, and Con didn't address any of them. Con cannot win just by resorting to equivocation. Or at least, I'd hope that shouldn't be the case. This is a weird debate. | PRO | 55e04e6f-2019-04-18T15:28:17Z-00001-000 |
The president of Iran does not hate jews. The topic is weather Ahmadinejad hates jews or not. I think you got side-tracked. I watched all three of the videos on you tube that you linked above. (Thanks for making them somewhat short. I was hoping I didn't have to watch 3 hours of video) I think without a doubt, those three short excerpts show that Iran is definitely not happy with the United States and Israel. However it does not show that Iran is unhappy with the people of these countries. It clearly is representing the Governments of the two countries. Let me state that last part very very clearly. There is a huge difference between being against a particular govt. and being against an actual group of people. Ahmadinejad doesn't hate Jews. He hates the Zionist Govt. in control in Israel. Did you know orthodox jews are completely against Zionism too? Matter of fact, the orthodox jews and Ahmadinejad have a pretty good relationship. They both agree that the existing problem in Israel isn't Jews, Muslims, Christians, its ZIONISM. | PRO | 83e92284-2019-04-18T19:49:36Z-00002-000 |
Rap Battle Challenge. Bruh stfu you can't even ryhme bars so dope performing at Super Bowl halftime ajisthetruth got the biggest fu(king bankroll broskie's bars make me wanna go to the toliet bowl Bars so drop make me go to Mars ajisthetruth got 12 car garage Lookin at me like imma star just took a look at profile pic broskie fu(king suckin dick Eatin Pad Thai with my chopsticks Bruh isn't even worth to my fu(king sidekick broskie should of be aborted before birth Bruh you need to be deported I'm the next Trump and if you write raps well...You're fired you are Hiliary Clinton cuz you flam asf | CON | 9c2b1ca4-2019-04-18T12:27:19Z-00002-000 |
yo mama jokes. Yo, I accept.Your mama's so stupid.... thats it! Yo mama so ugly when she walks into a bank, they turn off the surveillance cameras Yo mamas so ugly she's the reason why Sonic the Hedgehog runs source: http://www.jokes4us.com...yo mama is so fat, when she steps on an elevator... it goes downyo mama is so fat, she doesn't eat with a fork, she eats with a forklift | CON | a22ad612-2019-04-18T15:51:58Z-00005-000 |
For- Ssjb vs Con- Ssj4. I have to admit, ssb is incredibly powerful (and canon), but alas, I must fight for what is not right, ssj4. Now, ssj4 is raw power. This is portrayed in his instinctive, beastly transformation. He is closely resembling to an ape because it shows how much potential this form has. SSj4 has a multiplier of 10 times as much power as ssj3. ssj3 has 400 times the power base form does. Taking this into account, 400 times 10 is 4,000 times the strength of base form. which is incredibly powerful. While flying to Namek, Goku trained in 100 times Earth's gravity, which means he was jumping around while weighing around 15000-20000 lbs. Similarly, when Goku was training for the tournament at the beginning of the Buu saga, he was able to (with difficulty) lift 40 tons in his base form, when South Kai changed the weights. Now, imagine several years in the future, about 20 or so worth of training. Goku in base form has surpassed his ssj3 state with ease. | CON | 3ed4380a-2019-04-18T12:14:14Z-00000-000 |
That we have become slaves to conformity. Before I start I want to define these terms and make sure that we agree. Conformity: conformity [kənˈfɔːmɪtɪ], conformance n pl -ities, -ances 1. compliance in actions, behaviour, etc. , with certain accepted standards or norms 2. correspondence or likeness in form or appearance; congruity; agreement The first definition seems to fit the best in this case. Slave: Invariably involved with (often subconsciously) to a large extent. This definition is my own, as it's obvious that the idea that we are "slaves to conformity" is somewhat figurative. We are clearly not slaves in the sense that we are bought and sold to "conformity", so I took the liberty here to create a definition that I believe better captured the concept. If you have an issue with this definition mention it immediately, as I don't want us to get caught up in semantics later in the debate. Good luck and back to you, Con. | PRO | 3bc6023b-2019-04-18T18:45:20Z-00005-000 |
Cricket is a better sport than baseball. I do not believe the word "like" is directly related to the word "better. " Say someone has a choice to eat figs or Twinkies, which he/she likes to eat, as a snack. Of the two choices of snack, the figs are BETTER because they are healthier, but that does not mean that the person will LIKE figs more than Twinkies. There is no direct relation between "like" and "better," so my opponent has no advantage over me in that aspect. On a side note, if anyone happens to think: "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport[;] I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay! " That someone ought to meet a psychiatrist, or ought to get out and actually breathe some fresh air. .. If you find a sport more engaging, more fun, then it is a better sport. My opponent has stated, though in other words, the same statement. My opponent also claims that it is impossible to say that a sport is objectively more enjoyable, thus impossible for a sport to be a better. I do not know how many of you have gone to a baseball game, but I went once, and it was one the most boring things I had seen. I could have fallen asleep and understood the game just as well. Though that is subjective, waiting 2 minutes between each pitch is about as fun as watching a sapling become a tree, and most people would (I would hope they would) agree with me on that. I'll get my point across very simply: better quality sport = better sport. There are certain characteristics of baseball which are not as good in quality as similar characteristics of cricket. Certain characteristics can be measured objectively in a sport, and those characteristics provide more quality to the sport, which, in turn, makes the sport better. First, pitching is much like bowling, but bowling allows you to do more than just pitch. Bowling essentially encompasses pitching, and has a bit more. The bit more is a good bit more for reasons I stated in round 1, so more quality there. Batting in cricket is better than batting in baseball because you can bat near exactly the same way in cricket as you can in baseball, but you can also whack the ball any which way as I said in round 1. More of the same quality of batting found in baseball is found in cricket, so batting in cricket is better. To sum up: (Better quality bowling+better quality batting > okay quality pitching+okay quality batting)=cricket > baseball Ain't that a great way to look at things? By the way, color preference is quite a bit more subjective than sports. .. I await my opponent's next response. | PRO | f3370863-2019-04-18T19:26:45Z-00002-000 |
Is a domestic matter for each individual. If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important. | CON | e5252977-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00011-000 |
Total legalization of all drugs. 1. alchohol my opponent has chosen to ignore the evidence provided that alcohol is harmful to both individuals and society at large. I urge voters to see this as a concession to con. 2. tobacco i argue that tobacco should be illegal and replaced by electronic cigarettes and nicotine cartridges. this will remove the negative health effects to others that pro ignores. "I still make my stand on the choice being the individual's responsbility." shows that he has not acknowleged that second smoke is a danger to people who have made the choice not to smoke. 3. other drugs i maintain that we not legalize production or sale of hard drugs like cocaine or pcp. pro believes that the choice to use these types of drugs only affects that individual, however these drugs cause people to lose perspective and do bad things. i did not advocate that we should give welfare money to crack moms who neglect their kids, i argued that they should be rehabilitate so that they can be positive members of society and take care of their children. 4. antibiotics antibiotics are drugs and total legalization would mean sale of them anywhere for anyone. this is clearly not good as people will buy them for themselves or their children when they have a viral infection or only a mild bacterial infection. as i argued previously this eventually renders the drug useless when it is actually needed for medical emergencies. p1 - "no one does a drug with the intent of killing someone after it. " no but people commit crimes to pay for their habit, people do horrible things under the influence of certain drugs that would not normally be done. whether because the person would be incapable of raping or because when not under the influence they would be able to restrain themselves. p2 - the point isn't tha doing drugs is the same as killing or raping, its that the line of reasoning used also could be used for the legalization of murder and rape. p3 - "Those parents would have done it whether or not it was illegal so what would it matter?" again murderers would murder whether or not its illegal, when we repalce get high with murder or rape suddenly that logic doesn't sound so appealing. p4 - irrelevant to the debate. p5 - ? p6 - it is your line of logic that supports those things. "Perhaps the drugs like meth that are "the first time you're hooked" drugs shouldn't be legal," is that a forfeit? meth certainly falls under all drugs. " but marijuana, shrooms, LSD, and others that are all mellow and have no harmful effects " i have not mentioned these drugs in my arguments, so bringing them up is a strawman. | CON | 11fd58b2-2019-04-18T18:38:01Z-00002-000 |
Abortion is morally wrong. Let's suppose that you can time travel into the future (don't ask me how), and you can figure out that a fetus is going to be a terrible dictator and kill many people. In this case, an abortion would be useful to save more lives. Also, let's suppose that a fetus is inevitably going to die in the womb for some reason or another, and keeping the baby alive will result in severe pain to the mother. You might not call causing the death of the fetus before its inevitable death in the womb an abortion, but it is. | CON | eb893906-2019-04-18T11:54:17Z-00003-000 |
welfare. Having worked in a polling call center, I can tell you that the majority of Americans do not agree with you opinion. That said, your "welfare" program would NOT be "financial assistance" since it sounds like you would be FORCING them to work 40 hours a week it sounds. If it means they are working for it, it's not "welfare", or "assistance" it's them 100% DESERVING every penny they are given, so YES, you WOULD be getting rid of "welfare" completely by your idea. You response is typical of a Republican, you don't care about people or children, you just care about money. Your "safety net" is NOT a safety net at all, it's MANDATORY full time employment in some ficticious factory (which factory, doing what?) The problem you don't address is that MOST people getting financial assistance ARE working, many times FULL TIME, but their employers are UNDER paying them to the point that they NEED assistance to make ends meet. What 'dependence" are you talking about? You CANT be "dependent" on something that does NOT exist for MOST Americans. As I"ve said before, Adults WITHOUT children are NOT eligible for ANY financial assistance whatsoever! And WHAT on Earth are you talking about putting CHILDREN to work? And who the heck are you to say that parents who are financially struggling therefore don't deserve children? So because their EMPLOYERS are UNDER paying them, that's THEIR fault? Get real! There are a MILLION holes in your story, so until you can fill ALOT of those holes, your "theory" isn't feasable about your ficticious "factory" work. You seem to be uninformed about safety net programs. ONE is "Welfare" which is Financial Assistance for CHILLDREN (parents who have), TWO is Food Stamps/SNAP, which is to FEED people who's employers SO UNDER pay them, that they CANT afford to FEED themselves. THREE is "medicaid" which is NOT a "safety net" program, it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, it provides them HEALTHCARE for if they are SICK!! | PRO | e671615f-2019-04-18T13:01:23Z-00004-000 |
The existence of God is a logical truth. Okay, I'll present my case, a variation of St. Anselm's ontological proof. I'll write it in syllogistic form, so its easy to follow. 1. God is either real, or he is a figment of the imagination of a religious person. 2. God is by definition, unimaginable. 3. He can't simply he a figment of our imagination. 4. God is real. Also, from St. Anselm (variation, again) 1. God is the greatest conceivable thing. 2. It is greater to be existent than not. 3. God must exist. Here's another popular one, also variated, it is influenced by St. Thomas of Aquinas and Avicenna. 1. The universe is made up of many beings. 2. Each being must have come from another being. 3. This would continue endlessly, unless there was one being that was the original creator. 4. There must be an original creator. Finally, this is from me just now, influenced by Descartes, but I'm sure someone has come up with something similar. 1. God is perceived to exist by many in the world. 2. This perception is certainly existent in the minds of those who perceive it. 3. God certainly exists in the minds of many, if only as a false perception. Quod erat demonstrandum My opponent's case: "First, the whole notion of divine creator is unnecessary, religon is a throw back to the time before science and reason, since that time, we have gained a rather good understanding of our universe, and the natural laws that govern it, the "God of the Gaps" and metaphysics have been replaced by knowledge and understanding." Yes, we have good understanding of our Universe, through empiricism. Empiricism is not logic. You cannot prove anything using empirical evidence. For example, I see paper is white, but I cannot prove that to be true. There is the possibility that I am hallucinating. However, some things, like God, can be proved with logic, and I just did that. Anyways, the rules of logic are natural laws of our Universe, and I used them to prove the existence of God. "Furthermore on the off chance that "higher beings" exist,they would not be like the one(s) described in the error-ridden, self-contradictory holy text of the Abrahamic faiths. "God" is described as prefect, how can "perfect" beings make mistakes, let alone grieve over them. The faithful of the Abrahamic faiths claim that humanity was made in "God's" Image,but upon reading the holy texts, a more logical conclusion would be that man, and it was most certainly men, created a "God" in their image." I completely agree that much of the Bible, Quran, Torah, Talmud, and almost all other religious texts are horribly inaccurate. They were written by men, they are bound to have mistakes. Logic however is no more inaccurate than the laws of physics or mathematics. I used logic, and the inaccuracies of holy texts cannot prove me wrong. | PRO | d76aba68-2019-04-18T19:42:49Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. 1) Are you analyzing morality from a consequentialism or deontology view point? 2) How does negating actually systematically oppress a group of people? 3) If one's ability to protect themselves is downgraded by affirming wouldn't that be oppressive to people who can't protect themselves as well? 4) If affirming creates injustice and unequal societal order can you still uphold any of your framework? 5) In contention 1, you talk about femicide. How are they oppressed when a handgun is the most practical gun for their own self defense due to its conceal-ability and portability? ( would you really want to bring a rifle on your midnight walk? ) 6) In your points about violent feelings and femicide, why is a hand gun any different than other guns. (your own analysis) 7) If a handguns ban is indeed undemocratic for any reason wouldn't it be oppressive to affirm? 8) You argue that a ban reduces crime and black market. Wouldn't it actually be giving the guns directly to criminals and our of the hands of the good since criminals are okay with committing crime and the good would comply? 9) Due to conflicting statistics about homicide should this be considered a mute point in this debate? 10) Are you aware that your arguments about Australia enacted a complete firearm ban, not a hand gun ban? | CON | ab7928ea-2019-04-18T13:32:57Z-00008-000 |