argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
God is not almighty or does not exist. I believe that God allows bad things to happen.Why? Because it helps us,here is a example ...When a doctor operates on you,it may cause temporary pain.But it will help you in the future.Your body will be stronger,instead of weak like it was before the operation. When God allows bad things in your life he is operating on your life,he is trying to make you a stronger person.And after the bad things you will come out stronger and wiser. If you are also saying that God is wrong for allowing death,then I would say you are wrong.God created us and has the right to end us.But he is only ending your physical body and not your soul. You will have a spiritual body after you die.And if you are a believer and saved you will be with God.. | CON | 423f95dd-2019-04-18T14:09:33Z-00002-000 |
Apple's computers/laptops are better than dell's computer/laptops. Just trying throwing a macbook air in the air and then throwing a dell in the air. No covers and no one catches it. Dell has more chance of surviving than mac. Plus, dell prices are more logical and sensible than mac's. Plus, some Macbook don't have cd drive. Mac costs nearly double than dell, but its quality is not doubled. There is the operating system issues as well. Mac can't run the windows apps like visual basic. In my school the ones who had mac had to use a different app in ICT. | CON | 382b1bf7-2019-04-18T13:16:27Z-00002-000 |
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed. Firstly, Con argues I have a disregard for human life. However, soldiers that are sent into war are emotionally connected to other humans. When a soldier dies, his friends and family suffer. When a soldier that is bred for war dies, there is no emotional connection. Only the battalion loses out statistically. Before WW1, commanders saw it fit that soldiers stand up to the enemy and fire. Not taking cover, standing in the open, truly risking their lives. Trench warfare came around it WW1 and war changed. We are currently living in somewhat out dated tactics. Soldiers have little cover against air strikes and helicopter attacks. An all out war would simply ensure more and more of our brothers,sister, etc. die. If we developed a super soldier, we are saving human lives by not risking them. Con also argues that 'nuclear weapons are also an expensive endeavour, and yet we live in constant fear of the detonation of a dirty bomb or smuggled technology'. But this isn't an object. Were talking about chemicals and other materials which require huge amount of knowledge and practice to use correctly. Were talking about hardware that would use a lot of electricity and space. One of the reasons terrorists got there hands on vast amounts of nuclear material was because of Chernobyl, where a lot of nuclear material was available. There could be no equivalent to Chernobyl because this technology has only one applicable use of creating a soldier, not producing electricity, bombs and x-rays, to name a few. My opponent argues 'if our enemies can not afford full scale creation they will try the type of individual modification'. Firstly, explain to me how a fully grown human could become a super soldier made from a few modified cells? Secondly, they would only be able to do a handful at a time, thus making it minimally applicable Lastly, my opponent states 'It is deadly cycle here where we will create beings further divorced from their humanity in order to compete and one up our rivals. ' However, this as a contradiction. He says 'they are still human beings being created and developed '. Thus, the more we separate a super soldier from humanity, this can only be a benefit to those who worry about the fact they are human. | PRO | 8cfa8f9f-2019-04-18T19:35:13Z-00001-000 |
The Master and Margarita is the Best Russian Novel of the 20th Century. Anyone actually interested may say so in the comments. By 'the Master and Margarita', I am referring to the fictional novel written by Mikhail Bulgakov between 1928-1940, and eventually published in 1966. In addition things that will judged and apply to the term 'best' will be the and the overall storyline [.IE how it starts, what happens, how it develops and how it concludes] and theme. As well as the characters involved and the historical context that it was written. Moreover, the success of the book and how its endured will most certainly apply. Con will have to argue that it is not the best Russian Novel of the 20th Century and/or argue for another [Russian] novel in that period that they consider better--which is preferable. **Debate Structure** -Round one acceptance and any opening statements. -Round two arguments. -Round three defence on arguments and rebuttals. -Round four further rebuttals to each case and closing arguments. **Rules** -No semantics. -Con *must* accept the debate as it is and there must be no attempt to change/alter the resolution. For example Con cannot argue things along the lines of 'it's too subjective' to conclude what is the *best* Russian novel of the 20th century, if they do attempt to do this, I WIN. Con's task is to refer to the literature only and provide a case revolving exclusively around that. There will be a ten day voting period with a select a winner system. | PRO | 3bb5de-2019-04-18T14:12:30Z-00006-000 |
The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic. This debate is for Round 1 of the 2016 Spring DebateAs the Shroud of Turin is (possibly) an ancient historical artifact, absolute proof is impossible thus there will be shared burden of proof. Pro will argue that the Shroud dates back to the time of Christ and thus could be authentic. Con will argue that it is a forgery and thus could not be authentic.5 rounds, 72 hr argument time, 10k characters. Rules10k Charaters per round, 3 rounds, 72 hrs per round, Decide Winner, voting open to all. | PRO | e295b9a2-2019-04-18T13:28:56Z-00009-000 |
As Long as Explicit Songs Exist, So Will Bullying. All my opponent is doing is trying to rephrase the resolution because he didn't read it properly. He is still under the illusion that I'm arguing that explicit songs are the direct cause of bullying.My resolution is, "As long as explicit songs exist, so will bullying."This literally means that bullying will exist as long as or longer than explicit songs, but my opponent wishes to argue the "implications" or "subtext" of the resolution, which I was never arguing.I'll repeat it one more time: I am not arguing that explicit songs are the only direct cause of bullying, and I never was.Contention OneI understand that children can be bullied on other basis, but I'm not refering to any of those. As long as children listen to Kidz Bop, they can be bullied for it. Kidz Bop will exist as long explicit songs do, Therefore as long as explicit songs exist, kids will be bullied."So this shows that explicit songs are not the only cause of bullying, and if it were to stop, bullying would still happen."And thus Con proves my point. Not only will bullying exist as long as explicit songs exist, it will exist for even longer.Con Concedes Contention Two I'm not going to continue this debate if Con doesn't start arguing the resolution I presented. | PRO | d3066c4d-2019-04-18T17:20:18Z-00003-000 |
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Fully Justified. I am entirely against the above resolution.Rules The first round is for acceptance, second for main arguments, third for rebuttals and fourth for conclusive statements. The burden of proof is on my opponent as they must explain why it was justified. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. So is profanity (for sake of the website). Footnotes, endnotes, annotated bibliography, etc is required. DefinitionsNuke- the action of striking a region using nuclear capable weapons.Justified- having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Unconditional Surrender- a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. Empire- an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. In case you are wondering how to get bold, italicized or more text, click the 'Rich Text' button. Source Reccomendation I would reccomend using the website https://nuclearsecrecy.com... provides a way to visualize the effects of a nuclear bomb. | CON | b95a7492-2019-04-18T12:15:26Z-00007-000 |
China would have been better off under the Guomindang. Thanks to Pro for challenging me to this debate. Given that this is the first round, I’ll start off with a signel short arguments, and proceed with larger arguments along with rebuttals in the next round. Arg 1: China was still unstable before the communists Shortly after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, power shifted to a provisional government. Power switched hands between the Guomingdang and later Yuan Shikai, whom took the term for “President for Life” and later banned the Guomingdang. After Shikai’s short-lived term China disintegrated into warlordism [2]. By 1925, China had balkanized toan extent not seen since the Warring states period. As seen below: s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" width="600" height="460" /> [3] By 1945 when the Japanese surrendered, China was devastated by civil war, warlordism, and a series of famines which killed up to 3.5 million people in Northern China alone. This barely accounts for the devastation the coastal regions of China faced during WW2. In short, the country was in shambles after WW2. [4] As mentioned previously, the Guomingdang was barely capable of maintaing power before WW2 and they had already lost power before the Communist Party even rose to power in the first place. Hence, after WW2, when China was in an even worst state than they were before the Japanese , the Guomingdang would not have been able to effectively consolidate power. When China was in compairovly better conidition after the overthrow of the Qing in 1911, Sun Yat Sen was still unable to stabilize China. Hence, it would have been unlikely for him to have been able to stabilize China when under worse conditions. Sources: 1. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. https://upload.wikimedia.org... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 6e641673-2019-04-18T13:46:25Z-00005-000 |
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools. Answer 1: The percentages of races in school can vary from year to year but there was a significant drop of kids going to school during the 1974 busing incident. In Boston schools a few years back tests sown results of 78%black/Hispanic and 14%white which lead me to think about the racial imbalance of social classes. Answer 2: My evidence to having significant proof that having mixed schools don"t always have the best test score is look at inner city schools and for our diverse school. Our test scores aren"t higher than the suburban counties with one race of dominance. Answer 3: Laws are debated upon every single day and when there are multiple options people have their own opinions in which Boston"s first plan doesn"t allow parents and families to make being in a free country, but in the new plan options are given and feeling toward school choice can be satisfactory. | CON | 37392586-2019-04-18T17:31:05Z-00002-000 |
Increase in funding for Space Exploration. It is the case, currently, that the United States government operates at a net budget deficit [1]. Therefore, in order to balance said budget, the Federal government needs to cut spending and raise taxes. At the current juncture, the most effective solution to allowing space exploration to have long term viability is to either freeze or reduce NASA's budget. Sources: [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov... | CON | 82a920f1-2019-04-18T18:15:00Z-00002-000 |
No body really deserves arbitrary respect. Well first of all I should have defined arbitrary respect. I think its when people gain respect because of status. For instance there seems to be a lot of people who demand respect just because they are in the army. I don't think its wrong for people to not respect people in the army based on their beliefs. I'm not sure that we are debating the same thing but thats how I feel about it. I also think people who are of a religious faith also demand a respect that is not deserved. What I'm saying is that people should be judged on their beliefs and it shouldn't be taboo to disrespect what you think is wrong, like religion or army, but people cannot do so because of the preconceived notion that these organizations are sacred and should be respected no matter what they do. | PRO | 4cd5e796-2019-04-18T19:58:30Z-00001-000 |
The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender. From late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender. According to Henry L. Stimson “We, [the administration] felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisors, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire.”[1] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reckoned that to cause equivalent damage done by the Atomic Bombs using conventional weapons would require 345 B29’s.[2] However it is not the fact that the Atomic bombs saved hundreds of B29 missions that is the crucial element. That is the sheer terror that the destructive power of the atomic bombs. This made the Atomic bombs of a different order to any number of conventional B29 missions and was a crucial factor in bringing about the Japanese surrender. If the fact that a city could be levelled in a single night could make the Japanese surrender they would have done so many months previously, and many times over. Important members of the Japanese government agreed with Stimson’s assessment of the importance of shock. Prime Minister Suzuki said “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks. I believed such an opportunity could not be afforded by B-29 bombings alone.”[3] [1] Secretary of War, Henry Stimson quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.27. [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm p.24. [3] Suzuki Kantaro quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p. 35 | PRO | d7188be0-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00007-000 |
United States Selective Service System. We are debating whether the United States Selective Service System or any sort of forced military registration or draft is a good policy. Rules: Round 1: Rules, questions/clarifications by pro, and acceptance. Round 2: Con responds to questions by pro about rules, pro presents first argument. Round 3: Con presents first argument, pro gives counter arguments. Round 4: Con gives counterarguments, pro gives closing remarks. Round 5: Con gives closing remarks, pro does not give another argument because they were given an extra round, as because they are pro, they went first. | CON | b9af92e5-2019-04-18T13:43:29Z-00008-000 |
Copy Protection and DRM Actively Restrict Important Rights. The rights of any citizen who purchases media is at stake in this issue. The rightful owner of media has the right to do with it as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the copyright holder's exclusive right to benefit from their work. The rights described in U.S. Fair Use law and precedent [[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html]] clearly do not infringe upon the copyright holder. It therefore follows that copy protection is an infringement upon the media owner's right to open expression and use of their own property. When the purpose of said actions is simply to make public comment on the music purchased or to critique it or use it for some other academic purpose then the free speech rights of those individuals are being violated, specifically because of the need to use the media to contextualize their opinions or lessons for everyone else. The critical importance of the rights of speech and artistic expression are undeniable. Artistic and cultural expressions are often contextualized and extended through society by sampling and re-imagining (Think of Andy Warhol's study of Campbell's soup cans or the use of music samples in mash-ups). Both cases would likely run afoul of current copyright protection laws as they are currently conceived in the DMCA. It is very clear that the wealth of media created today can be invaluable for the education of children. The reason is that through multimedia curricula, more information can be conveyed convincingly. This improves the quality of education and empowers students to exercise their own rights to free speech. However, it is prohibitively expensive for a teacher to buy 20-30 copies of a work and often the cost is beyond students' means. Allowing a reasonable number of copies for an educational use promotes these valuable enrichment activities and improves discourse throughout society. | PRO | b0e449c7-2019-04-19T12:48:12Z-00013-000 |
The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB). I am not sure what I should write for my introduction... So let me express my gratitude to my opponent and the readers. Please vote fairly and explain your votes for I feel safe in saying that we both (me and my opponent) would rather lose than win unfairly. :: Reasonable arguments against Yahweh do exist :: The first error that I find in the first premise is that if Yahweh (the Christian God) exists then reasonable arguments against Yahweh most certainly exists ! In Psalm 10 David complains "Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble? " and he does the same in Psalm 44 "Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression?". In Isaiah 45, Yahweh is described as a God who hides "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour". So in conclusion reasonable arguments against Yahweh are compatible with Yahweh. However, this does not mean that its unreasonable to believe in Yahweh. Yes, David did indeed have his doubts as I have just shown but ultimately he believed. In Conclusion: 1. There are reasonable arguments against Yahweh's existence. Which supports non-belief. 2. However, there are good reasons to believe. Which supports Christianity. 3. Therefore, for the Christian God to exist he simply has to be the more reasonable choice. 4. Now, we are back to square one. :: Belief in God (and Jesus) is not necessary for salvation :: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16) "Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'." (Matthew 7:21-23) (I intentionally capitalized the last two words) When my opponent says "Now, quite clearly, we can only love, respect & worship that which we think exists." he forgets about a question which used to torment me. The question being "What about those who have never heard ?". 1. Since Yahweh is omnibenevolent we are justified in assuming that everybody has an equal chance of salvation. 2. There is no contradiction in the statement "X loves all Y's personality traits but X does not believe that Y exists". 3. One can be saved without ever hearing the word "Jesus" or even believing in a God. | CON | 23e88ab3-2019-04-18T18:56:47Z-00004-000 |
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum. I agree with my opponents definitions except with what he claims to be the right end of the spectrum. Just because you are on the right, that indeed does not make you a republican. You could be any apart of any political party and still be conservative. Matter in fact, Glenn beck has even considered himself to be a "libertarian" haha.. My opponent wishes to argue that Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck are potential candidates of exceeding Savage's douche baggyness. In rebuttal.. 1. Glenn Beck is purely an entertainer and he plays of that record alone. YES, he is on fox and attempts to be a cheerleader for fox news's brain washing. However, he is a joke and he knows this. And although did he throws smear campaigns day by day on fox, he always will say " You be the judge and look it up yourself". In the end of the day Glenn Beck is really just a conservative Alex Jones...( a nut ) 2. Bill O'reilly is really just an old prick quite honestly. Yes he is up there on the doucheness, but regardless he's a big time news anchor, and he is forced to have manners and keep it cool. Of course he has made some very horrible claims and seriously should be considered as a bigoted hate speaker. THE POINT: Michael Savage is a radio head with no boundaries, and unlike Bill or Glenn, he has been BANNED from an entire nation. He has defined hate speech and has expressed himself to be quite a "fascist-nationalist" political figure. More examples: http://www.youtube.com... - Here Savage calls a caller a worm, and a coward for having a peaceful political difference. http://www.youtube.com... - Despite the horrible title, Michael links black people from slavery to welfare.. http://www.youtube.com... - This just makes me laugh... A Mexican caller gets his revenge, sorta. | PRO | a2923ed3-2019-04-18T19:02:08Z-00003-000 |
We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo... We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbon being released into the air. Unless ordinary people can be brought to change their behaviour we will never tackle climate change. So it is fair to use market methods that raise the price of energy to encourage us to change our behaviour. Ways can be found to make sure that no one suffers under this new system. For example, other taxes can be cut to make up for having to pay a carbon tax. And even if emissions were tackled by regulation instead, that would still have the effect of raising the cost of energy and fuel. Producers would pass the increased costs of regulation on to consumers, so we will have to pay more one way or another. | PRO | db035a1f-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00018-000 |
Islam is incapable of being peaceful. My opponent is stating that Islam is a naturally violent religion, now while I am of a different faith I do not see this as being the case. If you were to do what I did and actually look up what the Islamic beliefs are you would come across the "Five Pillars of Islam." The first is the Shahadah (Declaration of faith), this has no violence it's the Islamic terrorists that turn to violence over this. The second one is prayer (Salah), again nothing about violence. The third, charity or alms-giving (Zakat) , i'm getting tired of saying this but again not violent. The fourth is fasting during the month of Ramadan (Sawm), there is nothing violent about fasting it is a simple process of not consuming food or drink for a certain period of time. Finally the fifth, A pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj), this is definitely not threatening. It's the Islamic terrorists that make this religion seem so violent an incapable of peace, blame the terrorists not the religion. | CON | f8ceb354-2019-04-18T11:48:08Z-00004-000 |
no more hesitation targets of women, children, elderly. One in four elderly own a gun.[1] One in four women own a gun.[1] The issue is beyond gun ownership. Knife ownership combined with felonious intent is enough for an officer to shoot. It would probably be safe to say 100% of the above own a meat cleaver. As for Aggravated Assault offenders, the numbers support my position.[2] Also, the position you are taking supports discrimination. It's true that most Aggravated Assault cases are men who have not entered middle age. However, it is profiling to practice only on men. [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://www.fbi.gov... | PRO | 87ec3c68-2019-04-18T17:40:40Z-00001-000 |
Plastic Surgery Should Be Banned For Everyone Except... If you were in a serious accident, car crash, mauled by a bear, burn victim etc. then it's clearly fine to be permitted a little plastic surgery to clean things up. Or if you have some serious disfigurement like one breast significantly smaller than the other, or are missing a large portion of your buttock, it should be permittable too. But in any other situation it should be BANNED. I have NEVER seen a case where plastic surgery has ever looked "good". Plastic surgery leaves permanent scars and makes the poor people who receive this treatment disfigured and mangled for life. I'm against all forms of this horrid activity, but I'd like to point out breast, and butt implants specifically. These two operations ALWAYS turn out looking horrendous. If you get breast or butt implants you will look unnatural and disgusting. You will also cause confusion when wearing cloths and attract potential mates who would have never been interested without the perceived "enhancements". This doesn't even work anyways, when that person you tricked into being interested in you because of your breast or butt implants finally sees what you really look like naked, it will create a very awkward situation. They will not want to be with you, or touch you, not even once. Large breasts and butts are an evolutionary sign of strength and power. If you have large natural breasts it means you will produce a voluminous amount of milk after a pregnancy for the offspring to feed on. This extra milk will make the infant grow into a strong baby. A good, well formed butt also promotes a more safe environment for a baby to develop in as well. Do not try to screw with evolution ladies! You by getting plastic surgery are just messing with natural selection! And it won't even work because anyone with any high quality genes won't mate with you anyway. Stop the freak show people! What the hell is going on here? Earth is not some carnival side show! And let me tell you about this ethics and morals behind this atrocity too. Say you have a pile of extra money sitting in the bank just getting stale, so you decide to go blow it on a nose job? Sick, selfish. You could donate that money to starving children or help homeless people figure out how to help themselves. You promote the idea that vanity and appearance matter more than helping other people with real problems. If a person want's to look better and feel better they need to exercise and diet, THAT SIMPLE. If you're offended, great. I'm sick of people sugar coating and dancing around real world problems like there no big deal. Not everything is a big deal, but this IS. PLASTIC SURGERY IS HUMAN MUTILATION! HOLY HELL!! VOTE NOW!!! BAN PLASTIC SURGERY FOR VAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRE IT, AS OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE UNFIT TO MAKE THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES! | PRO | 921b15ab-2019-04-18T13:21:00Z-00003-000 |
Late Term Abortion. Clearly you didn't understand a word I said. Where did I say I think it's right for people to pay for someone else's abortion?? And yeah I do support all abortions but I'm talking about for their reasons! It's unwanted. They arnt ready. Poverty. Overpopulation. and are you stupid?! It's clear that a fetus is not a sperm! I gave that as an example to how far people will go in life to get 'rights' for cells. It's ridiculous and rather stupid. A fetus doesn't deserve rights because its nothing! An adult deserves rights unlike a clump of cells..and ya us kids growing up rely on our parents for things but you know what.. The mother CHOOSES not to abort them! So an UNWANTED parasite is leeching off of the mother. Of course we have every right to get rid of it. And did I not mention that I can't go back and see what you said! And did I not say sorry that I might not respond to everything you said! Read my texts and actually look at then before you open your mouth. And they arnt innocent babies! They are fetus's and they dont matter. A unwanted fetus isn't gonna control an adults life. What don't u understand? and yes I will relate these 2 because a mother taking care of her wanted baby is different then a mother aborting her unwanted fetus. The mother has a life and needs to focus on education and working. She's not just gonna throw it all away for something useless. In life there are paths we can take.. A left, a right, a forward whatever. Same goes for an abortion. We can have one or we might choose not to. The mother needs to think realistically on what is best for her. stop trying to mount a fetus up to an adult cuz that's not happening. A fetus has no say and the mother has all the say. Again..she created it and she can take it out until 9 months. However once it is born she cannot abort it. Thus she has a few months to think about a decision that will change her life forever. and again..THEY ARNT INNOCENT!! Enough with that crap cuz it could grow up to be a rapist. Or as you would say "it could grow up to find the cure for cancer". Ya right.. Lol | PRO | 88d5e007-2019-04-18T16:01:42Z-00002-000 |
Social Darwinism. My opponent has no time for this debate so he forfeited round 2. I will take this opportunity to further my argument. What people of leftist standing fail to see is that "production for profit" and "production for use" are essentially the same thing. Except the former is more efficient in all areas. "Production for profit" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a price higher than the manufacturing cost (the sale price). "Production for use" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a break-even price (no profit). But if you take into account that while people are spending less money, they are also making less money, then it really turns out the same. But it doesn't, "production for profit" works better. "Why?" my opponent asks. Because people will not produce something unless they are going to profit. This is human nature. So the less someone is payed, the less effort they will put into something. Under communism, the solution to this problem is to force them to work through militarized collectivism (a.k.a. slavery). Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is to let every individual and corporation make as much money as possible as long as every transaction is voluntary. Social Darwinism is the idea that the latter is the way to go. It also explains that market competition leads to inequality, which is not a bad thing. So comparing the incomes of different people and highlighting the stark contrasts between them (which is my opponent's next resort) is moot. There is no logical way to deny this, as it works in theory and in practice. | PRO | a73d9b60-2019-04-18T14:56:20Z-00001-000 |
China should be the universal language. China should not be the universal language due to the following reasons: 1st- It is difficult to understand. We need to study about the stress and any other things that Mandarin has. It has lots of words that have the same spelling but different pronunciations. So we'll find it difficult. 2nd- It has difficult alphabet- As we all know that Mandarin has difficult alphabet and it is not easy for us to understand. | CON | 21b6ee4a-2019-04-18T14:02:31Z-00003-000 |
Parents feeding their children fast food. I have to say I agree with you in some cases, but on the other hand, this is up to the parent. The parent of the child is their parent for a reason. They will raise the child how they want. They can feed it what they want, show it what they want, teach it what they want, and they are in control of the childs enviroment. As a parent (which I'm guessing you are), I understand where you would think that this is wrong and where you would want to change this. Myself, I am only a 16 year old boy. I don't quite understand the feeling of being a parent. What I do understand, is that you can control what your kids are involved with. If they are going to feed their kids fast food, and then complain about obesity and bad health, let them. They are the parents of the child. They decide what THEY think is right for the child and what isn't. I'm just shooting in the dark in this debate to be honest, but if anything, I'll learn something. | PRO | 8e0455fc-2019-04-18T18:26:23Z-00007-000 |
If "styles make fights" in boxng; Mayweather beats Pacquiao. I am very disappointed by how this debate turned out. I was trying to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt but now it is indisputable what he or she was trying to do. If you read my opponent's argument in Round 1, it is clear that they are trying to deconstruct the language of my resolution as opposed to the substance. My opponent has showed no desire to debate boxing but instead wanted to challenge my use of the word "style". "Style" is often defined as the strategic approach a fighter takes during a bout." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) "While all boxers utilize different moves and punches to some extent, the specific way they fight is called their style." (source: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com...) "There is a commonly accepted theory about the success each of these boxing styles has against the others. The general rule is similar to the game Rock, Paper, Scissors - each boxing style has advantages over one, but disadvantages against the other. A famous clich� amongst boxing fans and writers is "styles make fights"." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Whether or not this is the proper use of the word "style" is irrelevant. That is what the word means in boxing lingo. I dare say even the most casual boxing fan would have known that. This mistake leads me to believe (and I hate to say this) that my opponent may know little if anything about boxing, and perhaps should not have challenged me. Please vote for Pro. For those who are interested, I'd like to continue on why I think Mayweather would beat Pacquiao: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Pacqiao seems to be vulnerable to straight right hands. The first video is a compilation of Juan Manuel Marquez hitting Pacquiao with several straight right hands in both of their fights. Many of Pacquiao's recent opponents have lacked a good straight right hand. Oscar De La Hoya and Miguel Cotto are left-handed fighters who box in the orthodox stance, which means their straight right is not their dominant hand. Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito are both pressure in-fighters who mostly use hooks and uppercuts and rarely if ever throw straight rights. Joshua Clottey and Shane Mosley do have good striaght rights, but both of them were too defensive in their fights with Pacquiao to throw them. Mayweather has a excellent straight right hand which he loves throwing (see the second video). Mayweather can step-back and counter Pacquiao all night with straight right hands, like Marquez did, and win the fight. | PRO | b6a1a09a-2019-04-18T18:38:11Z-00000-000 |
banning wouldn't stop people viewing them. Not All programs with explicit content ARE educational. Tasteful nudity or swearing is not banned even for children( watch National geographic or discovery science). These bans act as warnings and work well with responsible parents and children. Children KNOW that this is bad and if they choose to see it, great. BUT if there were no such bans or warnings , unwilling children would unwittingly stumble upon content that just serves cheap thrills. Removing restrictions, would be unfair to the many children who respect them and whom they protect. | CON | 3606497a-2019-04-19T12:48:11Z-00004-000 |
In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants. It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results. Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States. For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased. | CON | 4820768b-2019-04-15T20:22:31Z-00016-000 |
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. http://thedailybanter.com... I grew in very conservative community where everyone had guns, hunting was done before school and you might have a deer in the back of the pick-up and a gun in the back window when you arrived at school in the morning. As conservative and gun toting as it was though, we always settled major disputes with a brawl, eventually followed by handshake somewhere down the road. It was always the perceived "thugs in the ghettos" who were the ones who couldn't solve disputes through argument or a good, clean fistfight. Even in the "wild west" men left their firearms at the edge of town and handled disputes like men. All of the "tough guy" conservatives seem to have faded, now we're left with these NRA members who are afraid to go to a suburban 7-Eleven without packing a piece. And many of whom, are like Dick Cheney who couldn't hit a pheasant, if the birds life depended on it. We now have a growing majority of Republicans who couldn't scrap their way out of a wet paper sack and need the security of a gun for every black seventeen year-old in a hoodie, that they deem a potential threat. I used to think of Republicans as the gritty Veteran, that wasn't afraid of anybody and even at sixty years-old could still whoop the snot out of any liberal. My how things appear to have changed. The image of the "old tough guy" has turned into a "soft" individual that can't escape an imagined paranoia, unable to feel safe in their own house without an easily accessible AR-15, unable to pick up their kids from school without their conceal carry on their person and no ability to defend themselves with the guns attached to their shoulders that God blessed them with. | PRO | 3c17bcad-2019-04-18T15:29:17Z-00005-000 |
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds. essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year oldstiller is a man who did late term abortions, of viable babies, for trivial reasons. one example is he killed a baby at 26 weeks because the mom wanted to go to a rock concert. he did not comply with rules that determine how to determine viability, etc.the next hypothetical says that a man is killing two year olds illegally.how is it different to be doing illegal abortions, than someone killing two year olds? it's essentially the same thing.for that reason, if we see that politics and law aren't working to stop the two year old killer, we should engage in defense of others and shoot the man killing the children. in teh same manner, at least when he's doing those illegal abortions mentioned, we should engage in defesnse of others of the babies being aborted, at least right before the abortion occurs.how are these situations different?if you use the soverignty of the mom... how is it not her fault that she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer (even the law recognizes no absolute right), and how not her fault that she is at least partially responsible for the child's existance etc?please say how these situations are different. | PRO | aa2debf4-2019-04-18T14:13:38Z-00004-000 |
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs. I love how my opponent ignores my forst rebuttal as if he's conceding that point to me. Anyway on to the debate. "I dont need a source. That was a war where 70 million people died." Actually the number is 1978167400 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Any way we avoid fighting should been the way." So we should have ignored the genocide Hitler did and ignore Japan in the Pearl Harbour Attacks? "How do you know more deaths could have come from this?" It's caled "logic." It is quite obvious what would have happened. Hitler first invaded Poland and then went on a rampage throught Europe. No one country could have defeated him. We needed to join forces against fascism. He would have performed genocide outside those nations. I urge a strong vote for con. My opponent had horrible spelling and never argued his side of the case. | CON | fed1f52e-2019-04-18T18:45:00Z-00002-000 |
The Bible is a good source for morals today. GenocideThe god of the bible who is claimed to be of perfect and moral character and the bible is therefore as it was written by the prophets of Yahweh and the disciples of Christ the bible is claimed to be the perfect moral guide. How then can the bible in the name of Yahweh preach genocide? Yahweh in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 explicitly commands the destruction of an entire town if just one person worships another god. Now I know you will come back with the argument that those laws were written in a different time (ignoring that this totally contradicts the entire premise of Christian absolute morality) this is essentially to say that there is a time when this sort of religious cleansing and barbarism is justified. Furthermore Yahweh commands his chosen people to destroy entire peoples for no better reason than because their existence complicates his real estate dealings [1]. This is shown over and over again in the Jewish destruction of uncountable cities [2] [3] [4] [5] and yet this is the character the bible promotes as being of perfect moral character. SexismBoth in the old and new testament women are regarded as the property of either their father or their husband, this is shown by how women are referred to along with property in Exodus 20 and when they are treated like property in mosaic law [6] [7]. Jesus also refers to women saying that they should not be permitted to have any kind of authority over a man [8].Barbarity of Mosaic LawI know it is argued that the laws stated in the pentateuch no longer apply (regardless what Jesus says [9]) but Yahweh did still give these laws so in keeping with Yahweh’s perfect nature Christians must accept that there historically contingent circumstances where:Killing witches [10]Killing homosexuals [11]Killing children who hit their parents [12]Killing adulterers [13]Killing unbelievers [14] And killing apostates [15]Are all justified.Lack of Actual MoralityWhile there are a few good bits in the bible there does appear to be a lack of morality that wasn’t already existing in the secular world. I would like to be presented with profound morality that appears in the bible that hadn’t already been discovered.[1] Genesis 12:1-7[2] Joshua 6:20-21[3] Joshua 8:1-29[4] Jeremiah 50:21-22[5] Judges 18:27-29[6] Deuteronomy 22:23-24 [7] Deuteronomy 21:10-14[8] 1 timothy 2:12[9] Matthew 5:18 [10] Exodus 22:17[11] Leviticus 20:13[12] Exodus 21:15[13] Leviticus 20:10[14] Exodus 22:19 [15] 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 | CON | b76cf590-2019-04-18T16:13:13Z-00004-000 |
Women don't poop. You have said that Anita Pea's was not reliable because she was one of Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers worst apprentices and was always asking for sexual favors. This I cannot disprove. But what I can prove is that a later very renowned scientist named Harry Nutt reviewed her findings and said, and this is quoting his exact words,"Anita Pea was not a very good scientist and one of Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers' worst subjects because she was a young woman and Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers was very attractive, so she, of course, was attracted to him. But as I looked through her papers of her experiments, I found out that even though she wasn't the sanest person in the world, her experiments were lucid and very hard to controvert. I, with the power granted in me as the most congratulated scientist of the late 20th century and winner of a Nobel Prize, say that Anita Pea's experiments are perfectly true. I even have conducted her experiments personally on my wife and find these all true" Now that is a very good argument right there. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Harry Nutt, says Anita's standings are true. I, of course, being a follower of Harry Nutt, have decided that women actually do poop in very microscopic strands that are as thin as hair through their tiny rectum. That is all that is needed because this fulfills the purpose that women do actually poop. It's just that it all comes out in small strands and the rest are distributed out throughout the body. Even though Pro said that "sweat and saliva are classified as fecal free substances by the agency of Fecal Study and Control", there are other ways of disposing of the fecal matter. Vote Con. I would also like to thank the reader, voters, and my opponent for reading this outrageously stupid topic. I also can say this debate has been a pleasure to participate in. | CON | b43bc97d-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00000-000 |
Trump is good. Its politics, who doesnt lie. Politifact has proven on multiple occasions to be extremely biased. He is just money smart. He has got through 4 bankruptcies but he didn't give up he proved to have perseverence and now he is one of the richest men in America. And majority of your sources have been proven time and time again to be biased against republicans. | PRO | 1e9d182f-2019-04-18T12:23:41Z-00003-000 |
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God. I will of course be arguing against Blob, I believe that although free speech is important. It is not right to be able to mock a religion and/or leader of that religion. It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices. 1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others. By the way when I say you in this argument I mean those who mock god not you as in the "Pro" It is a conflict of rights and such should be decided in the courts, not on the streets and our minds. | CON | aa6efb9b-2019-04-18T18:18:34Z-00007-000 |
Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression.... I would like to Cross Examine you first by asking, Define John Locke's Social Contract, Explain and elaborate on your first contention and here is my arguments to make it sort and sweet V- Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights C - Promoting freedom of expresion skyrockets teens confidence 1- Freedom of Speech 2- Tinker vs. Des Moines made this possible 3- Professional behavior is not for teens | CON | b96e1d23-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00002-000 |
Rap battle. You a dusty a-ss trick, You ain't ever on fleek I'll put a noose around your neck, You ain't never gone speak It'll strangle you until every bone weak I'll leave you hanging next to somebody on the other line like when the telephone beep I'm going easy in this battle, This is just me being nice The thought me of turning up on you, Sh-t ain't even right You get out of line it's gone be a fight For them Newports, I pull out the cig but I don't need a light You should run from it, Hollow tips only come from it Beam on the mac, That's a red eye; its dumb blunted F-ck it, When I untuck it don't none want it You'll get gun butted with two hammers I nunchuck it You scaring nothing, You getting whooped and I'm barely punching We packers like Green Bay, I get to airin' something Roger that, I'm the type to break your jaw, Your eye get black I ain't tryna rap; I'll give you a dose, Diamond tap You cursed, You can't escape mine Kvng, I'm in a great prime, You got a great mind And you can hone it, It just takes time Approach you with a great 9, It's hosted on waistline The bullets fly you all the way to the sun, I'll let you shine | CON | 83ce669b-2019-04-18T11:10:32Z-00002-000 |
Conceding and voiding debates. I won't get too flowery with this opening statement. There are many instances where a person may start a debate and not be able to finish it. Schoolwork, family emergencies, etc. These can interfere with a debate. In addition, a person may have made a fatal error in judgment, or realized that an opponent's point cannot be countered. I believe that there should be two extra options: 1. Concede debate. This automatically takes you out of the debate. The benefit of this is that in a multi-round debate, if you find you cannot win, or want to concede for any other reason, you don't force the rest of the site to wait 3 days per round before they can vote. 2. Void debate This sends a request to the opponent to void the debate. In this case, there are no winners and the debate is deleted. Thus, a person cannot be voted for unfairly if the opponent has encountered some emergency. | PRO | 3c836432-2019-04-18T19:52:51Z-00003-000 |
Increased global security. The presence of US military equipment and counter-terrorism forces in Africa will result in greater security for the rest of the world. Many of the terrorist groups which have existed in the ‘ungoverned’ spaces of Africa have an international agenda. Al-Qaeda and other groups have used Africa as a base to plan attacks against the West, such as the 2004 Madrid bombing[1]. The disruption and eradication of these groups is therefore beneficial as it will prevent these groups from acting freely on the international stage. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.2 | PRO | facbbf62-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00015-000 |
Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor. I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend. | CON | b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00004-000 |
The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document. Unfortunately, my opponent failed to meet his three day deadline to post an argument for Round 3. Given that he hasn't taken five minutes to explain himself or offer an apology in the comments section, I have no choice but to assume that he has conceded this debate to me. I will not waste any more of my time offering any further arguments.If anyone else would like to debate me on this topic in the future, feel free to offer me a challenge. Until then, however, please vote for Pro as the winner of this debate. Thanks for reading. | PRO | d4e9c40c-2019-04-18T18:34:56Z-00000-000 |
pascals wager is a fairy tale. Pascal's Wager is simply a hypothetical view of the Theist vs. Atheist debate. It isn't a "fairy tale", but is a simplified version of a Theist's point of view on the matter. Both sides might disagree on reality, but it is "worth a chance" that the Theistic position is right. If your wrong, you don't lose anything anyway. Using an analogy like you are doing misses the point of Pascal's Wager. If you dislike it, then give a logical reason for how it is wrong. Not an irrelevant analogy in order to attack it. Truthfully, if you want to refute Pascal's Wager, don't use some irrelevant hypothetical attack. I want to know, what part of Pascal's Wager is incorrect? | CON | e4524db6-2019-04-18T14:35:39Z-00008-000 |
America should reduce the Age Of Consent (of sexual acts) to 16 and above. The Age of Consent is a very ambiguous area of law, depending on the state and scenario. In some states, the Age Of Consent is 18 and above; any age below can be considered rape. However, that is very flawed as the average male teen loses his virginity at 16.9 and the average female at 17.4.(Sources: Kinsey Institute; California State University) Reducing the Age of Consent to 16 lets teens enjoy sex when they prefer to (around age 17) while preventing any clueless kids from being taken advantage of.(PS: This is my very first Debate here. Hope to have a lot of fun!) | PRO | b71e30c5-2019-04-18T14:53:27Z-00003-000 |
Failures of American Heroes. As you have yet to define anything, I'll take the preemptive move to do so. Failures: Lack of success Well, I didn't read the question thoroughly, and ended up at the "against" side:/ Sucks to be me. Nevertheless, I'll give it my best shot. So, I'll have to battle it out to prove that We shouldn't teach failures of famous Americans in school And you'll have to prove that we should teach of their failures So Last round only rebuttal, no new points, ay? All the best! | CON | 38d07fd9-2019-04-18T13:33:08Z-00002-000 |
Hybrid cars are too mild a solution to global warming. Global warming is a global crisis. It requires an immediate, dramatic response. Yet, hybrids are a half measure. They reduce emissions only slightly, moving cars from a terrible contributer to global warming a notch down to a bad contributor. Instead of supporting hybrid cars, full measures must be taken with immediate moves to electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, which emit no greenhouse gases from the tail-pipe. | PRO | 349ec727-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00044-000 |
changing the curfew time. forgive for not saying if its a local or nation decision. its a local decision, the reason i said that the time should be declined to nine p.m. is because the crime rate has gone up in California since the 1990's. and do u have an aim because this is taking to long. and i'm am not crazy, i just want the next generation to have a healthy community. thank you very much | CON | 5b513118-2019-04-18T20:02:34Z-00001-000 |
.9999999 bar does not = 1. And I would like to welcome him to ddo. Seeing that my opponent is familiar with the subject I will get strait to the point. I take issue with the Prof at the following point: ". .. Subtract 0.999. .. , or "x" from both sides. .. 9x = 9" 10x-x= 9x However, the other side of the equation is not true. when x was multiplied by 10, ".999. .. " became 9.9999. .. . what is left out is the fact that there is now one less 9 at the end. Now, one may be tempted to say that since there are infinite 9's this shouldn't matter. However contrary to popular belief, in the world of infinity, not all infinities are created equal. inf. -1 = inf. However, inf. - 1 - inf. = -1. So, when x is multiplied by 10 there are "inf. -1". 9's following the decimal point. As opposed to x, which has inf. 9's following it. Thus when subtracted, we do not have "9" but rather a value approaching 9. Thus while .999. .. is obviously approaching 1, it is not equivalent to 1. | PRO | 434805dd-2019-04-18T18:42:04Z-00003-000 |
Tuition fees will improve education recieved. Universities are facing testing times at the moment. The recession has left public finances in a mess and universities are facing cuts in their funding from the government. Lecturers are losing their jobs, spending on research is being frozen, and with a record amounts of applications to universities, there are fears that many could miss out. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8491729.stm]]. Tuition fees are needed by universities to pump money into their institutions to provide a consistently high level of education for their students. It is clear that public money cannot wholly sustain universities in the future. | PRO | e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00044-000 |
[League Of Legends] Mid laner Faker Of SKT T1 is the best mid laner (Global). "However if Con agrees with this then obviously what Con stated about the 1v1 between Faker and PawN is fatal, because both PawN and Faker did not receive a proper gank that had affected on or the other during their laning phase (www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLNVKPAHmY) and It's a fact that Kassadin has an incrediably weak laning phase like: Fizz, or Riven( in the mid lane) and more. While on the other hand, Talon has a much better laning phase against a Kassadin." The video you linked was all about 1v1 as there was not a gank in the video. The video before had examples of ganks and counter ganks where pawn was jayce while talon was faker. During the second example of the ganks, bengi and faker clearly had pawn, but due to a lack of communication, bengi accidently kicked pawn away which gave pawn the clear advantage. For the first gank attempt, Pawn did not have much help from dandy while faker went in what seemed to be too soon and almost got soloed by pawn. As for talon vs kassadin, at the 5 or 6 second mark, you could see faker having his minion wave pushed up. Since kassadin is bad early game, wouldn"t it have been more logical to either freeze the wave or let it be pushed for protection of tower? It seemed as though faker was over extended on the kassadin. For the NBA comparison, I would say that a game like league of legends does not continue to have legends like a sport would (even if this is considered a sport). Maknoon and pray used to be considered the best top laner and adc, but now those positions are passed down to whomever seems to have the best stats of the year. Faker was ahead of his time in 2013, but now he has fallen behind or is on equal grounds. | CON | eb26a841-2019-04-18T15:35:41Z-00003-000 |
Books are better than Television. Since you didn't respond to any of my arguments and babbled on incoherently about how stupid I am, I'll respond to what you wrote. Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling. "As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books." Very hypocritical and grammatically incorrect, you forgot to add the comment after "speak" and the hyphen after "self." The only point you made was that I was not educated, which is incorrect. Please point out any grammatical or spelling error that I made; because I can show you dozens of spelling and grammatical errors that you made. I will ask my opponent to respond to my previous arguments. | PRO | b1ef4f61-2019-04-18T12:33:14Z-00002-000 |
Other forms of online gambling. What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not? | PRO | 5023cb9c-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00024-000 |
Poem Battle. I already made this poem for someone else but I'll just put it in here anyways because I like it: Jesus this, Moses that Abraham hit me with a whiffle-ball bat Hibbity Jibbity, bibbity swibbity this nonsense makes my brain all flippity I truly believe that all these debates Are not worth the trouble for all the stress it creates But I'm stuck in an endless cycle of stupid and I can't escape; my mind's been polluted Please save me; I'm in a sea of immature freaks And I've only been on this site for a couple of weeks... I've wasted my time, debating 60-year-old children One of them claiming he's a die-hard Christian Jesus this, Moses that Abraham hit me with a wiffle-ball bat Hibbity jibbity, bibbity swibbity @FollowerofChrist1955 has no debating ability Any pinch of peace and any trace of tranquility Has been destroyed with his lack of civility Any ounce of sanity or dash of nobility Has been long gone because of his mental "stability" Oh, you think I'm done? I'm just getting started You see, @Follower doesn't have me outsmarted He's thinks he's so wise, so amazing, so great We'll see what God thinks when he's at heaven's gate I'm eager to see his response to this poem; I can't wait! He'll look ridiculous when his facts aren't straight In all honesty, these arguments are mentally draining But @Follower 's response is always entertaining Jesus this, Moses that Abraham hit me with a whiffle ball bat Hibbity jibbity, bibbity swibbity @Follower has no credibility He'll respond with anger because of his ego's fragility But I'm okay with that; it's his disability | PRO | 53bc2e7b-2019-04-18T11:28:25Z-00005-000 |
Greatest Political Speeches II. The Jimmy Carter speech sums up the aura that his administration gave off to the American public. The "Crisis of Confidence" speech is also known as the "Malaise" speech. My last choice is Nikita Khrushchev's 1960 United Nations speech. Better known as the speech where Khrushchev said the phrase "We will bury you!" He also took it upon himself to bang his shoe on the lectern while giving his speech.Nikita Khrushchev was the Premier of the USSR. Khrushchev was giving a speech to the UN denouncing colonialism and what he considers American "imperialism." The United Nations at this time was having a fierce debate on what they should do in relation to the Congo Crisis. Khrushchev was giving his opinion in his speech about what should be done. The video I provided contains some parts of the speech but not all. https://archive.org... http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | f09c8fc5-2019-04-18T16:52:58Z-00001-000 |
The Playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360. The xbox community is clearly enjoyable. Not an opinion if you looked at my source you would have seen it broke the record for most people on Xbox live at once. Obviously people enjoy the community more than they dislike it. Its not opinion cause statistics show that more people buy and play on the Xbox community. Virtual goods cost time. Developers use their equipment time and money. So its fair people should pay. Great support is not an opinion. Go to Forum, ask anyone. Microsoft is always up to date and responds quickly to the community. Ive seen it. PS3 leaves glitches and patches open for a longer time then xbox. You say youve never had a problem with suppor, dosent mean someone hasnt. The xbox dashboard is clearly more organized. Not just an opinion. Its easier to find many things. My opponent is saying my things are opinianated. They are actually proven and facts stated. You cant have this debate without involving opinions. I bring opinions supported by the communiy of xbox and several things. Simply naming this debate "The playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360" is an opinion so their will be opnion based arguments but i have backed mine up. Kinect is popular you may not like kinect adventures but its one of the top sellers and its above call of duty. you stated "Xbox Basic Starting Hard Drive= 4GB PS3 Basic Starting Hard Drive= 160GB Nuff said." This is invalid. I bought my Xbox and it came with a 60gb hard drive please look up facts. You failed to argue that xbox games sell more and sell better than ps3 games. Not an opinion i gae my source at the top. You didnt argue that blue ray movies tend to cost more. Like i said i cant tell the diffrence between Hd and Blu ray. Yes they take our money but in return we get better access. "Counter ("PS3 has a terrible security system.")- Consider this: one of the largest online consumer communities on the planet, hacked. Everyone take a collective gasp...now. It's actually not that uncommon. " You stated that ^ It is one of the largest but it has allowed more hacks into the system than Xbox (a larger online community)Yes hacks happen but Xbox patches them earlier than ps3, this is an example of great community support because the community does complain and does patch it first for Xbox. | CON | 850a7184-2019-04-18T18:30:50Z-00002-000 |
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal. Kenny Bania gives Jerry Seinfeld a brand new Armani suite and tells Jerry that they can call it even if Jerry takes him out for a meal sometime. Armani suites run somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Nobody could ever find a better deal than that. Jerry accepts the offer and then takes Kenny out to a restaurant called Mendys a couple days later. Kenny, who is full from a hot dog he ate earlier, orders a bowl of soup. After that, in an unbelievably unappreciative moment, Jerry tries to cheap shot Kenny and say that a bowl of soup is a meal when soup is clearly a side dish. Even Elaine Benes, who is one of Jerry's friends, says that Kenny's order was not really a meal. | PRO | e447c443-2019-04-18T19:25:21Z-00008-000 |
I have existed for all time and I will exist for all time. Thanks for the debate Brian_Eggleston.Rebuttal_It is true, the matter that makes up my opponent most likely has existed for a very long time.However, the opponent's resolution states that "I," (1) as a person, have existed for all time. My opponent does not provide a specifically marked resolution to differ.Thus, my opponent did not exist as "I" until he was born as a conscious human, and thus has not existed for all time."I" is defined as the self, or the ego. (1) Thank you. Sources Cited___http://www.thefreedictionary.com... | CON | 5a921900-2019-04-18T18:45:47Z-00002-000 |
Make Smoking Illegal. My opponent has now laid out 3 reasons for why people should not take up smoking, but they did not prove that these reasons warrant a ban on smoking. 1.My opponent makes the claim that smoking is the reason that the United States is not one of the top-10 healthiest countries, but they do not prove that this is due to smoking, and not obesity, sugar intake, alcohol consumption or any other cause. Therefore, this is a moot point, and does not warrant a government ban on smoking. 2.My opponent then makes the claim that says restrictions on smokers" rights are not strict enough, but why is it the smoker"s responsibility not to smoke around other people? My opponent has not proven that a government ban would remedy this, nor did they show that non-smokers have a right to clean air. 3.I would also like to state that minors are not allowed to smoke. My opponents point only proves that a smoking ban would be ineffective and easy to circumvent. Now I have proven that both the smoking of meat and the smoking of cigarettes should remain legal. My opponent has completely avoided the topic of this debate (meat smoking), and therefore has not fulfilled their burden of proof. Vote Con!!!! | CON | e82afa07-2019-04-18T17:50:15Z-00000-000 |
Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults. Please think about the following questions.Can a question be a lie?Can an instruction be a lie?How much, in debating, do we rely on our assessment of participants' characters when judging debates? Would we accept their bare assertions or would we need logic and evidence to convince us?What difference does knowing I'm a liar make when you're reading this? Are you reading it more critically and carefully, for example? Is that a good or a bad thing?Look at Pro's definition of a lie: an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined. It cannot be automatically taken for granted that whatever a liar states is categorically false...How is that different from any other unsupported statement that might be offered in a debate?Wouldn't you always keep in mind the possibility that a debater might be, if not lying, exaggerating, misrepresenting or simply mistaken about the truth? Do you even believe in "truth" as such?How is your reading relationship with me altered by the knowledge that I'm a liar? If it's not altered very much, consider what the word "liar" is. Is it anything more than an expression of disapproval and hostility? If it is not, please conclude that it is an insult of the most ordinary kind. | CON | 528ef682-2019-04-18T17:28:04Z-00002-000 |
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better). I believe that Call Of Duty is better than Halo because: Cod has sold 12 million more copies than Halo.(As a series) Also, in recent polls in the gaming community, Cod has gotten more votes on every platform. Call Of Duty also has better ratings than the Halo series. I would then like to point out that Call Of Duty games come out every year, while a Halo game lifespan is often 2 years. This makes the Halo fans not only wait, but forces them to play a halo game for 2 years, then for the players who aren't compettetive players they won't even enjoy Halo. Con stats that Halo is balanced for competitive play,but fails to realize that approximately 2 percent of gamers are competitive. This leaves the other 98 percent of gamers left without a entertaining game. While Call Of Duty is made for both competitive( League Play) and just casual gamers.( Public Match) Also, Con states hat Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponents. I would like to say that this isn't entirely true, in Halo polls it is said that 85 percent of people who shoot first win the gun battle. You can use melee weapons , grenades and equipment is a main aspect in Call Of Duty. Con then states that Call Of Duty campaigns don't have in depth campaigns. This is completely false , as it was very emotionally when Roach and Ghost die by Makrov who was thought to be their comrade. It was a very triumph moment when Captain Price kills Makrov(finally). Also, Cod has a very complex story-line, and you have to play them from the very beginning to fully understand. I would then like to state that Call Of Duty has a lot more game options to choose from, such as zombies, special ops. Etc. Call Of Duty has a better story-line, better multiplayer, and more special features. This leads me into my next topic about Cod's multiple story-lines, as Zombies has a story mode which means that Call Of Duty already has 2 story Lines in one game. Which proves that Cod has a far more complex story line than Halo. Cod has better rating, more options, Compatible for ALL types of players, and has sold a lot better than Halo. Call Of Duty is a far superior game to Halo. | CON | c3a98e69-2019-04-18T17:32:18Z-00004-000 |
To be decided during the debate. I doubt my opponent is going to read this before his turn arrives, so I'll have to do this. 1. The topics proposed by my opponent are essentially one topic. In exchange for being forced to debate both a position and a topic that I myself do not choose, I request only that I be given a choice between a variety of topics. This request has been denied by my opponent and I ask kindly that he proposes three new topics (of which one of the old ones may be included) that will fulfill my requirements. I request that these three new topics be posted in the comments section, which I will diligently check at least once a day. I will then comment on my topic of choice and the debate will continue on as detailed in the first post. | PRO | d8ad478c-2019-04-18T19:43:38Z-00004-000 |
The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday. ResolutionThe historical Jesus Christ predicted that the doomsday would happen within the short time span of his own generation (within the 1st century CE).ClarificationThis resolution is NOT an attempt to faithfully interpret the New Testament, though the writings of the New Testament may be used for evidence. The debate is about the probable historical Jesus, not necessarily the Jesus of Biblical trust and faith (though it can be).A previous similar debate was completed here: http://www.debate.org...DefinitionsYou may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution and my own meanings. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being of the same rough profile of the central character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. “Doomsday” is a set of events that entail death and destruction all over the world and strongly affecting everyone living, through many such events as wars, political upheavals and natural disasters. A “generation” is a group of people of roughly the same age and living at the same time, and it is used to signify a length of time bounded by the births and deaths of the group of people, as opposed to a longer length of time potentially covering centuries. A “doomsday cult” is a small group of people who are strongly devoted to the perceived will of a human leader and believes that the world will soon face a destructive global calamity. The term is primarily intended to be descriptive, not pejorative. A “doomsday cult leader” is a leader of a doomsday cult, and such a model of Jesus is otherwise known among critical New Testament scholars as, “apocalyptic prophet.” Opposing ContenderA contender may be anyone who does not believe that the historical Jesus predicted the first-century doomsday, including but not limited to someone who believes or suspects that Jesus was merely a myth, that Jesus was the son of God or messiah, or that Jesus was a mere human but commendable moral teacher, rabbi, social activist or philosopher.Rules First round is for acceptance. If you wish to forfeit, then post it. Don't let the time run out. | PRO | c9354775-2019-04-18T18:44:41Z-00009-000 |
9spaceking will Lose this Debate. Thanx Lannan13.REASONS WHY I WILL LOSE THIS DEBATE1. I am using Comic Sans.Trolls use humor and hilarious to divert attention and hog the votes. It seems evident that Imabench has even won, unfairly, a debate he hilariously trolled just because he was funny enough! [see: http://debate.org...] However, since Comic mean funny, or, "pertaining to comedy", as http://dictionary.reference.com..., and sans means "without", as http://dictionary.reference.com... simply states, I have no comedy or funny in this debate at all with my comic sans. Therefore I cannot use my classic trolling methods to defeat my opponent, as they will all fall short to defeat him.2. I lied.Here I am not using comic sans. Thus, argument one is a lie, and therefore I will most likely lose conduct point in this debate, and even possibly lose the debate in the process.3. I'm on a losing trend.As https://docs.google.com... clearly highlight, I rose massively in my 40-100 debates. I stayed and swayed a little while then rose hugely from 140-180. But now, I am having bad luck. I am lowering ever since my 180-debate apex record of 27 debates. I predict that I will lose further and lose this debate, contributing to my losing trend.4. Lannan THIRTEEN. EQUALS GOOD LUCKhttp://www.mtv.com...The above link shows how Taylor Swift knows 13 means good luck. Therefore Lannan is very likely to be Taylor Swift, and because Taylor Swift is so darn popular, (with a site even claiming her being the "biggest pop star in the world"--http://vulture.com...) There's no way I can win.3.5 Errors, errors, errors.First you can see the "Thanx" spelling error in the beginning. Next up, here comes a broken link that doesn't even help my casehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com...;Not only so, my arguments are in the wrong order. 3.5 does not come before 4. (See: http://www.mathleague.com...) Errr....I mean, after 4. You see what I mean about my errors?IN ADDITION MY TEXT IS GREEN?? WHAT??? WHY!!!!!AND WHY IS THIS TEXT SO BIG5. Finally, I will lose because....The Yodel Theory. It never fails. Here's how it goesS: If I yodel too much, then I will lose ....(some words are omitted here).C1: I yodel too much.C2: I will lose (my voice).Support of c1: I yodel in the youtube video shown.http://youtube.com...Support of c2: I will lose (my voice) if I yodel too much.As you can see If I yodel too much then I will lose...6. The "fence" prevents me from winning.I will elaborate on this next round, even though I have like 5000 characters left to elaborate. This argument will become more clear next round. | PRO | a0027d64-2019-04-18T15:39:53Z-00005-000 |
We should abandon the practice of printing books and resort to using E-books. First off my apologies to Pro for being late on the response, I had some real life obligations keeping me from properly replying, due to this, I will only be refuting and not adding any new points of information.Rebbutals - of course this can be refuted by saying books are just as, if not more prone to weathering/damage/tears or terrain issues *Con has refuted himself, saving me the energy to refute him and rendering his previous point (about E-readers being easily damaged) useless and unneccessary. However, I will still refute, it. My phone, for an example, is a Sony Xperia. It is waterproof and able to survive a fall from a five story building. I'm sure they can do the same with an E-reader. I would like to point out to Pro, that my point here was to compare the value of E-readers compared to books if one of them were to be damaged or break. *Note that I have not yet mentioned E-readers. Certainly, books are much cheaper than E-readers, but the E-books themselves are much cheaper than books. It is possible to get a 20 dollar book for 5 - 10 dollars. This is because it is much cheaper to produce E-books than it is E-readers. This statement is innacurate, in this arguement pro implies that books are around 20 Dollars. Most book sales go for around 10-15 Dollars if you purchase them new out of a store. However millions of people purchase their books on Amazon, which not only have discounted prices but also an option to purchase used books, Which millions of people do. Used books on amazon can go from 3-6 Dollars and most of them are in great condition. Unfortunately I have run out of time to reply to this argument, I still have a lot to say. and I look forward to stating my opinions in the next rounds, I strongly believe that Books should not be abolished for the use of E-books and I look forward to stating more points Against E-readers, and For Books! | CON | 873312d9-2019-04-18T16:42:33Z-00006-000 |
Children can access food without their parents knowledge. Children do not understand the repurcussions of over eating and find ways to get food even if their parents have forbidden it. Parents have little control over what their children eat at school and some children take food in the middle of the night. Is it feasible to be able to watch your child 24-7???????????? Yes if you were more interested in them. | PRO | e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00020-000 |
Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial. This is for Socialpinko's debate tournament.The resolution is: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trialCon (Lordknukle) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was not justified without a fair trialPro (Drafterman) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was justified without a fair trialKey Terms: Muammar Gaddafi- The former Libyan dictator and ruler who was executed by rebel forcesExecution- The ending of a human lifeRebel forces- The citizens that overthrew Gaddafi and his violent regimeJustified- Acceptable by an international doctorineFair Trial- trial that is conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge and in which the defendant is afforded his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution or thea ppropriate state constitution or other law Outline:Round 1: Acceptance (No arguments)Round 2: Main arguments/Main case (The affirmative is not allowed to rebut the negative during Round 2)Round 3: Rebuttals (No new contentions/arguments to be introduced. New facts and information is fine)Round 4: Same as Round 3 Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion (To balance out the last word advantage, CON is allowed two rebuttals followed by a conclusion, while PRO is allowed one rebuttal followed by a conclusion).Rules:1. No semantic arguments2.No Ad Hominems3.No logical fallacies. http://www.nizkor.org...4. A single violation of the aforementioned rules or debate outline will automatically result in the loss of one point. Two violations and over will result in the loss of two points.Good luck! | CON | 91a8cce0-2019-04-18T18:35:16Z-00009-000 |
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions. Same order. -While utilitarianism and the social contract are not universally accepted, they do have bearing upon the United States Constitution, while Kant's theories do not. -Framers of the Constitution acknowledge Locke as an influence. He is widely recognized as providing a large portion of the ideology on which the Constitution is based. Kant...did not. The principle of equality is one which can arise independently, without the application of the First Formulation. Was murder first viewed as evil due to the application of deontological philosophies, or more obvious, basic moral principles? Further, my main point of contention is with the Second Formulation, which certainly does not apply to U.S. legal documents, Constitution or otherwise. Social contract theory is far more applicable, as it constitutes the basis of the Constitution. -Locke and Kant are entirely incompatible. Locke's theories have a utilitarian basis. Kant's theories have a deontilogical basis. Utilitarianism and deontology are opposites (justification through ends vs. means). -We retain many of the original Constitutional principles. However, feel free to demonstrate the effect of the Second Formulation on our "current Constitutional principles". -Of course we are discussing the sale of items without permission. -The immorality of the Unabomber's actions justify his treatment. -Involuntary imprisonment is just, as is the sale of possessions in order to reimburse victims. The justice system, which is the acting body concerned, ought to uphold justice. -The resolution does not violate the First Amendment. The Unabomber is free to express his ideas as he wishes, this freedom is not restricted. In fact, he is free to restate the ideas detailed in his writings before the national press. The confiscation of assets, which happen to include writings, does not constitute a violation. In fact, these actions do not abridge anything, per my opponent's definition. -We are not violating freedom of speech. My opponent has dropped all points regarding his possessions as a whole, and therefore concedes these points. His only remaining case regards the First Amendment "violation", which I have refuted. | CON | a86ca0fe-2019-04-18T19:22:13Z-00002-000 |
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational. I luckily remembered an argument that I hadn't addressed and didn't want you posing on me in the last round. The argument goes "All you atheists are always making us prove god exists why don't you prove he doesn't exist" my rebuttal is that it's always the responsibility of the person saying something exists to provide evidence. I know what you said about yom and I have something to say on this. You can't just say 7 days could mean something similar to 1,700,000,000,000 days! You clearly don't have anything to certify this claim because of the way you said could and similar. I also said at the start of the debate the god of the literal interpretation of the bible. If you want yom to mean 4.5 billion years give an example where it means a period of time this immense. There is a Jewish festival named Yom Kippur meaning *day* of atonement. Also not once did Jesus actually say that he was god. Do not present more arguments in the last rounds, just respond to everything that I have said. | PRO | 1042fd26-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00003-000 |
April Public Forum Practice. Extending Contention 1: Unempoyment is a main problem leading to this reccesion because if people are unemployed they don't have money to spend which would stimulate the economy. As of yesterday morning a yahoo article reads that 80,000 jobs were cut and unemployment went up 5.1% If 80,000 people dont have money there is no way the economy will stimulate. Also the buisness insentives will be used for new machinery which will only cut jobs leaving more people without money I will drop my contention 2 because I do agree that it is contradictary and I would like to congradulate my oppenent on realizing that Extending 3: Inflation will occur because if 178 billion dollars goes into the economy at once that is to much money and that will cause inflation. Too much money into the economy at once causes inflation. Also the economic stimulus act of 2008 does nothing about the horrible gas prices right now. For example a bottle of coke used to cost 1$ but now that the oil prices are so high it cost more for the trucks to transport cokes so the price goes up $.30 that may not sound like alot but now less people buy coke and it does not help the economy when not as much money is going in. Thanks. | CON | c0819f14-2019-04-18T19:46:08Z-00001-000 |
God Exists. Rules:1. No forfeits2. Citations may be posted in comments3. No new arguments in the summary4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)8. Violation of any of these rules, or of the debate structure, merits a loss9. A Burden of Proof has not been assigned as this is a common point of contention, and I imagine it will be brought up some time during the debateStructure:R1. Acceptance.R2. Pro and Con present their cases.R3. Pro and Con rebut the other's case.R4. Pro and Con respond to rebuttals.R5. Pro and Con summarize their cases. No new arguments.Definitions:God - An extremely powerful, incorporeal mind that created the universe and is the source of morality. | PRO | e0515bf5-2019-04-18T11:50:51Z-00006-000 |
Abortion is Wrong. Women should have the choice of abortion no matter what. It is the woman's body and the govornment shouldn't tell her what she can and can't do. If your against abortion you shouldn't worry if other people are doing it. Its their choice, not yours. Abortion isnt murder. According to dictionary.com abortion is the "removal of the embryo or fetus in order to end pregnancy".it doesn't say anything about murder. Also, the fetus isn't a child. Its a group of cells and tissue. Did i also mention it doesn't even have a brain? It can also be considered a parasite since it gets all its nutrients and vitals from the host. Parasites dont always harm the host either. A fetus doesn't have any human like characteristic as i explained earlier. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she can't take care of the baby. She shouldn't have to take care of it if she doesn't want too. Having children is a big step in life. Mentally and financially. No woman should have to do that until shes ready. Even if a woman was going to give the child up for adoption she might not want to spend months being pregnant. Pregnancy takes its toll on the body and changes it forever. She might also have to work to earn money. No woman should have to be pregnant if they dont want too. My sources Dictionary.com Health class Biology class | CON | 7f91756b-2019-04-18T17:20:44Z-00003-000 |
Homosexual Marriage: Should it be Legalised in the UK. As somebody that isn't a fan of the idea of marriage as it is portrayed (the big wedding with lots of people and even more money), the reason that I would like to get married to show my love and commitment to another person- on the legal side of marriage, a husband/wife is trusted with their significant others life, literally- they are the person responsible for making medical decisions, they are the person that will get inherit everything in the event of death. Marrying somebody, to me, is the ultimate show of trust and the civil partnerships that are currently allowed do not allow the same responsibilities. Why, in this society where it is acceptable to be gay, should a person not be able to make the same commitment that a straight person can? | PRO | 76d6b0f8-2019-04-18T17:04:34Z-00000-000 |
Free will is an illusion. One cannot control what it is that they want - they cannot dictate their own impulses and tendencies. In no way is it possible to be the author of one's own conscious desires. “How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? ” - Sam Harris "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. " - Arthur Schopenhauer | PRO | ee8b9e88-2019-04-18T11:21:27Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle (TV's tourney). C :Congratz on conguring that cackle you call a rhyme it's kinder level compared to me who's taking college courses nice try with the fortune and fame but I'm the one with the cabaret you're a cabin boy the caboose of every joke. Your callosity is too much even golems wouldn't care to careen inside your womb it'd be cataclysmic they would catapult out of that cave like tha calavry charging toward the enemyYou're a cheerleader probably already written a few verses nothing new nothin original yore a chigger not the chupacabra tiny and irritating you're clamorous not lyrical or genius You're cherries been popped with that fake shotgun of yours you've cocked it too much no your cherries coarseIt's not coincidental that we battled maybe you learned a thing or two here I'm the emperor not a lowly king you're condemned to failure it was inevitableThis ending was conceivable you're compulsive the conclusion to this story confines you to conditional conformity you've been confuted this ending will be consecutive nice try but I have to say contend with those in your proper grade | CON | fb0a0dd9-2019-04-18T18:46:06Z-00000-000 |
InVitro Fertilization. Pro 1: InVitro Fertilization has given homosexual couples a chance to have their own children. Since they are unable to reproduce as a couple, many choose InVitro so that they are able to go through the same process of having children, just with some help from science. Without InVitro fertilization, homosexual couples never have been able to experience the beauty of pregnancy. Pro 2: Many individuals who are unmarried choose InVitro in order to have their own children. Recently, many women are putting “getting ahead” in the workforce over marriage and starting a family. This results in women being ready to have children too late and remaining unmarried. It is also very common for this to happen among men as well. Without InVitro Fertilization, these unmarried individuals would be unable to have their own children. Pro 3: InVitro allows couples who are infertile a chance to have their own child. “We had begun to lose hope – after nine IUI cycles, three miscarriages and almost four years of heartache, we were scared of failing again… I got pregnant on the first IVF cycle. Thank you for our miracles – two healthy beautiful boys.” This testimonial was given by a woman named Laura who had her treatment done at Northern California Fertility Medical Center and was successful on the first try. She had been infertile and tried Infertility Treatment (IUI) prior to InVitro 9 times. Without the process of InVitro Fertilization, she would have been unable to have children on her own. Pro 4: Sometimes there are male factor associated with not having children. There are issues such as low sperm count, where the male is unable to get the woman pregnant. InVitro helps the man by extracting his sperm and putting it inside the woman. InVitro is the same as a naturally caused pregnancy; it just helps those couples who are unable to on their own. | PRO | 2679d250-2019-04-18T18:57:03Z-00005-000 |
homosexual behavior. To say that it does not occur in other species makes homosexuality an unnatural act. Whether it is "wrong" or not is another issue entirely. Slavery, race and gender issues are not modern issues and have been around forever. Women's rights since the caveman drug his mate by her hair into a cave for sex and slavery since he became dominant in his tribe. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion desired by some small segment of most every society since written history began and most of those societies have shunned the practice. Nature is not subject to change because of popular social acceptance, at least not yet. No matter how intelligent man becomes he can never separate himself from nature, can never make something man-made natural and should never think he is above the natural universe. He is so deeply bonded to the natural world that he even attempts to justify his "invention" by trying to find his sexual perversion in the animal world to which he belongs. The acceptance of homosexuality as natural is a result of man's arrogance of mind. Is it so surprising then that he pollutes his atmosphere, pillages the land and the oceans and yet justifies his violations? I think not. | CON | af07bb40-2019-04-18T14:35:48Z-00003-000 |
Donors influence judges' decisions; not issue of common philosophy. Some argue that donors are simply giving money to judges of similar judicial philosophies. Yet, some statistics demonstrate a clear tendency of judges to actively shift their positions in favor of their campaign donors. These statistics show the causality is of judges actively bending their positions in favor of their donors' positions, not simply of donors giving money to judges of a similar judicial philosophy. | PRO | eb160461-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000 |
Which is a better disney movie Cinderella or Litlle Mermaid. At first , Cinderella is the story we listened while growing up. Unlike Ariel, her life was hard and lonely (with the exception of her animal friends)throughout her childhood. She was not provided with the childhood she deserved and learnt to make the best out of the difficult situations.Ariel was a rebellious teen who would not listen to her parents in order to fulfill her wishes . She forsake her voice for a stranger she thought was handsome and did not know anything else about him.However , Cinderella 's true wishes were not to find her true love but get out and liver her life without her step mother and stepsisters. | CON | a5ceb2d8-2019-04-18T16:23:12Z-00002-000 |
Voter ID's. Pro's hypothetical example at the beginning of the argument is just that: hypothetical. There is no election in the United States in which 3 people will be voting, each for themselves. Pro claims that nothing is being done to protect the integrity of elections. This is untrue. One set of sweeping reforms was passed in 2002, the Help America Vote Act [1]. It was implemented in the aftermath of the disastrous election of 2000, and contains many provisions for deterring voter fraud. I will now explain why voter ID laws should not be implemented. Exhibit A: The cost. America is in a large amount of debt. Voter IDs, to remain constitutional, must remain free of charge. As well, office hours must be expanded, the states must pay the cost of obtaining supporting documents required for getting an ID, the state must educate the voters on changes to laws through lots of advertising, and the state must administer extra training to officials. [2] According to the source cited, it could cost a state millions of dollars to implement such a law. This would place a burden on states, many of which already face a budget deficit [3]. Exhibit B: The discrimination. While often dismissed, studies have shown that there is indeed a correlation between discrimination and support of voter ID laws. [4] There is a disparity between registered Hispanic voters and registered white voters in Texas, for example, that far outstrips any illegal immigration [5]. Pro stated, "even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud". This is an explicit acknowledgement that voter fraud does not pose a serious threat in the United States any longer. Voter IDs are discriminatory and costly, and provide comparatively little stoppage to voter fraud, as I demonstrated in round 1. Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source, while I have clearly shown the costs that voter ID's would incur. Also, the support of the American people does not make a law right or wrong. William Penn and Saint Augustine both stated versions of the same quote: "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it." [6] [7]. While purported to cease causing fraud, voter ID laws would do more harm than good, as I have demonstrated, and as such should not be implemented. Sources: 1. http://www.eac.gov... 2. http://www.brennancenter.org... 3. http://kff.org... 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. http://www.goodreads.com... 7. http://www.ushistory.org... | CON | 3e2e5609-2019-04-18T15:55:20Z-00002-000 |
IVF Debate. IVF is a procedure that is generally beneficial to infertile parents everywhere. The procedure does not put the development of the child at risk, nor does it endanger it with birth defects or illness. IVF is helpful to couples who have exhausted other resources, and desperately want a child. In Vitro Fertilization is very costly and doesn't always work the first time. This is not a problem because the cost proves the determination of the parents to care for the baby, and multiple eggs are always harvested so if the first attempt isn't successful there is always another chance. | PRO | ea87e1f3-2019-04-18T14:59:45Z-00009-000 |
Twitter is better than Facebook. Are calling the pope a liar???????!!!!!!!!!!! also i am sure that the internet has more places to play games than facebook. And you can connect with old friends on twitter and DM people for messaging friends. Also you have failed to deny that you get news faster on twitter than anywhere else which is a fact. | PRO | 10f1d75d-2019-04-18T17:59:43Z-00003-000 |
Islam is not a peaceful religion. You haven't found your way out the terms i have given and you ignored them completely but this debate will amuse me so i will debate this topic. You have distorted the main meaning of Islam which is peace by nitpicking So i will do what you did but to Christianity, your religion, and pick verses about what you said were despicable such as rape, murder and other warlike crimes If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. -Deuteronomy 13:7-12 God tells to us to kill those who follow different religions. Not very tolerant? However.. "There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned." (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) So the Bible tells you to murder people who don't believe in God while Islam tells you not to force people to believe Rape? If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Huh? I guess God doesn't care about rape victims and makes them forced to marry their rapists Warlike crimes? How about when God rips babies out of mothers wombs and dashes them to rocks in Hosea 13:16 You will say i'm taking it out of context but you are doing the same Sources in Comments | CON | a7a20319-2019-04-18T14:02:00Z-00003-000 |
The Disney Resorts are better than the Universal Studios Resort. Kohaku is good, I will admit that. Universal Studios resort is better than the Disney resorts because it has been known for uses of reality shows. For an example, Donald Trump's "The Apprentice" was use for a task at Universal Studios at the Los Angeles area because Trump would know that Universal Studios would have more people to buy from than Disney, even though Disney had more attendance but people would go to the Universal Studio's City Walk because of better stores and more things to do than the Disney's Downtown Areas. Donald Trump knows everything and he sides with Universal Studios because he knows that Universal Studios is better than the Disney resorts. Plus the Universal Studios have better 3-D IMAX movie theme there, like the Terminator. They have live actors for the Terminator while Disney have no live actors for their 3-D IMAX movies, people likes seeing live actors for their 3-D movie theme. Plus the Terminator 3-D is considered the best 3-D IMAX movie in a theme park, much better than Disney's IMAX theaters. Since the studio area of the Universal Studio counts as a Universal Studio resort, Universal Studios actually let people into the studio area as a personal tour and walk around the studio area and touch the sets and get your germs on the set to be on TV in the future. I went to the Back to the Future set and put my bare feet on the set and many of the sets of the studio of the Universal Studio, which you are allowed to do (except inside the buildings). In Disney Hollywood in Orlando, there are no personal tours you are not allowed in the studios except for the tram tours. Universal Studios have hotels to their parks. Universal has three hotels in Orlando and the one in Los Angeles, the Hilton near the Los Angeles Universal Studios would probably counts as a hotel for Universal Studios Hollywood because you can walk to the park because there is a bridge that connects from the hotel to the park and city walk entrances. Plus parking in Universal Studios is better than Disney because park was impossible in the Disney resorts but in Universal Studio, parking is easier. Plus drop off and pick up in Universal Studio is easier than Disney, when my family needed to drop me off at Disneyland to avoid the fees of parking, there was almost no place to drop off or pick up when I am done for the moment. At Universal Studios, there is a pick up and drop off spot where family can drop off their family. | CON | 11792d2d-2019-04-18T19:17:55Z-00002-000 |
We shouldn't eat dogs. You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.You haven't given me a reason why.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.Why would I care about what a dog does for itself?There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners.Again, I have addressed this. This argument does not apply to non-owners or users of dogs, and dogs that are not owned or used. You have provided no reason as to why a person should not eat non-utility or non-owned dogs, or why non-users/owners should not farm or import dogs for eating.You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that.I already addressed that this is an appeal to pity, and therefore invalid. But, I'll answer the question if it satisfies you. I wouldn't feel anything, because I would be dead. While I was being killed(not after/whilst being eating) if I was kill in a manner when I was concious and/or not painless otherwise, I would probably feel surprised and in a panic. That being said, killing whilst the subject of the killing is not able to feel pain is also an option.Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them?I have not argued that we should eat dogs. I have argued that it is permissable to eat dogs. I have also pointed out in the last round that your argument does not apply to dogs that do not perform a task or utility for humans(protection falls under this category).When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty.Killing and eating dogs does not imply that people must kill them in a brutal fashion. You have not provided any evidence of this.How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.We're not arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat a person's pet. We're arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat dogs. Again, as I have pointed out several times at this point, your argument fails to address why someone should not eat a dog that is not owned.I will answer your question because it seems to fustrate you when they remain unanswered, although I have already pointed out that they are irrelevant:I would feel angry and sad.You have, by and large, simply repeated your talking points. | CON | 39055a8f-2019-04-18T17:19:00Z-00001-000 |
There is a large gap of intelligence within UK schools. As this debate continues, I have reached the conclusion that there is no great ideological difference between us - we both want kids of all abilities to have the best possible education. However, it is clear to me, at least, that educational resources should be targeted to best suit the needs of the individual pupil. Yes, I agree that there are gaps between relative intelligence, but not every child aspires to be a brain surgeon. For example. my father is a humble shipyard worker - he never earned much, but he always worked hard and is proud of what he does, and I am proud to be his son, and that's what is important. The education system should play to the students' strengths - whether that be academic or practical - after all, we can't all be rocket scientists. Thank you. | CON | 11ced6b1-2019-04-18T19:28:30Z-00000-000 |
Automotive companies in Michigan should not replace low skill laborers with automation. Although I understand your point, let's think about this. Okay, so replacing the workers would leave many unemployed. But it would make American cars cheaper. Right now the American automotive business is failing. But if American cars could be significantly cheaper than forign cars, then the economy would thrive. And when an economy thrives what happens? Unemployment goes down. So, althught some people in Michigan would lose their jobs, the rest of the nation would see a decrease in the unemployment rate. | CON | ad266774-2019-04-18T20:03:00Z-00004-000 |
Illegal Immigrants are at the base of almost every major problem in America. First off, thanks for sending me this challenge. This will be interesting... Ok, so your contention is that illegals cause every major problem in America. In order to win, you must do two things: 1) outline every major problem in America and 2) prove how immigrants are responsible. If you don't do that, you don't have a debate. Period. Now, I think I will make a bold statement: It is the legals that cause problems for illegals. It is true that many immigrants have problems with gangs or drugs. But have you ever thought why they are in those kinds of situations? I think that it is the ones already here that force them to live in these conditions. For example, in Arizona, a law was just passed that put up very harsh punishments for hiring illegal immigrants. As a result, thousands, maybe millions, of immigrants have been fired from their jobs. They have no way to support themselves or their families. They now have two choices: move to another state, or resort to crime. I think that we have a moral obligation to create laws that encourage prosperity among immigrants. That way, they get what they want (work/good home) and we get what we want (labor). Yes, at the extremely superficial level, it is the immigrants that commit crimes or join gangs. But it our (for lack of a better term) "fault" that they have to live like that. In other words, if we would be more accepting and more immigrant-friendly, than they would not be forced to join in illicit activity in order to feed their families. Again, I'm not saying that we should just let all the borders open and let anyone who comes in become a citizen. But our laws should encourage immigration, not prohibit it. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the current legislation, we are denying immigrants their inherent rights. | CON | 54fdfdd1-2019-04-18T19:52:06Z-00004-000 |
Killing animals must be illegalised. No there should not. There are some animals that act out in very wild behaviors and they are uncontrollable, so what are you going to do about it, the animal is stronger which puts them in a higher position. For example the whale that attacked its owner some months ago, that whale should be put to death no matter what, the whale was trained and still acted out and deceived its fellow fans by acting out on its trainer, therefore it should pay the consequence of being put to death | CON | 58e2fc21-2019-04-18T19:00:03Z-00004-000 |
It waters down the meaning of ideas with emotion instead of content and limits people's vocabulary, destroys life. (This is entering the realm of the nature of reality, so prepare for some paradigm shifting turbulence) Every act has a cause. Every curse/swear has a cause and an effect. The cause and effect must be acknowledged when using these expressions. To swear is to utter obscenities, WordWeb's definition. An obscenity is offensive or indecent expression. An indecent expression does not meet the standards of what is right/good, for a reason It is wrong/bad because it both comes from (is associated with) an ill cause and causes an ill effect. The ill cause that leads to the swearing is the will to death/impotence as opposed to the will to life/power (to use partly from the philosophy of Nietzsche). Using a swear/curse word admits to a lack for a better choice of words, also a lack of meaning. Why not use a more accurate vocabulary/expression to communicate ideas? Why leave people to wonder what the meaning of your words is? Ill cause: hurt, lack of vocabulary or meaning, hate, anger, nothing good Ill effect: Expressing the causes above in not the best way, confusion, hurt, other ills. | PRO | 82f976b5-2019-04-19T12:45:45Z-00005-000 |
Women have it easier then men. I planned on presenting a point-by-point analysis of the debate. However, as none of my arguments have been refuted, a brief summary should suffice. Given Pro’s distribution of the burden of proof, he cannot win this debate. My task to “either prove men have it easier then women or both genders face equal obstacles. ” My opponent’s sole avenue of victory, then, was to prove that men, on balance, have the more difficult existence. As each of his arguments has been wholly refuted, this is no longer possible. The only remaining contentions are mine, which illustrate how the unique biological, social, and financial difficulties women face make their gender comparatively worse off in life. Of these, Pro ignored most and failed to defeat the rest. Thus, whether my arguments show the genders to be equal or women to have it worse, my burden has been met. The resolution is negated. Thanks again to Pro and all the readers. I hope you enjoyed the debate! ~ Maikuru (Con) | CON | 72aef798-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00000-000 |
Immigration. Here are my sources to support my stances: [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] https://fivethirtyeight.com... [3] https://www.reuters.com... [4] http://www.heritage.org... These sources state the facts about illegal immigration, how Donald Trump's plan to deport immigrants can help stop gangs like MS-13, and make the Border Patrol much, much stronger. There, I provided sources and explained! Next turn, con. | PRO | 89ae40f9-2019-04-18T11:57:32Z-00004-000 |
Immigrant crisis in Europe. Thank you for this wonderful debate. I would just like to rebut your points before my conclusion. If the parents haven't assimilated then the kids would also become radical as stated above. This is because kids are taught by their parents and wouldn't fully understand what they were fleeing from. All they would understand is their horrible situation in their country, and become radical. As stated before, economies do not have the strength to create thousands of jobs. The population of a country is constantly cycling and those jobs that are vacated are filled by the childeren of the workers, as a new work force comes in. We know as a result of other immigration crisis that there are never enough jobs and that the economies need to be looked at. Paranoia can and will stop us from stupidly accepting all immigrants at a breakneck speed. If we move too fast we risk accepting immigrants that have problems and are undercover terrorists. To conclude these immigrants will pose a security risk, take our jobs and will grow up to be future problems. There is simple not the time nor the money to be accepting thousands of immigrants, and it is not worth the risk. Thank you for this wonderful debate. | CON | 286a790d-2019-04-18T13:46:21Z-00000-000 |
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog. This an interesting topic and I commend you for your creativity in coming up with it. First off let us see what exactly a hotdog is: hot dog G2;h"(d) G6;d"ɡ/Submit noun 1. a frankfurter, especially one served hot in a long, soft roll and topped with various condiments. Some important things to note in this definition: First, the frankfurter or the meat is served in "a" soft roll, notably singular. This directly contradicts the definition of a sandwich as a sandwich consists of "two pieces of bread". So according to the definition that you provided, since a hot dog has only one piece of bread, it is not a sandwich. Secondly, condiments are used differently in a sandwich than how they are used with a hot dog. In a sandwich the filling, condiments, or parts other than the meat are "between" the breads, while in a hot dog the condiments top the hot dog. This further shows the differences between a hot dog and a sandwich. | CON | a3663b3e-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00004-000 |
Flag burning amendment. Refutations; The main thing my opponent is stating is that the burning tha glad is going against freedom of speech and disecrating american virtues. My argument is that burning or desecrating a flag is an action and vandalizing, not speech, so how is that covered under the First Amendment? If making an amendement to protect the national symbol of our country "desecrating the most fundamental of american virtues" then how isn't burning the flag descrating Americans virtues with the utmost disrespect. We have brave soldiers fighting for our country everyday, risking their lives for all U.S citizens. They look to the flag with pride and see the flag as a symbol of their country. When people burn the flag they are disrespecting our soldiers who we should be thanking, they are disrespecting the country in which they live in. People say that its their right to burn the flag, but in no place is it written that freedom of speech includes vandalizing the american flag. | PRO | 376e19eb-2019-04-18T18:53:01Z-00007-000 |
is school truly even needed. In the past they chopped off (colors) hands off for learning how to write ,spell, and read. the change has come we are now equaled and we all have the right to have a free education. we have to take advantage to that free ticket to success in life . Is School truly even needed? Yes school is Important Third Good Marshall didn't win the case Brown vs. The Education for no reason,we don't have a choice to not attend to school in the state of Michigan even if your eight teen you have to attend , if you choose to truancy you parents will have to go to court and all type of problems and pay court cost, tax payers have to too. its not such thing that school is not a good if it wasn't everyone in the world have the free will not to attend , you have to an high school education order to work at restaurant's, big company names. you cant live in the 20th century with out knowledge of how to survive . school might not be for some people and it might be , me personally I don't like how the school system is set up but I cant complain because this school is essential to me I have to know all the subjects that had in school to remember what I have do in the real world . you cant work at jc penny's at the cash register with out the basic math skills or social skills. economics teach you what the world is really about. with out a high school education your not gone to make it in the world like how you want , you will have to depend on others and what they have just because nobody push you into pursuing your goal in life as a kid. is school truly even needed? school is the gateway to a successful and independent life. celebrities have the choice to go to school or pump up their popularity in the society , but in the long they want to start a new career they have to go get a GED and go through the school process anyways,being famous don't mean you know everything , they are just publicity stupid all for the money , money is fine to have but education is even more perfect to have , money can buy you anything but the he high school education that's the American dream, everyone dream of graduating and having a good job and big fancy house and family and a dream house. who don't have that sweet dream ? I mean if you don't you are slipping your head under water slowly to no life. | PRO | 408fd073-2019-04-18T16:38:53Z-00001-000 |
Did God intend humans to sin. I will contend again that you will not find one hint in a single verse that God intended or created man to sin. Likewise you will not find a verse that says God created sin. So to successfully prove that God created man to sin one would have to show bible verses showing that God created man to sin. Even if God created sin it still wouldn't follow that that that would be God ultimate purpose for human kindand that's what my opponent has to prove BIBLICALLY. You may ask if God did not create sin than where did it come from? Let's first define what sin is biblically 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. If the Law (Exodus 20) reflects Gods true nature than The idea of God creating sin would be a contradiction to what scripture says. Did God create sin? Id advise you to read Ezekiel 28. Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Now this verse is pretty explicit that God created Lucifer perfect but where was sin found? In God? No but in Lucifer. John 8:44 - Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Lucifer is the originator of sin. Notice in Genesis 1 Adam and Eve walked and talked with God but not until they listened to satan did they sin. To Just drive home the point even more read James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:. So to say God created sin would be to say that light and darkness can exist at the same time which is impossible! The bible gives irrefutable evidence of this in 1 John 1:5-6 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5, KJV)If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (1 John 1:6, KJV).. So I confirm through scriptures that God did not intend man to sin, and to add on that God did not create sin. | CON | ee240159-2019-04-18T14:17:15Z-00005-000 |
American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis. American Republicans are not simply liars; they have developed it into an art form. They frequently use a technique popularised by Hitler whereby they reverse the truth entirely and attack their opponent with it. They do this because they know that politics is a game of public opinion and not fact. One academic study reported by CNN concluded that Bush and his immediate aides publicly told 985 lies about Iraq alone in a two year period. Republicans are simply a milder version of the Nazis, except more concerned with economic gain than territorial expansion. They also know full well that 9/11 was an inside job, but have not stopped lying about it since 2001. "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2001) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. " http://news.bbc.co.uk... "This was controlled demolition. Without a doubt. A team of experts did this." (demolitions expert Danny Jowenko upon seeing WTC 7 collapse on video) http://www.dailypaul.com... Therefore, I claim American Republicans are bigger liars than the Nazis, and if you consider the total amount of Muslims and Communists they've killed, only marginally less genocidal. | PRO | f9bdff5d-2019-04-18T16:00:59Z-00004-000 |
Abortion. I think I will go about this another way, rather than responding to each of my opponent's rebuttals, I will try to address the reason why they think abortion should be illegal beyond a certain point and let my opponent's arguments stand as they are against what I brought up. My opponent admitted that, "Although there are many negative impacts a human mother may experience, none of these (except life of the mother) can outweigh the loss of a human life. "The parentheses is what matters for my next argument. Despite our ability to predict whether a mother would die from pregnancy, there are still hundreds of women who die every year from pregnancy, unexpectedly[1]. Since there is a chance for any mother to die from a pregnancy, they should then be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, since the fetus could potentially harm the mother's right to life, even beyond the first 6 months until we have the issues I outlined above preventing women from being able to get an abortion are addressed. Sources:[1] https://www.cdc.gov...; | PRO | b1876641-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00002-000 |
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers. Well, I'm afraid I may have let you down if you where hoping to argue with a hardcore anti-sprinter. Most arguments against tend to be either simple and anti-progressive to the series. Personally, I accept that one may need to adapt and revise game-play styles as a series progresses. But I do love a good challenge. Obviously statistics don't lie, but 11% is actually fairly significant. The number I found was 11% of 19,000, which ends up being 2,090 people in the test group. Here's a mod video with download: http://www.artofclutch.com... And reinforcing my argument for a toggle setting: http://www.eurogamer.net... Also I would argue that some of the dislike toward sprint may depend on the game-play style of the operator. Perhaps a player that camps a bit more would dislike the fact that someone may run up quickly and take them out. Or the opposite may be true, that a player may be a bit too "gung ho" and might rush into an engagement before the shield regenerated. Either way the dynamic has changed significantly and that's what I mean by "classical integrity". Anytime a major change is made to a series, people are gonna be upset because it's different that the original. Also I think most of the reason sprint/no sprint is argued so much is cause it wasn't added till Halo 4. Take for example, Battlefield 1942 did not have a run or sprint button, Battlefield 2 Bad Company added a sprint or run. What I'm saying is that maybe sprint isn't all that bad, but waiting till the 4th installment may have been the real mistake. | CON | ac0c4780-2019-04-18T14:43:16Z-00003-000 |
Video games and/or simulations are an efficient form of training and education. The Pro did not give any definition so I shall provide it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simulation- The act or process of pretending. http://dictionary.reference.com...+ Video game- Any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen. http://dictionary.reference.com... Efficient- Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort. http://dictionary.reference.com... Training- The education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing http://dictionary.reference.com... Education- The act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. http://dictionary.reference.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will state that the traditional way of teaching is better than Video games and simulation in the second round. | CON | 8ae69f16-2019-04-18T18:50:16Z-00004-000 |
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary. Math is absolute enough to allow for it's non-absoluteness. Besides, math needs a context, otherwise things such as a "circle" neer would've come into being.You don't have to imagine DDO, you have to believe it exists though. IF you chose to imagine DDO, THEN your imagination would be true, becuase it is based off of truth.You know a coffe cup is too hot to grab by observing the liquid steaming, or by feeling the radiative warmth, or by quickly touching a figer to the side to check it's temperature. And that's without any complicated machinery.I don't see the connection between a coffee cup and imagination. | CON | 21f300d6-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00006-000 |
Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction. Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer pressure. And as children can’t get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway. Stolen credit cards can be used to commit fraud in any number of ways - online gambling is not a specific problem here. It is also in the interest of internet gambling sites to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. | CON | f0bf014b-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000 |