argument
string | stance
string | id
string |
|---|---|---|
saying less means more then saying a lot of things someoe else said that you agree with. I'm not entirely sure how workers and tyrants are examples of less being more. That concept of less (quantity) of an objecti being more is simply impossible. Another fundamentally impossible concept that my opponent introduces is the concept of something being a 97% fact. Fact is not a statistic. A fact is either a 100% true statement, or it is not a fact. There are no partial singular truths. I am also unsure what my opponent is referring to by subscribers. It is unfortunate that not much was accomplished in this debate, but I remind potential voters that while arumentation and sources may not be easily applicable to this debate, that spelling and grammar still apply. Thanks, Pro. | CON | e81f0519-2019-04-18T15:52:47Z-00000-000 |
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified. So let's start off with the theory... 1) Fairness. The affirmative has the burden of proof to establish that what they say is true. Given the burden of proof of course the affirmative will have more ground. This is just the nature of argumentation. Just because my opponent doesn't understand that doesn't mean that the debate is stacked. 2) He ignores this point. My argument that the debate is educational when one actually debates the topic still stands. This can be considered a drop. 3) My opponent mentions point 1 and point 2, but he never once even talks about point 3. He completely dropped this point conceding that the debate is MORE FUN when one DEBATES THE TOPIC AT HAND. This means that he agrees (by not responding to my argument) that by whining about how "unfair" the resolution is he is in fact HURTING the value of entertainment in this round. He dropped it and this is my last opportunity to present arguments so I don't get to respond to anymore of his arguments after this. In light of this I ask that you the voters do not allow my opponent to bring this argument back up. Thus this debate has been proven to be fair, educational and entertaining. Voter affirmative The only response that my opponent offers is that people will download illegally any way. What my opponent does not bring to your attention is the fact that this is not what we are evaluating. We are trying to determine whether or not it is justified not if people will do it any way. His entire argument is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what we are debating about. His point falls however interesting of a thought it may be... On to my second point... My opponent starts off with his first point contesting my evidence analytically. The words he is attacking are not mine they are BBC's. BBC is a legitimate source for international media. Plus they are BRITISH!!!!! Take it up with the editor. Second point he makes is him basically him restating his point that I already refuted. I showed the numbers. I gave you statistic's showing how just because they make money off of concerts doesn't make stealing okay. He drops my points and ignores my statistics and has given you no reason to vote in negation of the resolution... Thank you and vote affirmative. :D | PRO | b2659f05-2019-04-18T19:09:27Z-00000-000 |
The Moral Argument Proves God. Thank you for the debate. Evolution indeed has something to do with morals. Morals stem from emotion, which stems from the brain, which has evolved based on experience. For example, you see a kid drowning in a pool. The obviously moral thing to do is try to save the kid but the want to save the kid comes from a powerful emotion of panic, fear, anxiety etc. These have evolved over time. Do you think if a Neanderthal man saw a kid drowning in a river they would feel exactly what we would feel today? No of course not because the brain has evolved. Acting morally or immorally stems from emotions in which a person may feel at a particular time. Of course though in order for morals to develop, such emotions would already have to be a part of humans and as we all know it is a scientific FACT that emotions stem from the brain and such emotions have developed through evolution. In other words, morality goes hand in hand with evolution. This article reiterates this point and furthermore explains why morality or the products of morality all stem from the brain. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com...) I look forward to your response. | CON | 14f5e634-2019-04-18T17:09:32Z-00003-000 |
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell. To be clear ,the Bible is the only credible source to be used, as tradition morphs to suit the era's distinctive character, events needed for a public acceptance. The Pope is not Jesus on Earth- nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New Testament does the Bible even make a VAGUE MENTIONING of anything even resembling a representation of Jesus, or even Peter. Peter was the rock of the early church, but just like Mary, mother of Jesus, he deserves respect, admiration even, but not an evolution to a near full-blown deity. The Pope is an elevated man who is ELECTED. The representation of Jesus, to Catholics, is ELECTED. This should pretty much just discredit this teaching almost entirely, as nowhere in the Bible does it say non-Catholics and unbaptized infants go to Hell. | CON | abfed099-2019-04-18T16:11:38Z-00002-000 |
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate. First, I would like to get this comment obligation business out of the way. The only comment I received asking me to insert a quote into my argument was from Yraelz. Here is the quote, for reference: "My name is beem0r, these next four sentences are the only ones that anyone should pay attention to in this debate. I admit that I have thoroughly lost. Please accept my forfeit and move on. If I attempted to contradict these sentences before or after it in any way those contradictions should be disregarded. Thank you." This is an utterly inappropriate request from Yraelz. Let us refer to rule 4, set up in Pro round 1: "The debater who does the better debating will win this debate." Yet he wants me to ask you to disregard my actual debating and pay attention only to the quote above. This directly violates rule 4, since I would be asking the voters NOT to take the meat of my debating into accou8nt, when that's what they're supposed to take into account. Therefore, this request was inappropriate, and therefore I have not inserted the quote as if I myself was speaking said words. On to the actual debate: My opponent has insinuated that _I_ should automatically lose for writing a comment for him to introduce a new rule. He says, word for word, "my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate," However, there is no rule against TRYING to have a rule added. The rule was not added, and if it was, it would not have been added by me, but by my opponent. Actually ADDING the rule is against the rules, but TRYING to have a rule added is not. There is no rule against trying to make your opponent add a rule. However, even though you did not explicitly state it, I will accept your round 2 logic as an argument for the inappropriateness of my request, and therefore I will not complain that you failed to include the quote as if you were the speaker. Also, I'm sorry to hear about your mother, but you should probably get your anger issues checked out. Just a friendly suggestion. I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to show any reason at all why I will lose under the stated rules. He has failed to substantiate his argument with any evidence whatsoever. I await my opponent's final round, and with it, perhaps some evidence that I will in fact lose. | CON | 80213928-2019-04-18T19:49:15Z-00002-000 |
The Porsche Cayman is Superior to the Chevrolet Corvette. Pro failed to provide evidence that it was tested against the GT(FT) 86 and also failed to prove how that makes it better than the Corvette. I do know that the Cayman is supposed to be faster through corners, however, as I have stated, only generates 0.01 more lateral g at maximum through the corners. Even the Subaru WRX STI, which is only around half the price of the cayman, has more horsepower than it. Although I don't think that is a concern since the Porsche is lighter, it is still a point worth noticing. | CON | 7a5ce039-2019-04-18T15:02:27Z-00000-000 |
What Thanos did was right. How can it not make sense to you? He was wise enough to understand the laws of nature and not incur its wrath by changing the boundaries of the nature. The universe was already dieing. Making half the universe sterile would take time, untill then full populations would have become extinct. Thanks doesn't lie because for him he is all powerfully,no truth can harm him. No one lies when they are in grief. He told the reason after the death of Gamora. He was grieving. Also overpopulation is the worst problem ever. Densely populated countries like India and understand that. | PRO | b3c01cdb-2019-04-18T11:28:55Z-00001-000 |
Being Gay is Not O.K. Resolved:Being Gay is Morally incorrect, and is in it's essencse debaucherous and unhealthy.First Round:AcceptanceSecond Round:Opening Statements (Do not touch on the opposing argument yet)Third Round:Rebuttal (Rebut each-others opening statements)Fourth Round: Crossfire and Final statements (Answer any questions brought up by the rebuttal, and get in your last words)The Burden of proving the benefit of the doubt in this situation is on myself, and therefore I will make the first argument, and Con wilkl have the last say.Religious points, and Scientific points may be made. Morality is also acceptable if you can explain why this is wrong or right definitively, as in the absence of Religion, there is no set morality standard. | PRO | 9dd0e379-2019-04-18T12:40:05Z-00003-000 |
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II. Look up Google Images for the film 100 Tears. That's the kind of violence in an NC-17.That guy has seen better days... Wait... HE STOLE THAT FROM MY BASEMENT! HE TOOK MY STUFF! HE TOOK MY MEATLOAF!These said things are WAY worse in an NC-17 movie.It should be the responsibity of some nameless people to decide what movie can hear about. By distributing the NC-17 rating, your giving a letter to an aspiring filmmaker saying "no one will hear about this movie".The director tried to AVOID an NC-17 rating. That's not the point; if they didn't try to avoid the NC-17, we would have never seen one of the best horror movies ever! And it becomes even more hilarious when a TV program showed the theatrical and "raw" version side beside... They showed "NC-17" material on TV...Who cares who is deciding the ratings?I care because no one is accountable for the ratings they give!As long as the ratings make sense, we shouldn't care.Why is it that the Matrix is R for "kung-fu" while The Dark Knight Rises is PG-13 for punching people until they die, dragging them out into the street, and breaking someone's spine? | PRO | c7020e58-2019-04-18T17:09:56Z-00001-000 |
Minecraft sucks. i have been saving some things in the future. Anyway... Minecraft is laggy Minecraft has horrible graphics Minecraft has bad combat. Minecraft is using the wrong kind of music as it does not match the atmosphere. Minecraft is an unfinished product because updates on bug fixes are too common. Which also may show microsoft had planned this. Minecraft is addictive(thats why it also should not be used at school. Minecraft merchandise are actually scams. You dont need handbooks and just can use the internet And so minecraft is a below average game. | PRO | c74aadf3-2019-04-18T14:41:16Z-00002-000 |
Marijuana Legalization. As many may not know the marijuana plant can be used to make hemp products including paper, string, and even clothing. At one time before marijuana prohibition hemp was looked at as a cheaper and better alternantive to modern paper making techniques. The legalization of marjuana would allow companies to use hemp in their manufacturing process which would create many more producers, sellers, and buyers of this product which is never a bad thing for our economy. Many companies may even set up bases of production inside the United States which would have a positive affect on the country that gets almost sixty percent of its goods overseas. | PRO | 6231a821-2019-04-18T17:03:32Z-00000-000 |
Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates. Five-Round Debaters are equal to three-rounds debates regardless of the amount of characters and either way, any debate has the chance of being vote bombed by Josh. You can see all my debates: http://www.debate.org... You can even see yours: http://www.debate.org... You can't even refute what I just said because this is the last round. But regardless of who won the debate, I know that one of us will be vote bombed my Josh regardless of the length. Both of us has been vote bombed by Josh and this debate will probably be vote bombed too. Josh hates both of us so regardless of the amounts of characters we post or the amount of rounds we have, this debate can still be vote bombed easily by Josh. | CON | 8f8d5cab-2019-04-18T19:35:31Z-00000-000 |
Britain is a war criminal. Thanks for your lengthy response Pro and for accepting the definitions.Also, thank you for calling me pedantic.I pride myself on being excessively concerned with displaying academic learning.I am a teacher after all.*Pro's Case*Pro claims that "an island who is government and army" fought many wars.There are three problems with this.1. An island is not a government or an army; it's a piece of land...just check the accepted, though considered pedantic, definitions in round 1.2. Neither colonizing many countries nor fighting many wars necessitates criminality; both colonization and wars can be executed while no crime is committed.3. An island is not a who; the pronoun who is generally reserved for people or animals.Pro also claims that this is how he "referred to the Britain."Let's see what Pro wrote before round 2:"Round 1, accept challenge, state position and basically outline argument."My response:I fail to see any mention of Britain, an island, a government, or an army.Pro, when did you refer to "the Britain" as a government or army, before round 2?If the answer is that Pro didn't refer to "the Britain" before round 2, then how could I have been aware of Pro's reference?Also, this surely flies in the face of the accepted pedantic definitions, no?*Conclusion*Pro is just not giving us enough evidence that an island is capable of being a person or committing a crime, even if Pro inaccurately tried to refer to the island as a "who."So I maintain my rejection of this resolution, because Britain is a piece of land, as accepted by Pro, and not a person who committed a crime. | CON | 36ca73c7-2019-04-18T12:34:06Z-00000-000 |
The Death Penalty. + "I hate to say this buddy, but you just contradicted yourself. First you said that the death penalty wasn't a punishment right?? Then you said that this type of punishment is based off of ignorance." I wouldn't say this is a contradiction. It is a punishment based off of ignorance, which isn't really much of a punishment at all. You are just making them face what they will have to face eventually anyways. + "And besides if you sentence them to a life in prison, it is basically like giving them the death penalty anyways, considering the fact that they are going to die in prison." Not at all. If you sentence them to death they spend, at most, a year or so in prison awaiting their decision (and hoping and praying for anything else, rather than thinking about their actions) and then dying. If you sentence them to life, you make them spend decades in prison having nothing to think about but what brought them to their situation. Not to mention the atrocities that occur in prison. I, and many others (including those who have been to prison), would rather die than go to prison. + "If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons." If you take all of the people who have been on death row or been executed, and divide it by the amount of people incarcerated in the United States, you would determine that it would represent .1% of incarceration in the United States. Hardly a devastation to our tax dollars. +Sources+ http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.clarkprosecutor.org... | CON | abe4d546-2019-04-18T18:56:33Z-00003-000 |
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk. I am going to say once more that "gamma radiation" is not a true form of disease therefore Anti-Venom can't take "Hulk" away from anybody. My opponent even said that " the way to cure a snake bite isn't a super-hero" yet in earlier in the debate he said that Anti-venom could take away any disease. So i am getting confused on which side he is on. My argument still stands that Hulk is better. | CON | 28de3fb9-2019-04-18T15:39:11Z-00000-000 |
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA. Kobe Bryant, is good, i'll give him that but he is not better than a great like Wilt Chamberlain (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Besides scoring 100 points in a single game, and averaging 50+ points for an entire season, Chamberlain established a domiance and legacy like none other than maybe Micheal Jordan. My opponent has already conceded that MJ was indead better than, well look to SLAM magazines top 75 NBA players of all time, MJ's number one, and Chamberlain's number 2. Kobe Bryant is not better than Wilt ever, end of discussion. Let him score 100 in a single game and then we can talk about it. Also, Bryant isn't even the best player in the league, with player like Steve Nash, Dirk Novinske, and Lebron James getting MVP's in resent years to contend with Byrant as best player. Also, what about the man behind Kobe's first rings: Shaq? I think many people would think he's better, and Dwight Howard of Orlando is pretty good to. Basically, there is no way Kobe's the best in the league and the 2nd best ever. He's good, but not that good. | CON | f8a38bdb-2019-04-18T19:20:30Z-00004-000 |
The United States should fund alternative energy research. So here are your arguments "Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers." 1. oil dependence 2. economy 3. pollution 4. save money To debate this, I will debate the method of finding alternative energy. METHOD You say we should use government subsidies and funding. I am assuming this goes into businesses. How bout we go through government agencies to try and find alternative energy. Like NASA must research solar power. The branch of our military that works on building nuclear weapons must research nuclear power. This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal. This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic. | CON | 8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00005-000 |
Online gambling affects families. A parent who gambles can quickly lose the money their family depends on for food and rent. It is a common cause of family break-up and homelessness, so governments should get involved to protect innocent children from getting hurt [5]. Each problem gambler harmfully impacts 10-15 other people [6]. The internet makes it easy for gamblers to bet secretly, without even leaving the house, so people become addicted to gambling without their families realising what is going on until too late. | PRO | 5023cb9c-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00012-000 |
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate. I will now state my defenses and explain my answers. I thank my opponent for his response.1. My opponent did not ask if I discriminated against African Americans but if I stopped discriminating against them, and because I never discriminated against them, I never stopped.2. You asked if I supported the Nazi Party. I do not support or discourage it. I am neutral, thus not offending anyone.3. I do not believe it is a myth. I believe it is debatable whether or not it is real. 4. I believe in the possibility of evolution, and because I am limited to yes or no, I had to say yes. My answer is a neutral one.5. I suppose I shall now state that if it was dropped by my opponent now, for the sake of fairness he cannot go back and attack it next round because I cannot respond properly. 6. I do not have an opinion on this, thus I do not believe that some races are smarter than others. Neutrality is not offensive.7. I do not support it. I do not do things that necessarily benefit science. However, I do believe in science. Therefore, my answer was not offensive.8. I said it should be built, not that it would be good for it to be built. This whole question is taken out of context. I have no opinion on it myself. The question makes me choose one perspective or another, when I am actually neutral.9. Dropped. 10. While many people believe money is not the most important, there are different levels of importance and different kinds of important. One must have money to function within certain societies, so money is important. However, it is not the most important.11. Dropped12. It does not imply I already had pictures of Hitler in my bedroom. By saying no, I have negated both the taking down of photos and the having of photos. My opponent wanted me to say yes, that way he could say that I had pictures of Hitler in my bedroom. However, I said no. I never had any pictures so I couldn't take any down.13. Again, this question has to be taken out of context. In certain circumstances, it is acceptable. In others, it is not. If a soldier must kill a terrorist who is in a situation where he may harm five civilians, no one would say the soldier is at fault or offending anyone by killing the terrorist. It is all circumstantial.14. Dropped.15. Ignorance cannot justify offense. If any single person were to say they never felt for a fleeting second a considering thought of taking their own life would be lying. Being honest about yourself rather than another person is not rude, offensive, or snarky. It's honest. The incorporating of the slightest moment of time is what makes everyone, when providing an honest answer say, yes to this.http://areason.org... | PRO | d01d931f-2019-04-18T18:31:46Z-00001-000 |
False rape charges should be against the law. If you will take this debate put "ACCEPT" and then make your argument. If not simply put "DENIED" and just leave it there. Now for the rules:ROUND 1:ARGUMENT PHASE this round isn't worth any points, but it will start things up. We're not making any rebuttals, but we are making our own argument. ROUND 2:REBUTTAL STAGE this round is worth 2 points for whoever refutes more points.ROUND 3:ARGUMENT PHASE(2) this round IS worth points and it's all about execution, and whoever makes the more compelling argument in this round.ROUND 4:REBUTTAL STAGE(2) this round the same as 2 refute the arguments from the previous round, whoever refutes more 2 points, who can ever make the most compelling argument without having to use some source and explain in their own words 2 points. Good grammar 1 point. GENERAL RULES:Sources are allowed but only in argument rounds, and you're only allowed 3 sources, anymore and points will be deducted. (-3) No ad hominem attacks, and eluding to personal attacks. (-1)No fallacious arguments(-2 points) THANK YOU________________________________________________________________________________________________ARGUMENT:I think anyone making false allegations should be held accountable. It's an offense to call the police and have nothing to report, so falsely accusing someone should also be punishable, this way the accuser would be less inclined to make false reports. This would not stop the many, but if this law WAS passed and was proven effective then less accusers would feel inclined to report false charges and true victims would probably feel more inclined to report it. | PRO | ac5958c1-2019-04-18T15:34:27Z-00007-000 |
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality. "Black Panther does not promote racism towards white people; rather, it focuses on the rich and diverse mix of cultures from African origins" Yes, they show a variety of different cultures, but my claim wasn't that Black Panther doesn't show African cultural diversity, it's that the movie promotes racism towards white people. "And yes, I daresay that Western cultures are usually ignorant towards other varieties of cultures." I was specifying white people, not a general western culture. "However, I can understand your claim; there are some scenes in the movie, that paint white folks in an unfavorable light, and to an extent, it is unfair-" So . . . you agree with me? "however, I question the movies that previously have painted African-American people in a less favorable light, yet have gone by without notice." We're talking about Black Panther, not other movies. Throughout the movie, the characters have said some pretty racially inappropriate (borderline racist) things to the white people like colonizer and oppressor. | CON | 5a7a80db-2019-04-18T11:29:36Z-00003-000 |
Classic American Muscle is better than Modern Imports. American-made products are NOT better than some imports. American made-products are far more expensive than Chinese-made products or from products with cheaper labor. American-made products are also very inferior when it comes to quality compared with Japanese or German products, except when it comes to military products (although that's not surprising when America spends a third of its annual budget on the military). American-made cars are very inferior to Japanese cars. Think about it: many countries in the world do not trade restrictions, yet you rarely see American cars outside of the U.S. Why? It is because they are not that good. Japanese car companies like Toyota and Honda have the most cars that, 20 years later, are still on the road. Luxury cars like Ferrari or Bugatti are also from Italy and France, not America. Also, Ace Hood literally has a song called Bugatti | CON | 5ad1dfd4-2019-04-18T12:22:48Z-00000-000 |
My Pokemon team is superior to yours. My Pok"mon team is superior to yours. Rules: Con must say his Pokemon team before Pro. (Don't worry I already have a Pokemon team I'm just afraid you'll just make a counter team.) No foul words No changing your Pokemon in your team. Round 1. Acceptance and naming of your Pokemon team Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Pok"mon Showdown battle Round 4. Closing statements. | PRO | 6cbccf2a-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00004-000 |
The Lego building block toy brand is for little kids. The way I described them as being used for businesses, is how you sometimes see diagrams or tiny structures in store walls. And have you ever been to Lego land before? They have TONS of theses structures, life size, and scaled down all over the park. What some people would do is they will make dioramas with the green base plates, and they can pose the minifigures on the dioramas and make them hold and do all kinds of things. The fact that they are marketed towards children won't stop older people from buying or using them for several things. Sure someone can say Nerf blaster toys are for little kids, but many older people use them in organized "Nerf wars" on college campuses. These people beef up and paint them so they look and function better. They even buy specially made gear for the activity. WHY can't the other above reasons for Legos work for you if it works somewhat for Nerf toys. Try rebutting that! | CON | b9ffee49-2019-04-18T14:04:31Z-00001-000 |
Smashing TVs are fun. This debate does connect to what my arguments were such as people could get injured or the cost of TVs is too much as neglected by my opponent stating "This debate was whether TVs are fun or not, not the fact that people could get injured or cost of TVs." Clearly, it connects because if you smash the TV and you get a cut (injury), you are not having fun because you are in pain (don't dare say you can shrug of that pain or its nothing). Also the cost of TVs can make it not fun because you need to find a way to buy a new TV which is a pain. First of my Opponents reasons why smashing TV is fun. He stated (Smashing TVs can relieve stress). Obviously it does not, It increases the stress to buy a new to TV is wanted because it cost $100 said by opponent or more. But it can be used to get food, pay rent/mortgage, hydro or electricity. $100 can mean a lot unless you are a ruthless trillionaire. Second, my opponent states "Smashing TVs boosts adrenaline". It may because you are smashing something big and it broke because you are strong. But it could also not boost adrenaline because you are standing at the same spot and just breaking TV by throwing it or kicking it etc. This is my same answer for the fourth argument stated by my opponent "Smashing TVs boosts adrenaline" Third of my opponent's arguments " Smashing TVs is also a good form of workout by exercising your arms." There isn't an argument for this because it is true. But there could have been a cheaper alternative to workout and exercising your arms such as going to gyms and lifting dumbbells. Fifth of my opponent's arguments stating "Proving how strong you are to your friends by smashing a TV can make you feel better." It actually proves how stupid you are. People aren't going to say 'Oh My goodness, he smashed a TV, he is so strong'. They are actually going to say "What a stupid guy. He broke a TV worth over $100. He is crazy!!!" This will make you feel more worse because you are being criticized as being stupid. the sixth argument of my opponent made no sense at all. Now to my arguments. My arguments basically disproves my opponents statement of smashing TV is fun. This is a poll created by me asking Is smashing TV fun? http://www.debate.org... This has been a great debate. I think this was the best one I had yet. Looking forward to who wins!!!!!! Thanks yay28 for this debate | CON | 134d9651-2019-04-18T17:12:27Z-00000-000 |
Mount Everest should not exist in the spot it does exist in. Mt. Everest is a great tourism site that boosts the economy of China and Nepal (where I'm from). This consequently is good for creating jobs and relations between countries in the area. This is not a bad thing. When you claim it blocks transportation, that is not true. The one mountain is not a blockade, it is rather the entire Himalayas, but that is not the topic, which, by the way, makes your argument fallacious. The only countries blocked by the mountains and not something else like borders are, well, none. Nepal is the only country on the larger side of the border, but they have the entire west side of the country to reach China. India has many parts that touch China, so they do not have a problem. As for the people stuck on it, I do not know about anyone who gets stuck on there for more than weeks. Helicopter travel there is hard but possible. The people that climbing the mountain are responsible for getting stuck or getting in an avalanche. What you should be arguing is that we should be sending people to the mountain to rescue people. | PRO | c5870975-2019-04-18T11:39:04Z-00004-000 |
Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body. I agree with almost everything my opponent said. I do, however, disagree with two fairly large points he made.Humans have intrinsic valueI believe that value is given based on the characteristics of individuals themselves, not through the species they belong to. The species is irrelevant when determining rights, as membership of the group is not exclusive to those possessing the traits that give value. If a member of another species acted the same way as a human, with the same characteristics and only differing in the sense that it can't reproduce with a human, would you grant it value? If not, aren't you in effect granting rights based on who the animal in question can reproduce with and nothing else? If you would, would you say that humans don't have intrinsic value because they are human but because they have the traits that give them value? The parents have an obligation to the child.I disagree on the basis that I do not believe that individuals have any inherent obligations to anyone else. Obligations that are not formed through a contract between two consenting individuals only serve to restrict human choice (refer to my first round). A contract can be made between the parents, but the way my opponent phrased it makes me think that he's arguing that a contract is made between the parents and the child through the act of sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong.The main flaw that I can see with this argument is that a contract cannot be made with something not in existence or something unable to give consent. You cannot enter into a contract with a rock, nor can you enter into a contract with a magical fairy. I'll concede that when choosing to have sex, you are consenting to the future possibility to have a child. However, you are also accepting the possibility of having that child removed. If you are driving and get hit, it would be absurd to say that because you consented to the possibility of getting hit that you cannot go to the hospital or have your car fixed. When choosing to perform an action, you are consenting to the possibility of all the individual potential things that could happen happening, not just one particular chain of events. | PRO | d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00001-000 |
Im on a boat. According to www.uncyclopedia.org, the boat was invented by Dr. Alfred Sears Boat in Knoxville, Commonwealth of Kentuckistan in 1982. It was originally designed as a transportation device for carrying fish, but it is now commonly used to transport logs from major cities in Canada to the United States and Mexico. Initial experiments with the development of the boat assumed some divine influence was holding the boat on the watery surface, this led to the belief that some form of hand kept the boat afloat. Subsequent experiments assumed numerous other body parts, this line of investigation ceased when they reached the pancreas. Dr. Boat spent six years perfecting the design of the boat, but accidentally converted to Judaism in 1988 during a vacation with his wife to Japan. He spent two years working on other projects and never worked on the boat again. An early attempt at a boat, the use of stuffed toys was common as they were considered to be the most human-like things available. Greeks use boats to transports their drugs to Native Americans. Winners of supreme contests of skill (such as Bullseye and Vegetable Photographer of the Year) are given a boat as a prize. The tradition of kneecapping the winner has subsided over the years. A horrific series of boating accidents have led to the invention of maritime aids, the most famous of which is the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro, which is due to be torn down next week. | CON | f34fa8d-2019-04-18T19:25:33Z-00000-000 |
Abstinence may have value, but only within comprehensive sex-ed. Barack Obama was reported saying on 20 Apr. 2008 - "...[W]hat I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children [...] But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process."[2] | PRO | 641065db-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00060-000 |
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties. First of all, I would like to point out that you attacked the only point I gave without any support... I mean, whatever floats your boat. Presidential debates between candidates from both parties AFTER the sides nominate a candidate are remarkably different from average debates between opposite parties. Yes, while both include a republican and democratic point of view, one has a candidate that the other candidates in the same party trust their opinions and beliefs in, and the other could hold a wide variety of perspectives and ideas. The debate that takes place with nominees from both parties is meant to have two candidates with perhaps their own ideas, but also the other running members' ideas infused into their debate strategy. This debates eliminates the need of the other, smaller debates between parties because, yes, the nominees will focus on their ideas, but will also be influenced by their competitors within their party. In your second point, while yes, "polls change over time," your entire argument is based off of chance. Can we be sure that less popular candidates will take the spots of the higher polling candidates after one debate? Sure, we could definitely procure a handful of examples, but this is just assuming candidates doing worse will suddenly shape up and candidates doing better will lose their cool. You also mention that "lesser polling candidates still are able to prove themselves and overtake better polling candidates in debates limited to one political party." While this is true, debates between parties have a much higher chance of receiving more views on the popular news channels. Although they will also show single party debates, they would most likely be ignored in comparison to the shows featuring higher polling candidates from both parties. This would be giving already higher polling candidates yet another advantage if inter-party debates are allowed, further handicapping the candidates not doing as well. Presidential debates should be limited to a single party. Not only would debates between the parties featuring higher polling candidates put lower polling candidates at a serious disadvantage, but beliefs and ideals kept within parties would be intertwined with political stature, consequently confusing voters and giving false statements. Debates should stay as they are; although debates between parties would certainly be interesting and help news channel views, America should focus on true goals for the presidential election. Clearly, debates should be kept within houses, and maintain the orderly fashion we have always put into action. P.S. "For the reasons in the debate" is a pretty sucky way to wrap things up. | CON | 72ba0ec4-2019-04-18T14:17:47Z-00000-000 |
advertisment aimed at children should be banned. ya as pro says that its parents responsibility. to guide children about things. but children get exposed to certain things of advertisment that they start demanding product. now and then., because advertisment is shown in such a way. they get attracted. to it. 2 In day to day life parents go fo job you cannot have control on child about sayin advertisment product. which they easily get attracted.so things which are not affordable. to spend money on jetstrix video game. wher every child wants when they see advertisment. to spend money on that.they can spend money in something else. which will be useful for them. 3 then why dont they show healthy advertisment about fruits, which is more use ful for children to be nutrient.than obesity to have junk food which they are exposed to advertisment and then get attracted. | CON | 24195d9e-2019-04-18T19:02:23Z-00001-000 |
Islam is a religion of peace. There are some facts to what you said but most is speculation. However, you failed to address my other two points, and so the debate is won by default. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist. | PRO | 7eec18b5-2019-04-18T17:32:15Z-00001-000 |
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control. First off, I read the whole article from your prisoncommision source, and although it does say overcrowded jails are uncomfortable it still doesn't answer my questions, since you were never able to prove these points, it is up to the judges to decide whether they are reliable facts or not, but in my opinion if you can't prove it don't bring it to the table. You stated that "Most of those crimes are not victimless crimes", but I was the only one to bring a definition of victimless crime, and since you used no counter definition, we have to go with my definition, which those crimes DO fit under. On the note of prostitution spreading disease, prostitutes in Nevada are required to test for STDs and if they have them, to stop doing buisness until they can get rid of the STD, so they actually don't spread them. I am not debating whether or not prostitution should be legal, simply that when done illegally it leads to the spread of STDs. "People are constantly exposed to violence in illegal activities" that is exactly the point I was trying to make, and your story about Walgreens further proved my point that victimless crimes lead to violent crimes by showing that people who stay out of the victimless crime buisness aren't affected as much by violent crime, so by allowing more people to get away with victimless crime, you make more people succeptable to violent crime. You mentioned the fact that crime rates are lower in Amsterdam, but you failed to make note of the fact that although violent crimes have lowered a little, they are still only .0001 percent lower than the UK where drugs are still illegal, and that the amount of victimless crime has skyrocketed, so your statement that "AND VICTIMLESS CRIMES WOULD LOWER!!! as Amsterdam proves. Why not legalise these costly and illogical victimless crimes?" was dishonest, and wrong. You say that there would be a "tax revenue from things like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc." but at what price? Are you honestly willing to risk so many lives so that the government can make more money? I believe that through your lack of requested evidence and the points I have made about the risks of victimless crime we have proved everything else in your last paragraph wrong. | CON | 6857a58c-2019-04-18T19:45:33Z-00000-000 |
teens vs. parents: whether parents should let kids get tattoos. Hello, I will be debating against the topic of "Teen vs. Parents: Whether Parents Should Let Kids Get Tattoos. My opponent said, "teens should be aloud to get tattoos at there parents cost instead of having to wait til they are 18 years of age." Well the key point is < >, because the teen has no way to tell their parents how to spend their own money. The parents can allow the teen to get a tattoo, but it should be of their own free will. The teenager should not be able to just give their parents a bill for a tattoo job, and the teenager used his/her parent's credit card. | CON | 6669a91-2019-04-18T20:00:01Z-00002-000 |
always make your own sandwhiches.. I negate that one should always make his/her own sandwiches. My opponent claims that having others makes your sandwich for you can and will lead to some 'undesirable penalties', such as AIDS or scrotum itch. The PRO's personal experiences aside, I fail to see any proof that these conditions would become reality. Even if you buy this argument that my opponent is making, keep in mind that the hands are the dirtiest part of the human body: http://ezinearticles.com... ; and since the hands have the highest amount of bacteria, a person making his or her own sandwich is just as likely to infect the sandwich with some kind of germ; so, it's easy to give this to the CON on the grounds that it doesn't really matter who makes your sandwich, as there is an equal risk regardless of the sandwich-maker. Plus, if this argument were true, that would render nearly all restaurants as being dens of disease and suffering; which, as they generally are not, this argument is simply unacceptable. Also, my argument makes an argument about Chuck Norris, however everyone should know that Chuck Norris would not stoop to the level of servitude required to make a sandwich for someone else; therefore, the threat of a "roundhouse kick full of disease" is irrelevant. I look forward to my opponent's response. | CON | 69fd7437-2019-04-18T19:25:08Z-00004-000 |
Hades is the most powerful Olympian. Zeus may be maybe more popular but I state that Hades would win in a war. A) Hades has control over Tarturus. a pit that holds all of of Olympus most powerful enemies. The Titans, The Giant (sons of Gaea), and Typhoon. B) While Zeus has a lighting bolt, Hades as a helm that shows his opponents most hated fear. Makes him invisisble, plus no body can hear or feel Hades. C) Hades as control of the world largest population. The dead. Thanks for accepting my Debate, and no going "UHHH, these gods are not real. I know that. | PRO | f0e9caef-2019-04-18T18:59:25Z-00003-000 |
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language. I reject the idea of a one-world language, too. I'm simply saying English WOULD be the best choice if there were to be one. If I could bold, underline, highlight, circle, and draw arrows pointing to thye "WOULD", I would.Why you should vote Pro: Con has wasted his debate ranting on false accusations about me and not backing up his side of the resolution with any facts or reasoning. No matter how many times I tell Con about the WOULD, he doesn't seem to get it into his head. Now, it is understandable that he would bomb a debate since he is new to this site. I have included facts and data to support my end of the resolution whil Con has used no such thing, all he does is rant. | PRO | 5f82fbe3-2019-04-18T16:46:40Z-00001-000 |
Purely logical debates are impossble. I'll keep mine short, since I'm a bit buy right now. The problem with Pro's round 2 post is that it's all in black and white. The fact is, is that in so many different arguments there is no one logical answer. Two people can use completely flawless logic and have different opinions. If debate is the pursuit of truth, it is more often done to find which truth will produce the best results or is preferred by the audience and debaters. As long as both sides propose reasonable arguments the debate can be purely logical, even though the winner will be completely subjective. | CON | 19834e16-2019-04-18T15:11:15Z-00003-000 |
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice. Hi! This should be fun, one history lover to another in a fun debate on a very controversial topic. Thank you for your courtesy first off. Now then with the formalities concluded, my arguments for Round 2 as follows The Romanov line was not totally innocent of crimes, but they were for the most part naive to the Russian Revolution of 1917. It was not Justice to kill children, teenagers really, by a Bolshevik firing squad. Prince Alexi, and Princess Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria were innocent of the crimes their parents were charged with. They were naive to what their father Czar Nicholas II was facing, and to my knowledge did not commit crimes worthy of death. The Romanov line was brutally murdered by a Russian firing squad, that in the process bayoneted or shot innocent children. Their execution was unfair and unjust. If it was inevitable, there should have been a fair trial held before a criminal court. They should have had adequate lawyers and a fair judge, not be hastened into a basement and brutally murdered. I rest my case for Round 2, and I really look forward to hearing my opponents argument. | CON | ba838713-2019-04-18T15:34:36Z-00007-000 |
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees. Setting up a safezone in Syria would be far more difficult than simply letting people into this country. "Consider your families. Consider your friends." I am considering the dying, poor family in Syria, ruined by years of war, death, and destruction, who would give anything to come to a free country. I am considering the people who need our help the most. I am considering America's core principles, and our most basic values as human beings. I am fighting for humanity. I am fighting for compassion. I am fighting for freedom. Great job and thank you for the debate! | CON | cb48341a-2019-04-18T13:32:03Z-00000-000 |
Jesus is God. Alot of people belive that Jesus and God are two diff. beings. I will proove that God and Jesus were and are one in the same. RULES 1. King james version (KJV) Bible: So not get involved or tied up in other translations. 2. BOP is on both 3.Have fun and God bless. ROUNDS 1.Acceptance/ comments 2. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for arguments. | PRO | 7b1ee04b-2019-04-18T17:35:10Z-00005-000 |
Debate.org shouldn't require 3 debates to vote. Why would Debate.org want individuals who are not here to debate? What makes you think you are qualified to judge my debate if you've never debated before on this site. If you aren't willing to put the effort into debating why would I logically expect you to put the effort to reading my debate and judge it unbiasedly? You won't, you'll simply vote on it as if it was an opinion poll and not by the merits of the debate.Debate.org is looking for quality, not quantity. We're happy that individuals who have no interest in debating do not join this site or vote on others debates. These are debates not opinion polls. Those who aren't here to debate and engage in intellectual discussion should not have the ability to vote.Those who create meaningless debates such as this one to bypass this system will be banned and have their votes deleted. I am also reporting this debate so it is permanently deleted. I urge voters not to vote on it and to report it in kind. | CON | 2fc3331b-2019-04-18T18:45:41Z-00000-000 |
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society. You still haven't provided any evidence (or even an argument really) as to how society is driven by celebrities. Do you know anyone who bases their political beliefs on a celebrity? There may be a few influential philosophers who have gotten to celebrity status, but they are people who have formed their opinions based on common sense. Sure there are bad philosophers, (apologists come to mind) but I doubt any ones opinion was changed based on Ken Ham's recent debating. They confirm peoples beliefs rather than actually changing them. Again I think the problem with this debate is that you were not clear in your title we've ended up arguing two different debates. | CON | e2ca92-2019-04-18T16:18:48Z-00001-000 |
Daleks are the best Doctor Who monster. Of course, the burden of proof fully rests on my opponent's side. I do not need to prove anything, I only need to disprove my opponent's statements in light of the debate. For the purpose of this debate, I see Daleks as the LEAST scariest monster, and the LEAST in terms of traditions. As for the monster that I believe that it would fulfill scariness and traditions to the highest degree. .. It is actually a tie. #1 . http://ravereader.files.wordpress.com...; />The SlitheenSeriously, they can perfectly masquerade as humans, and the concept of Gas-Exchange is terrifying! These are the ultimate crime family, they are big and strong, have a super strong sense of smell, and they can manufacture poison through a finger-nail gun or bad-breath. #1 . http://stuffershack.com...; />The cybermen. They don't even need to invade earth. They just have to upgrade us. They represents the human desire to constantly upgrade. They don't feel emotions, and they will make you emotionless too. These two examples are obviously more scary and have more traditions than a Dalek. In fact, pretty much any examples of a Dr. Who monster is scarier and have more tradition than a Dalek. I can't believe you actually find them scary or think they have tradition. That is quite the opposite. | CON | ebef2ffc-2019-04-18T17:14:57Z-00005-000 |
Assuming there is no god, morality is subjective and laws are unnecessary. As an atheist, I do not believe in a god. Since I don’t believe in a god, I don’t believe in any kind of objective morality. Since I don't believe in objective morality, I don't believe there‘s any purpose in having laws to enforce one morality over another. Con will need to prove either a) there is an objective morality that doesn't come from a god, or b) laws are necessary. Definitions: God: a supreme being Morality: a sense of right and wrong Arguments: 1.Everyone doesn't have the exact same sense of morality. If everyone’s sense of morality was the same, morality would be effectively objective, but that is simply not the case. However, people who live close together are likely to have similar moralities. That’s most likely a survival instinct: humans aren’t very strong compared to other animals, but we’re smart enough to figure out how to ‘play nice’ so that we can work together in order to survive. 2.Laws used to be necessary, when it was important for humans to work together in order to survive. Now that we know how to build a functioning society, laws only get in the way of natural selection by protecting stupid people. For example, I carry a gun, and it is usually in plain sight. If an unarmed person were to attack me, they would be considered stupid, in my opinion. If I were to shoot them and they died, I would most likely be arrested for murder. This would dissuade me from shooting to kill, which would leave the stupid person alive to do more stupid things and to produce more stupid people. Natural selection exists for a reason. We need to allow the people with no common sense to be killed, rather than protecting them and allowing them to breed. 3.The concept of revenge destroys the idea of an objective morality. If one can break one’s moral code in the event that someone else breaks it first, what’s to stop one from breaking it whenever one wants, and why doesn’t one like it when someone takes revenge on them for taking revenge (perhaps because our morality is selfish… but that I’m and of itself goes against some people's moral codes)? That would make all morality subjective, since one would be saying ‘I can break the moral code in order to punish you for breaking the moral code, but I don't expect anyone to punish me for doing the same thing’. 4.With a subjective morality, everyone decides for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong, so laws aren’t necessary and only serve to try to establish a certain morality as superior to all other moralities without offering any reason as to why that morality is any better (because it’s not; it's all subjective). | PRO | 9755a4d6-2019-04-18T12:09:19Z-00008-000 |
Resolved: the action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited. I stand resolutely, adamantly, firmly, that prohibiting protesting at funerals is immoral and violates every fiber of human liberty. I also stand resolutely that the pro shouldn't have accepted the debate if he was just going to be rude and (unfortunately expletives such as the one I would normally use won't post). If you don't see why they should be prohibited than you are against the resolved statement saying: protesting at funerals ought (should) be prohibited(outlawed). | CON | f9137ce4-2019-04-18T19:08:42Z-00003-000 |
It's time to bring back the good old fashioned freak show. In my opening argument I wrote "These freak shows will bring much-needed affordable entertainment to the masses and also provide valuable employment opportunities for savages, gays, ladyboys, Jews and cripples" but I forgot to add "the obese" (who would be the hilarious human heifers). It's just a two-round debate so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. | PRO | af3e979b-2019-04-18T16:33:19Z-00000-000 |
On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison. Since my opponent has posted his argument, I will assume that he has accepted, and I thank him for that. However, my opponent must still post his case this round in order to follow the round protocol. If he doesn't, he will be disqualified.I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution which states: On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison. Since the resolution states, "on balance", my judges must view this round based on balance, i.e.., the benefits of Tesla must outweigh his detriments in order for Pro to win this round.Contention 1: Tesla invented more useful thingsWhile Edison did "invent" the incandescent light bulb (he ripped it off of Humphrey Davy's idea[1]), Tesla invented much more; the florescent light bulb, radio, remote control, the electric motor, robotics, lasers, and wireless communication and limitless free energy (the only reason we have to pay for electricity is because when the contractor found out that Tesla would make energy free and there was no money in it, he canceled the construction of Tesla's energy tower), plus he discovered x-rays. Probably Tesla's most useful invention was alternating current (AC). Alternating current was so much more effective than Edison's direct current (DC), that Edison set up public demonstration in which he electrocuted animals using AC in an attempt to make people think that it was dangerous. With DC, there had to be power generators every 1 mile, and the cables running between them had to be thicker than your arm, making them extremely expensive and ugly, plus detrimental to the environment. However, with AC (which we still use today), you only need inch-thick wires going on thin poles. Far cheaper and less environmentally damaging. And these are only a few of Tesla's inventions.Contention 2: Edison was a bad personMost people don't know this, but Tesla actually worked for Edison for a short time...until Edison cheated Tesla out of what would now be equivalent to $1 million. Edison had heard about Tesla and wanted him to improve Edison's DC generators. He promised Tesla $50,000 ($1 million in today's money). Tesla worked long hours for several months until he finally did it. When he came to Edison to ask for his money, Edison laughed him off, saying, “When you become a full-fledged American, you will appreciate an American joke[2].” Besides this, Edison didn't even come up with his own patents. All he did was hire people to come up with his ideas for him, and then steal them, market them, and get rich because of them.Since Tesla actually invented far more important things than Edison, and besides that Edison was an overall bad person, there is no other ballot than that of the Pro.Thank you.[1] - http://www.unmuseum.org... [2] - http://mentalfloss.com... | PRO | a720478f-2019-04-18T15:03:27Z-00004-000 |
Breathing is good for you. My opponent is arguing that breathing is good for you on the grounds that it sustains life. I argue that there are a variety of instances in which breathing is very bad. 1. Breathing while underwater, without any sort of scuba gear. If anyone has had this experience, you will know it is not a pleasant one. It feels like your brain is on fire and like your lungs have collapsed. It's called "drowning". . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Breathing in a room filled with poisonous gas. Not a good idea. There are many terrible chemical weapons out there and if you are ever stuck in a room with terrible noxious fumes, or even near pesticides, it is a good idea to hold your breath. . http://encyclopedia.farlex.com... 3. Breathing too much (hyperventilation) also causes some nasty side effects such as light-headedness, dizziness, chest pain, etc. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, breathing might not necessarily be good for you in certain circumstances. Thank you audience, I await my opponent's rebuttal. | CON | f93370b9-2019-04-18T19:27:13Z-00004-000 |
runaway train hypothetical - ends justify the means. The trolley problem (or as its often called "the train problem") was developed by British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. I was originally theorized as an exorcise to UTILITARIANISM, a popular philosophy developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism holds that the most moral actions are those that cause the greatest good for the greatest amount of people; inversely, the least amount of pain for the least amount of people. Utility is a CONSEQUENTIALISM, or a theory that holds that the ends justify the means. It might seem moral to kill the one man instead of the hundred. That would achieve both utility and proportionality. However, its far more involved than that. DEONTOLOGY is the idea that the ends don't justify the means, and in my opinion, this is far more moral for two main reasons. First, the train is going to hit the hundred people unless someone does something. The key here is "does something". If you let the hundred men die, it is an unfortunate tragedy. Actively choosing to kill the one man, however, is a choice. You are choosing to kill one man, whereas the death of hundred was not intended by anyone. Thus choosing to kill the one man constitutes participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible. Secondly, German philosopher Immanuel Kant theorized a "categorical imperative" to our actions. The first formulation reads, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction". Using consequentialism in one instance means you permit it to be used in EVERY instance. Imagine this: a leader comes to power, seeing his down trodden nation that he loves in pieces. He wants to liven his people into action. But how? Blame the whole of the nations problems on one group of individuals, and then slaughter them, he thinks. He knows they're not to blame. But he knows it will benefit his country in the long run. So he does it. This example is a little extreme, and I dont mean to compare my opponent to Hitler. All I'm saying is that there needs to be a standard: the ends cant justify the means in EVERY situation, so the ends shouldn't justify the means in ANY situation. Thank you. | CON | a208611f-2019-04-18T16:10:02Z-00002-000 |
Sexuality. I'm a woman and I find this argument disrespectful. In my eyes a woman and a man are equal-they are both the marvelous creations of God.A man earns money for his family whereas a woman also goes out to work to provide money for her family and she provides the food for you males- your mother is a female so are you trying to state that if your mother sleeps around she isn't admirable and respectable how can you say that when a woman created you. Harpz | CON | c38def68-2019-04-18T16:45:59Z-00003-000 |
The Brotherhood is a bunch of cucks. Thank you, Con. Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace. Con had this to say in Round 1:"William Wallace is 7 feet tall."Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. I AM William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!ALBA GU BRA!Sources:The Encyclopaedia Britannica | PRO | a1ea6be2-2019-04-18T12:04:08Z-00003-000 |
Inconsistent wind energy in Pickens Plan can be accommodated. "What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - "The biggest complaint about wind power -- that it is an intermittent resource -- can be solved with emerging storage technologies, including plug-in hybrid vehicles that recharge at night when the wind blows best and feed electricity back into the grid during the day when the vehicles are parked at home or work. That brings us to the second part of Pickens' plan and to Joe's correct judgment that using natural gas to run vehicles rather than power plants is a bad idea." | PRO | f9ecc418-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00044-000 |
All people are prejudiced by nature. Prejudice- : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logicalNB - I am not entirely comfortable with this definition - in fact I think it is incorrect. However, it is one of the official definitions so that is what we shall work with. I will be making comments on this definition.By Nature - : essentially or innately*****************************************************I will argue for the motion that all people, as a product of their own innate, unavoidable human characteristics, hold prejudices, or, 'irrational' pre-judgments of a certain class of people, even if they are unaware of the existence of some said prejudices, or openly deny the holding of said prejudices. This motion was inspired by a great many number of opinions on this site that;(a) The expression of discriminatory/prejudiced views should be litigated(b) Loss of free speech is an acceptable sacrifice in moving towards a world of equality(c) Counter-prejudice is justified(d) Seriousness and severity of prejudices are weighted according to their target group (related to point c).*****************************************************Round 1 - acceptanceYour argument may follow any format you deem necessary. | PRO | f8e4d732-2019-04-18T14:13:08Z-00007-000 |
Smoking should not be banned. You are correct smoking is not good for your health and I have nothing to prove that it is. However smoking is a choice, it should stay this way, I commonly complain about the government structure of England and America, one of my reasons is: who are you and I to vote away someone else's right to make decisions about how they treat their own body? I, myself am not a smoker, but I accept the fact that other people make the decision to smoke and I see the benefits of it. We, as a society are constantly looking to improve everyone else's lives, let them decide what they want to do, warn them of the dangers if you must but stop taking away our rights. It is a common fact that obesity is a problem commonly effecting Western society and causing lots of death through heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other health problems. www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html As you can see in the above page, obesity is a bigger problem than smoking, drinking or poverty. Should we ban fatty foods, fast food restaurants? After all, you people seem to want to make everyone else more healthy, perhaps we should ban red meat altogether, ban alcohol as well, ban driving because it poses a potential risk of injury? There are risks everywhere, banning people from doing these activities is not the way to solve the problem. I would also like to state that a smoking ban is not practical. If you tried to ban smoking you would be encouraging more crime and slave labour as the tobacco producers abroad turn to criminals to sell their product. People will smoke regardless of the law, lives will be ruined because people will get a criminal record for smoking a leaf and they will consequently find it near impossible to get a job. I have only scratched the surface, I have many more arguments I am saving for later rounds but so far I have explained why banning smoking is impractical, unfair and unjustified. | PRO | 1dff01c3-2019-04-18T15:47:07Z-00005-000 |
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe. Jesus is not completely God here. He was the Son of God, not God himself. He is the human to be conceived of the holy spirit and never to sin. Jesus could still be alive today if He escaped His crucifixion. Notice I capitalize He and His referring to Jesus. No one else ever gets that honor besides God. Jesus is our Lord, He is our Savior, He is our Shepard, He is the Lamb of God. Jesus is not God, His Father in heaven (our Father) is God. Jesus always needed permission from God to perform miracles and if you look at any Bible God approves of Him at many times ex. Baptism, Transfiguration. The trinity shows the three parts of the divine things. Take the sun God is the orb, Jesus is the light, and the Holy Spirit is the warmth. Jesus is not God like God is not Jesus. Can you claim Jesus is a demigod okay. You can even say He is half alien, His father is not of this earth. Jesus is the ultimate perfect sacrifice given to cover all sins from all. Jesus basically eliminated Judaism. Jesus was not God, He was his holy son. A sinless man that had a connection with God like no one else ever will. I use the KJV for all my readings and researches. Only because it is a direct translation to English. Also is the Catholic Church uses it as long as most Protestants. Jesus said He was the Son of Man, Bringer of light. Never said He was actually God. "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64 KJV And always Linate always great to debate you! Thanks so much my Christian brother. And as always peace be with you always through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ | CON | 1e1f6b67-2019-04-18T15:55:06Z-00000-000 |
People suffer disproportional consequences on the internet. It is not true that people cannot manage consequences from their action online. It might only seem so but that is because the issues around personal data have emerged relatively recently, so we are still learning to deal with them. Individuals are learning how to manage their personal data online responsibly to make sure such humiliating situations do not occur. There are resources and programmes on how to talk to children about using the internet and other digital devices, including sexting, responsibly [11]. The same way, there are and should be calls for the society to be considerate towards victims of personal data abuse and be less abusive online. | CON | ee4607c8-2019-04-15T20:24:30Z-00010-000 |
Barcelona are not the best club in the world. 2nd Round- Please be serious! You have to fight me if you want this debate to go on. Please forgive me for my English because it is not good. Barcelona are not the best club in the world because they are not a good defensive side. You can praise Barca's great attacking style but this team lacks defensively. In defense only Puyol looks like a defensive player. All the other 9 players are focused on attack only. I still remember that night when Dynamo Kyiv bet them 2-1 and it was because of their weak defense. For a club to be immortal it has to be good in both department- Attack and the defence. Ever since Ruud Gullit left Barca, this club has only focused it attention on attack. You can look at the lineup and see that most of the players in Barcelona lineup are all attacking players. Barcelona are a team in decline ever since Ronaldinho left the club. Yes, they are winning titles but this club revolves around Lionel Messi. I don't think they will be remembered once Messi leaves this club. I hope my opponent says something in his defense. | CON | fe0945d1-2019-04-18T19:07:59Z-00003-000 |
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use. Thank you for responding. "My dad keeps a pistol in his glove compartment for defense. It certainly isn't designed for hunting. Should that be confiscated? Should he be forced to keep a rifle in the glove box instead?" I'll put it this way. I've never owned, shot, or an any other way used a firearm before. I've never needed to. I get that it makes him feel comfortable, but that right is so easy to abuse that it's just not worth it. It's like a blanky. It makes you feel comfortable, but beyond that it's just not practical. But unlike a blanky, it kills people. "If I want to shoot up my high school or kill the rival drug dealer who is stealing my turf I'll just buy a shot gun and saw the end off or use any one of the many equally deadly hunting weapons (imagine being killed by a compound bow, ouch!)" Well, I don't hunt, and I would much rather see meat killed humanely, but some people do not live within a convenient vicinity to an Albertsons. I would, however, be happy to ban the use of guns within cities. I would have included that in the resolution, but I didn't have room. My full proposition would be as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere. So, if you had a gun, it's not like it would be practical to kill someone with it, and hopefully it would be confiscated before you could do any harm. Looking forward to your response! | PRO | 4e8ec1bd-2019-04-18T19:15:41Z-00003-000 |
Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes. Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status. | PRO | f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00007-000 |
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot. I have no issue with the definition you provided of the world 'bigot'. Definitions (Merriam-Webster): 'Disagree': To have a different opinion : To fail to agree. 'Homosexuality': (1) the quality or state of being homosexual. (2) Erotic activity with another of the same sex. Lets break the definition of bigot into two parts as it is presented by the definition: 'bigot': (1) A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. (2) A person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as racial or religious group). The definition of homosexuality best fits within the first definition provided within 'bigot'. As the definition of homosexuality does not classify itself as a particular group. It is better seen as a state of mind or action. What the Pro/Con must argue: Pro: Must convince the audience that it is possible to disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot. Con: Must convince the audience that if you disagree with homosexuality, you are a bigot. Introduction: I will base my arguments under the notion that people can disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot. Based on the definitions provided, a person strongly AND unfairly dislike homosexuality to be considered a bigot. Many people who disagree with homosexuality do so out of moral reasoning. Morality is a term that is encouraged by society in many ways. There are numerous laws established within the Federal Government and States that encourage morality among its citizens, it is illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc. Questions for my opponent: Do you disagree with the definitions provided, if so why? Do you have any issues with the use of the first definition provided from the word 'bigot', if so why? Do you accept the notion that society encourages some form of morality? Should people make decisions based on morality? Why can't a person disagree with homosexuality if their belief is based on morality? Note: I do not agree with any type of HATE towards homosexuals. I believe that people have every right to disagree with homosexuality. | PRO | 8ea25c9e-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00003-000 |
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States. This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1. Round 3 will be crossfire 1. Round 4 will be speech 2. Round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1. Pro wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be true than false. Con wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be false than true. | PRO | bb480ce7-2019-04-18T19:03:16Z-00005-000 |
In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions. The debate is whether or not the Unabomber is justified in his actions. He thought it was ok to send bombs with the purpose to harm or kill innocent people to send a political message. He ended the lives of three innocent people and changed the lives of twenty three others who were injured. http://www.newseum.org... My opponent has listed a number of views which the Unabomber believed in some of which are caused solely by the industrialisation of the world some have many causes. This is however irrelevant in my view. Everyone has ideas and views they feel strongly on this cannot be used as an excuse to send bombs to kill or harm another human being. Osama bin laden hated Americas intervention in the west just as the Unabomber hated the industrialisation of the world Yet I don’t think you would defend Osama bin Laden actions on the 11the of September so how can you defend the Unabomber. Both men committed atrocities in the name of their political views trying to change public opinion using fear and terror. If you accept the Unabomber’s actions act just because he believed in the cause what he was fighting for then you must also say that Osama bin laden was just. http://www.usnews.com... The Unabomber chose not to campaign like any ordinary political movement but instead chose to kill and maim innocent people. If many people believed in what the Unabomber believed in then he could founded a political party with his manifesto as its core beliefs. An example of this being done in the past is the foundation of the green party which was founded to promote a greener world they share many of the Unabombers beliefs. Using democratic channels to obtain a position of power and make the changes he believed in. He made a conscious decision not to do this but instead he tried to force his ideas on the people through a terror campaign. http://www.greenparty.org.uk... To summarise you have listed his views and yes many people will agree with those views. But bombing innocent people to impose forcefully your ideas is exactly the kind of tactics used by al qaeda and has no place in a 21st century world. Bombing people into accepting your beliefs and ideas can never be justified. | CON | e425508a-2019-04-18T16:41:41Z-00004-000 |
In many countries corruption can be seen as a natural response to shortages. Often in developing co... Corruption may be a response to supply and demand, but it is still not beneficial. By rationing goods which should be freely available to the whole population, such as healthcare, justice and fair treatment from those in authority, corruption ensures that these public goods are available only to the rich. Where corruption is widespread, the poor always lose out and society becomes ever more divided. \ It is also bad for society as a whole when corruption provides incentives for bright young people to get jobs as unproductive public officials, because of the financial rewards available for “rent-seekers”. The private sector, already struggling from the added costs of corruption, suffers even more by its inability to recruit the brightest and most ambitious young people, and levels of entrepreneurship and economic growth suffer as a result. | CON | be101630-2019-04-19T12:44:26Z-00011-000 |
There is no rational path from deism to theism. You asked if there was a rational path, and I gave t to you. It happens just like in the order you contended it could not. You said there is not, meaning there is not a way one could turn into a theist from being an atheist in that order. I described several methods on how it could. We, therefore, do not agree. You do not think someone could do that and I did. Now, with your final round, since you just wasted this one, is to prove that my use of your ration path is not actually rational. My side as Con has been fulfilled and now it is your turn. 1)http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.globalissues.org... http://geography.howstuffworks.com... Educate yourself. Now, I understand there is always an acceptation to the rule, but I am talking about generalities. Many parts of the Middle East are governed according to a specific church, where basic freedoms we take for granted are suppressed, like freedom of religion. 2) My mistake, I meant Israel. So back to the real debate, you must now prove, in one round, that my examples are not ones of a rational path to theism. My main point was that the right religion will never be known, and that people chose their religion of choice based on personal preference, if that option is open to them. While you may not agree that that is right, it is still a rationale. If you are arguing about the 'right' religion then that is a different topic for a different time. But right now we are discussing how one can logically chose their path to any type of religion, be it Christian or otherwise. I await your final response. | CON | cecaa4d-2019-04-18T19:30:47Z-00002-000 |
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany. Hitler could've asked the Japanese, who seeing Stalin's weakness, would've probably attacked. Look at the facts: France surrendered shortly after losing Paris, Poland after Warsaw and in 1945 Germany after Berlin. Since Moscow can easily be described as the Russian equivalent of Berlin, that proves Russia probably would've surrendered. As for Great Britain, the Home Guard was a joke. Men and women either reaching or during retirement were called in in an attempt to fight an army who had taken Luxembourg, The Hague, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Warsaw and Paris. So you, Con, are underrating the superiority of the Wehrmacht. As for aviation warfare, the Germans had Stukas which could've bombed British air bases, making the fancy Spitfires and Hurricanes useless. As for radar, I'll give Britain that one. There is nothing I could possibly say about radar. And Britain's lack of food and black outs also were a problem. Men and women, though uncommon, got killed by their own people as a result of lack of light and vision. Food shortages in Britain were a massive problem. With America offering little to no help at all against the U-Boats, Britain relied on Canada, whose navy was weaker than any other. Mind you, barely any food was left, so hunger could've been another reason as to why the British could've surrendered to the Germans. Finally, Britain's real army. The Battle of Dunkirk was successful for both sides, but 200,000 British and French soldiers died at Dunkirk protecting the evacuation. So the Germans had beaten then once. What makes you think Britain could not lose again? It had only been a year and a half. As for holding the territories Hitler gained, you're basing that accusation on the fact you believe Hitler didn't care about holding strongpoints. It sounds like you think they would've offered Moscow back to Stalin! No, Hitler would've overloaded defences on Moscow, as well as the French Coast and all other major cities and towns. With that, I hand back to Con. | PRO | 8f11db9d-2019-04-18T16:32:42Z-00003-000 |
You should be able to vote in USA under the age of 18 in certain circumstances. My argument is that children under the age of 18 should be able to vote in certain circumstances. Here is the round layout: 1: Accept Challenge (Please do not state your argument, just accept the challenge). 2: State your argument. 3: Attack opposing argument. 4: Defend your argument. 5: Final words. Looking forward to the debate. | PRO | d1dbbea-2019-04-18T15:11:55Z-00005-000 |
Law firms worry that JD/MBAs might leave for business. "JD/MBA- Like 'supersizing' a fast food meal, when you're not really hungry?" Law School Labyrinth. July 17th, 2009: "Further, I suspect that the JD/MBA label may be viewed by law firms as a lawyer who really wants to become a businessperson. Read that as "short-timer". In other words, those precious firm jobs may go to old-fashioned JDs, because firms won't want to invest in someone who is planning to leave as soon as Donald Trump retires." | PRO | 6963151c-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00064-000 |
jew is evil. I don't have financial/emotional problems, my only problem is that the Jew is abusing its power. I am woke. Benjamin Franklin wanted to exclude the Jew from the United States of America. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson agreed. Winston Churchill didn't like the Jew. Martin Luther didn't like the Jew. These were all great men who loved their country, who did what was best for their nations and peoples. The Jew is dangerous. You should study more about the Jew and you will realize this. | PRO | b6cd1d56-2019-04-18T13:22:32Z-00001-000 |
In HSM, each of Troy's solos were better than their Gabriella counterparts. HSM1 - Get'cha Head in the Game vs. When There Was Me and You While Get"cha Head in the Game is a fun dance song, Gabriella"s solo has more depth and raw emotion than Troy shows in his solo. Gabriella goes on to illustrate her insecurities as well as the disappointment and explanation of how hurt she is. The lyrics show how isolated and vulnerable she feels. When you trust someone, you allow that other person to have access to your insecurities and to violate that trust is extremely damaging. Troy violated Gabriella"s trust for such a petty reason. Gabriella"s song is more emotional than singing about not knowing what to do. Gabriella and Troy weren't even dating at this time; they were two kids who had chemistry trying to figure out their place in high school. Don't write off Gabriella as some b**chy teenage girl who"s crush brushed her off. That"s not who she is. She"s the new wildcat so she feels awkward, anxious, and troubled. She puts her faith in this guy she met over break to guide her, only to have him turn on her. HSM2- Bet on It vs. Gotta Go My Own Way Let it Go from Disney"s Frozen is an exceptional song about a girl who is tired of trying to fit into the social parameters set by others. That is exactly what Gabriella is singing about. She is tired of Troy pushing her around, not being there for her, and letting her down. She is standing up for herself and is "doing what's best for her." She is not letting herself be defined by someone who keeps ignoring her. Troy"s song is basically admitting he screwed up, which is great to admit because he"s been screwing up the entire time, while Gabriella"s song emits empowerment and sometimes having to be strong and doing what"s best your yourself. HSM3- Scream vs. Walk Away Now, the point of most Gabriella solos is to take a sad, emotional moment and enhance it with an emotional song, helping the viewers feel more upset and make the situation feel like it had an emotional impact on the viewers. That is true, but it"s the same with Troy"s solos. Walk Away was an incredibly sad scene, but the upbeat song made it seem as though Gabriella could just brush it off, it made the viewer not care as much either because if the viewers felt she could just walk away from everything without feeling than so could we. Scream, on the other hand, did nothing but show Troy"s tantrum. | CON | 4345eef2-2019-04-18T16:40:56Z-00004-000 |
We should find cure for aging. As somebody who loves this topic and has devoted a ton of my personal time researching this as well as e-mailing the Sens foundation, reading all of Kurzweil's books, spending a ton of time watching speeches of and reading material from Aubrey De Grey I look forward to this debate. There is not very many subjects I'm extremely knowledgable on and yet I still do reasonably well on a wide variety of debates. I strongly encourage my opponent to look up all the common objections to scientists working on creating indefinite lifespans for people. I also encourage him to give well reasoned, researched and cited arguments. This debate will not be easy for him to win and I want a strong challenge. None of this advice is meant to be offensive only preemptive to insure a high quality debate. | CON | 457c3ed3-2019-04-18T15:46:47Z-00004-000 |
Every view ends in meaninglessness. you say "1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true. (Hypothesis) 2. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is a view. (Given) 3. Meaningless views are neither true nor false. (Given) 4. Meaningless views are not true. (From 3) 5. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is meaningless. (From 1,2) 6. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is not true. (From 4,5)" the notion "true" ends in meaninglessness the notion "meaninglessness" ends in meaninglessness | PRO | 6c5e3d5a-2019-04-18T17:24:24Z-00003-000 |
Best Rock Songs from 1990 - 2005. Thanks F-16_Fighting_Falcon for making this debate. I know this will be as fun as the last one!Ah, so my opponent starts with the most popular song by the band that started the whole grundge movement. How can I counter that? Well, there are plenty of good Nirvana songs to use, but I like going for less straightforward options. I've got something heavier for us. This is a song that has a huge bite in it, while remaining true to that 90's feel. Alice In Chains- Them Boneshttp://www.youtube.com... | CON | 39860b42-2019-04-18T18:42:03Z-00008-000 |
People Saw Living Dinosaurs. Let's recap.Con's rebuttals amount to attributing every single piece of artwork to pure coincidence.Even though I proved that dinosaurs like T. rex and hadrosaurs lived within the past 10,000 years with my DNA argument, Con keeps stubbornly insisting that every single dinosaur died millions of years ago. Con's sole rebuttal to the DNA evidence was a baseless accusation of fraud, a claim that he failed to backup, instead citing a source that had literally nothing to say about the claim he was making. He also blamed the DNA on contamination by human DNA, another baseless assertion not supported by a single one of his sources. My secular, peer-reviewed study was performed in 1994; if it were really a hoax, like Con wants you to think, you'd think he could find a single source in the past 20 years to substantiate that argument.Even though the DNA argument was sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the aforementioned dinosaurs walked the earth in the past 10,000 years, I also made another argument with the T. rex and hadrosaur blood. I appealed to the intuition and common sense of the voters when I left it up to them to decide whether or not the presence of unfossilized, T. rex and hadrosaur bones complete with soft tissue and liquid blood proves that they walked the earth in the same time period as humans.Thus, when Con says,"You never gave me[...] the most recent fossil remains which would put dinosaurs at the same time period as humans[, and] you haven't presented scientific evidence that we can test."...he is stating a falsehood, something this debate demonstrates he has grown accustomed to. It is painfully obvious from this debate that nothing short of a live dinosaur will convince Con that dinosaurs were ever seen by humans. That might be something I'd be expected to deliver if I were trying to prove that dinosaurs live today, but that's simply not what I'm arguing. I'm only arguing that dinosaurs were seen by people at some point in history.Con's meteorite and volcano arguments are incoherent, and he fails to provide a convincing reason for why these vague events would rule out the possibility of a few dinosaurs surviving.Thanks for reading, and have fun voting! | PRO | f196d85c-2019-04-18T15:46:01Z-00001-000 |
prostitusion is morrally wrong. Since ScarletAtheist has forfeited the last round I will just bring up more points to why prostitution is wrong. When a society does not hold sexual intimacy in high regard it devalues the specialness or even sacredness of the sexual relationship between husband and wife. "Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples" mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher."1 It is not moral to defraud someone prostitution is defrauding women, giving people money for momentary pleasure and short term gain not looking at the long term affects of harm to there physical and psychological health. "She said: "Prostitution is an extremely dangerous thing to do. It involves violence and abuse, and fundamentally effects the woman or child who is prostituted. "With the hazards that prostitutes have to face daily, I would be extremely shocked if anybody who was involved for any period of time did not show signs of stress disorder." 2 The prostitute is defrauding the person who uses them as well getting them to pay them so that the person can have short term happiness. If a man uses a prostitute ten times in his life and then finds the woman he wants to marry should he tell her? Some might say no, what happened in his single life was his own business but I say this what would happen if he marries her and she finds out how will she feel? She would feel angry and betrayed. If it is not morally wrong to use a prostitute then why would she feel this way. 1 American Psychological Association 2 BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk... | CON | 1799ef5d-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00000-000 |
percussion is the most important section in a band. I will keep it simple. Rules: 1. respect 2. use actual sources 3. stick to round layout 4. provide votes on why you should win 5. have fun 6. Break of any rule results in forfeit of all points to me rounds: 1- acceptance, thanks to, what you aim to prove 2- opening statements 3- questions 4- answers 5- rebuttals, closing remarks, and voters I accept and I want to thank my future opponent for the test. I aim to prove that percussion is the most important section in band and why people should agree with me. With that let the debate begin! | PRO | 76cec167-2019-04-18T14:02:18Z-00005-000 |
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all USA states. Cindela First, thank you and this has been an entertaining debate. "The reason that it is not legal is because society does not want there to be gay marriages. "-CIndela So you are saying it isn't legal. If society is a majority (which it is) they have a most important call, so that is saying it should be illegal. "Why does the Bible have to tell us all what to do"-Cindela If you read your previous argument, you say that some forms of Christianity accept gay marriage. There is 1 bible for all forms of Christianity. That quote came directly from the bible saying that if your Christan, you can't be gay. The ability of having a natural baby is very important. That's something that an average person living from paycheck to paycheck can do for society. IT's the life cycle, Birth, reproduce, and die. Can a homosexual couple have a baby? No. They could adopt a baby, but so couldn't a regular couple and that baby came from a regular couple. "A gay person cannot marry someone of the same gender. Other people can. "-CIndela Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. You have just made theories. I have used facts. This proves your argument is flawed. | CON | a0e86849-2019-04-18T19:56:08Z-00000-000 |
On the spot speech. The Beatles Were The Best Pop Band Hailed as one of the most influential music groups of all time, the Beatles were a group that hailed mostly from the UK, though the members of the band had ranged tremendously so that many different people of nationalities were involved in it. Some of their more popular songs include 'A Day In The Life,' 'Let It Be,' 'Strawberry Fields Forever,' 'Hey, Jude,' and 'Come Together. ' The Beatles sales records are definitely a large feat on their part. The Beatles have the following achievements under their belts: Most Weeks On Chart (1,278), Most Number Ones By One Act (15), Total Weeks At Number One In One Year (40), Most Number One Albums In One Year (3), Album Spending The Longest At Number One (Please Please Me, 30 Weeks), Most Consecutive Weeks At Number One (Please Please Me, 30 Weeks), Most Consecutive Number One Hit Albums (7), First Ever Album To Debut At Number 1 (Help), Self-Replacement At The Top (2), Largest Total Number Of Weeks At The Top Of Album And Singles Act (45), Most Chart Domination At Any Time In History (3 Weeks: #1 and #2 Top Singles, #1 and #2 Top E. P. 's, #1 and #2 Top Albums), Only Double Wammy In History (Knocked Rolling Stones Off Singles And Albums Chart), Most Consecutive Christmas Number One Albums (3), Artists With Largest Album Sales In US (107,000,000 Approx. ), and they have been awarded 14 Golden Albums in the UK, and Paul McCartney has been awarded 17 in the UK and 20 in the US. Looking at best to mean most successful, their feats definitely place them as the best pop band as they have so many records sold and so many records broken. . http://www.music.indiana.edu...http://www.beatles.ws...http://listverse.com...http://www.jpgr.co.uk...I | CON | f5dbd13b-2019-04-18T18:32:12Z-00000-000 |
The Christianity is a unique religion. I believe that the Bible and Christianity are a unique religion for these reasons. I will go through a number of reasons so keep in mind that some have a more substantial impact than others. 1. Unique and ConsistentThe Bible is remarkably consistent, despite having been written by more than 40 people with over 60 different events over a period of nearly 2,000 years. 2. Archeological EvidenceArcheological discoveries have confirmed many events in the Bible. For example, excavation of Jericho have confirmed that the walls did in fact fall down. Unfractured folded rock layers which can only happen when sedimentary rock has been laid down rapidly then folded - which in all cases can only happen in a flood. So that confirms a flood.3. Devine Insight and Predictive ProphecyThe spherical nature of the earth and the fact that the earth hangs in space are suggested in Scriptures such as Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is thought to have been written around 2000 BC—long before the nature of our planet was generally known. In Isaiah 40:22 we read about the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). Yet secular scientists did not discover such expansion until the 1920sAnd there are over 460 fullfilled prophecies about Jesus.- Thats why. When something matches with logic and science, its true.Obviously I could go on and on, but you get the idea.Dr. Jason Lisle Ph.D AstrophysicsSaid "The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it" | PRO | 68adcf42-2019-04-18T14:53:50Z-00007-000 |
Altered Quotes Contest. MEGA ROUND. Post THREE altered quotes instead of just one. (Im feeling spontaneous) . . . "To bee, or not to bee" - Shakespeare, while holding his man-sized bumble-bee costume in his hands, trying to decide what to be for Halloween. . . . "My Kingdom for a whore" - King Richard, after his wife declined yet another attempt at having sex . . . "Frankly my deer, I don't give a damn" - Gone with the Wind character Rhett Butler, when his pet deer told him that it had eaten a whole wheel of cheese. He wasnt even mad, he found it amazing. | PRO | f32f4448-2019-04-18T15:25:26Z-00001-000 |
When in conflict, Security should be prefered to rights. First off, can I argue that security should not be a priority because security itself is bad? But in case no I am prepared to argue pro for the exact text of the resolution. //Definitions\ Security: "the state of being free from danger or injury" [1] Rights: "Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting" [2] Preferred: "preferable: more desirable than another" [3] I await my opponent's answer/response. ============================================================================ [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... | PRO | 3aa594bc-2019-04-18T18:51:49Z-00006-000 |
Islam is the world's worst religion. One factor that you are overlooking is the fact that Islam currently has over 1.5 billion adherents and the atrocities committed by muslims in the name of islam more than dwarf anything the westboro baptist church has ever done. of course there are religions that have the potential to be crazier than islam, even christianity has that potential. but currently islam is taking the number one spot when it comes to messed up crimes and oppression of women in the name of religion. yes there are governments that have done worse, and other religions have done horrible things in the past, but islam takes the cake. | PRO | 22cc40f-2019-04-18T17:04:51Z-00003-000 |
Cell Phones should be used in school. Wow you are really good at this, I thought I would be better because I was using this topic for a school ILA project. I guess you are better but this is the last round, anyone's win.Another good reason cell phones should be in school is because they are very fast at stuff. If there was a fire at school and all the school phones burned, would you want to call or text your mom/dad on your cell phone or walk the (sometimes) long way home? They are fast access to the Internet and parents. Sometimes if something private happens and your mom/dad call your school it's not that private anymore. Most of the times you won't talk to them on the phone, the office just gives you a message. That makes it unprivate.It's also saving paper and ink. Instead of the school making around 1000 planners/agenda books that are around 20-40 pages long, you could have a cell phone to use as an electronic organizer/agenda since most kids don't use their planners/agenda books anyway. | PRO | 71ce2845-2019-04-18T18:29:22Z-00001-000 |
Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process. SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools. Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials. | PRO | 259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00020-000 |
Vaccines do not cause autism. Definitions: Miriam Webster defines cause as "something that brings about an effect or a result". As such the negating party is simply required to demonstrate that vaccines can bring about autism in some way not necessarily directly. BOP: The affirmative makes the claim that "vaccines do not cause autisim", this is an absolute claim implying the affirmative must demonstrate that vaccines cannot bring about autisim under any circumstance while the negative must simply demonstrate a single circumstance in which a vaccination can result in autisim. | CON | feda66c9-2019-04-18T14:53:20Z-00006-000 |
Christianity makes no sense. But doesnt God give us eternal life? How can he say he loves mankind, but also say he dislikes mankind enough for eternal damnation. That seems conflicted. Unless you say that God almighty is bound by rules, but who set those rules? The only way I could see the God giving his son as a sacrifice working is if God has no say in who goes to heaven. If he did, why would humans killing his son open up the door for humans who believed his son to go to heaven. Here: If God controls who goes to heaven, then: why would God make a sacrifice on our behalf of his son? He couldn't have just given all faithful Jews a leg up into heaven. I have never heard of anyone who thought "These people wronged me, but if they kill my son and believed it was my son, then they are forgiven" | PRO | 45bc2fba-2019-04-18T14:33:03Z-00003-000 |
Some cultural treasures, e.g Native American artefacts, have religious and cultural associations for... This may be true, but religious artefacts may have been originally purchased or given in good faith, perhaps with the intention of educating a wider public about the beliefs of their creators. Later descendants should not be allowed to second-guess their ancestors’ intentions. On the other hand, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. | CON | f7ca432e-2019-04-19T12:44:20Z-00011-000 |
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight. Scenario 1&2: You forget that the Predator determines himself who is worthy,not us. He will fight the Creeper,and because he is a predator(hence the name)he will get the drop on him and the Predator will lay a trap for him. Now even though the Creeper is intelligent,it also has animal instinct in his subconscious. And the Predators always out think it's prey. So the Creeper will get damaged,and the two will fight. Now while the Creeper is stronger and quicker,it has no skill in combat. It rely's on brute strength. The Predator will fight,and get damaged. He will most likely retreat to the woods. And this is the part where you would say he gets scared,but this is not true. Predators have faced more dangerous enemy's and laugh. They can almost never get scared. If you would remember in the first Predator movie,he laughed as he died. So he will retreat to the woods to treat his wounds,as he has high pain tolerance as he got his hand cut off and simply not,waled it off,but fought it off. This also has to do with your counter-argument;you said that a human was able to beat it in combat in the first movie,but the Predator suicides. Now he was injured,but ultimately he killed himself. And in the second movie,the other one had his hand cut off when he was killed. So while he would retreat to the woods,(because the creeper liked the woods and the Predator attacked the Creeper)and the Creeper would fly and scan the sky's looking for him. The Predator would then shoot his wing's off. The Creeper would then throw his shrunkins at the Predator,the Predator throwing one of his own at them,but the other hitting the Predator and finishing off the last of his armor because the Creeper is intelligent and probably has good eyes. So he hit a good spot. The Predator would then hunt the Creeper,lay a trap of human bodies,but the Creeper would semi sneak up on the Predator and they fight. I see two possible endings- Ending 1: The Predator fights him off,and kills him using his skill,his strength,his experience,and his smarts. Instead of shooting him,he challenges to a combat fight. He takes off his gear and he fights him. He uses his skills and strength and fights him. The Creeper dodges each attack and stabs him,but the Predator then activates his explosive device on his forearm and they both die. Ending 2: The two fight and the Predator outwits him and uses his own strength against him and partly crushes him and the Creeper is partly paralyzed and the Predator then uses his explosive knives to dismember his limbs and he would keep shooting him and stabbing him until he is 100% dead. Either way the Predator win's or it's a draw | CON | e58563db-2019-04-18T13:51:58Z-00002-000 |
The Concept of Original Sin is Unfair. I'm assuming that Round 1 is for naught but opening arguments, and thus I will only post an opening CON thesis; however, before I do, one definition: unfair - undue, beyond what is proper or fitting Now then, let me outline the CON's burden today; as the PRO's burden is to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the concept of "Original Sin" and it's implications are unfair, I must prove the opposite; obviously, if neither case is convincing, you'll vote for a tie. CON Thesis -------------- While the Pro may paint a picture of humanity being punished for the sins of the parents, Con pledges to prove that, assuming the Bible to be complete truth for the purposes of the debate, because the original humans chose to sin instead of to obey the commands of God, that this Original Sin accounts for the naturally sinful nature of mankind, and that, as opposed to being punished for the sins of the parents, that we are being punished for choosing sin in the same way that our predecessors did; that is to say, because humans naturally make the same kind of mistakes (sinning) as Adam and Eve originally did, we deserve punishment, just as they did; ergo, the concept of Original Sin, and its future implications, are fair. | CON | d0ed5958-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00002-000 |
Family is more important than friends. In the name of Allah! Peace, ladies and gentlemen First i want to thank my contender and I respect your opinion ;) :) Family is much important than friends because family is the first start of any person. It's true that we can't choose our families but we can consider it as a gift of life. To begin with the first argument. Family is what gives life to the human being and his first education, it gives love and respect! the man's first word of the child is MAMA or DADA - mother and father- so he is related to his family in a way or another. simply the family is the first school of us and the family members are the best friends of us! Whereas friends are just a heavy weight on us -most of them- also the man kind is not perfect so he might not choose wisely his friends which will lead him to a blocked way and to wrong paths. Secondly the family represent the reality of life and honesty, we are nothing without family, the family supports you in every moment of life ,in the first day of school , the first steps of you, in the night of the exams , in marriage day... so they are stick to you more than you do, in the first day of school the teacher called you with your family name, when you became a football player the write your family name in the T-shirt. So your family needs you more than you need it! Every human has a part of his family in his DNA but he has nothing from his friends! To sum up family is everything you could have a million friends but you will have just one family also the friends have and end just focus in the word friENDS so family is much much important. And as Michael J. Fox said:"Family is not an important thing. It's everything." Thank you and Peace !! Good luck Caty!! | PRO | ff299b88-2019-04-18T13:11:17Z-00004-000 |
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years. I'm not sure how I prove trillions have been spent overseas, but I know the Iraq and Afghan operations cost the country around 2 trillion based on C.B.O. estimates alone. All US citizens see for it is a destabilized Iraq, that now might pose a threat in terms of terror. How much aid do we give to Egypt, Libya and down the line. Yes ,some of the aid given to countries over seas creates jobs, but one could easily assume that if the money were left in the taxpayer's hands, they would spend it on something creating a stronger economy. Our government seems to believe in the " broken window economic strategy" when it come to war logic and military spending. I'll stand by my opinion that the rich are better with money, and that is how most of them got there. When they have the money to invest we all have more in the end. As far as deficit spending goes, it can be a good thing or a bad thing. Reagan brought the National debt to a trillion on cold war military spending. I would say it was reasonable to do so then, but now it is 16 trillion and we have everything we already really need. | PRO | 1303f1f1-2019-04-18T16:39:00Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court... One of the fundamental errors in the argument for an International Court is that it is accepted by some advocates in the abstract, without concern over the reality of the implementation. It is much easier to support the idea of a theoretically perfect and impartial dispenser of justice than it is to point to an embodiment that has actually worked. It seems that other supporters, perhaps the majority, never get beyond an anti-American framework of subordinating American interests to the interests of others. At root, they are recognizing that Court would not be impartial, it would just be able to force the interests other nations to prevail. Other arguments are continued. | CON | b8d45d9d-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00001-000 |
Military recruitment in schools is illegal. Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 181. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them2. Though the military would argue that its school visits do not constitute recruitment, if recruitment of those under 18 is wrong, then advertising to those under 18 should similarly be considered wrong. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools. 1 United Nations General Assembly . (2000, May 25). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: 2 American Civil Liberties Union. (2008, May 13). Military recruitment practices violate international standards, says ACLU. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union: | PRO | 7e280b9-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00026-000 |
The benefits of vaccines outweigh any harm. My opponent has stated that the Quran forbids vaccines. As a non-Muslim, I won't question his interpretation, but what I will question is his argument. My opponent has stated a religious objection to vaccines, but this debate is on the effectiveness of vaccines. This debate should be argued with facts, not 'moral' objections. I will now put forward my first argument. Vaccines have dramatically lowered the rates of many diseases around the world. I will now cite statistics showing the decrease of disease rates in the US, in the format given below: [disease name]: [estimated annual pre-vaccine cases], [annual post-vaccine cases], [percentage decrease] Diphtheria: 21053, 0, 100% H. Influenza: 20000, 243, 99% Hepatitis A: 117333, 11049, 91% Hepatitis B: 66232, 11269, 83% Measles: 530217, 61, 99% Mumps: 162344, 982, 99% Pertussis (whooping cough): 200752, 13506, 93% Pneumococcal disease: 16069, 4167, 74% Polio: 16316, 0, 100% Rubella: 47745, 4, 99% Congenital Rubella: 152, 1, 99% Smallpox: 29005, 0, 100% Tetanus: 580, 14, 98% Varicella: 4085120, 449363, 89% Think of all the lives saved in just the US. Around the world, vaccines have saved millions of lives. Looking at the evidence, I think it's an understatement to describe vaccines as having a net benefit. Vaccines are one of the greatest medical breakthroughs of all time. | PRO | 668db558-2019-04-18T12:38:45Z-00003-000 |
A man should be a god's best friend. I was raised as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly called Mormons. People of that faith believe that life is a test of faith and devotion. When a person takes a leap of faith, such as paying a tithe to church, they show their willingness to do as God wills. The validity of faith is something that non believers have tried and tested for years. The primary source for faith is feeling and the expression of these feelings through things like music, literature, and art. When I see a beautiful painting that has no intrinsic value and yet is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't see a medium of trade. I see in that painting someone trying to express a feeling that is not biological or scientific but spiritual in nature. What would the purpose of a God who simply gave away Mercedes. You might as well worship Oprah. Wealth is not synonymous with happiness and the gifts God grants us are rarely material. Those who dedicate themselves to attaining things both eternal and spiritual can gain satisfaction on earth and in the afterlife. We have no need to doubt the value of serving a higher purpose when the rewards are immediate even to those still living. A person can live full life believing that they are doing good by by God. I am happy with my beliefs whether they are true or not. Of course it is always a possibility that a devout Christian will pass away only to find himself in a place ruled by a God or by Gods who he has never even heard of. So what should he have done, believed nothing? | PRO | 68a58572-2019-04-18T19:31:11Z-00000-000 |
Christianity vs Atheism. Before I start I will ask the Christian side to use arguments that apply to Christianity only. A Muslim could say: "Why dont you believe in Allah?" Replace 'Allah' with Yahweh or whoever for taste. To address my opponent's question, I will ask he bring evidence to the table. I can't say some creature lives under Mars surface, asking someone to disprove it. It would be fallacious thinking. Or to put it simple: Not enough evidence. Atheism is more likely to be correct then Christianity. | CON | 232a5f00-2019-04-18T18:10:30Z-00003-000 |
In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists. I shall not go into my arguments now, but I will go over the rules the Pro and I have agreed to. I shall state my case, as shall the Pro in the next round. DEBATE STRUCTURE Round 1. Acceptance, No Arguments Round 2. Opening statements (no rebuttals) Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4. Rebuttals Round 5. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments RULES 1. The burden of proof is shared 2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss 3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate. 4. The character limit is 10,000 5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments. 6. No Kritiks 7. No Semantics 8. No Trolling 9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate. 10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct. | CON | c9766b07-2019-04-18T12:59:19Z-00006-000 |
Newspapers offer a better reading experience than digital alternatives. The experience of reading from a newspaper is a far better user experience than reading from a screen, reading from a screen for long periods of time is not only bad for the eyes but quite often becomes uncomfortable. A newspaper however requires natural light to be read and therefore is not as harsh on the eyes. It could also be suggested that people actually prefer the tactile physical experience of a newspaper or book over holding an electronic device, a poll taken on the Guardian 1 website found that 76.1% preferred books, i.e, a physical experience, over a digital one. Video and audio-based advertisements placed online around the text can also disrupt the reading process, a problem, which does not afflict newspapers. 1 Guardian (2008) E-books or Real Books? [online] [accessed 13th June 2011] improve this | PRO | 90fbdc0-2019-04-15T20:22:45Z-00018-000 |
Competitive Team Fortress 2 is Dying. Hi. My name is Rocket Propelled Gordon, and I will be debating this topic with you today. I'm kind of new to this thing, so if I get anything mixed up, apologies. I have spent 1885 hours on Team Fortress 2. Although I have never played in any competitive matches, I feel that I can still offer a reasonable debate. Anyway, is competitive TF2 dieing? No. However, given that as you say that it's small, it's bound to fizzle a little over the course of 5-6 years of running. TF2 is just one of those things that you have to trust won't die. If it does, it's no -one- person's fault, but rather it's a case of a in/out sort of thing, where trends give birth to more trends and die. It's just as well that tf2 has no trending offspring; anyway, good day. | PRO | 3deb8b0-2019-04-18T15:19:20Z-00005-000 |
Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued). I definitely agree that it was a good debate, however, I wish that you would've defended your stance on the war in round three if for no other reason than to hear rational opposition to my views. I'm not exactly sure whether or not to be happy that Mitt is out. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, the best chance he has to continue his campaign is to keep McCain from receiving the majority of the delegates and getting the Rep nomination. I don't know if Paul and Huckabee together can keep that from happening. Even as an ardent Paul supporter, I'm highly skeptical that he can pull off a win, but I will remain totally supportive and optimistic right until the very end. The main thing, aside from winning, that I would like to see happen is for him to be able to stay in the race until the GOP convention so that the mainstream media will no longer be able to ignore him and keep the people of this country from hearing what he has to say. Thanks for a good debate! | CON | c4d55081-2019-04-18T19:52:12Z-00000-000 |